02/04/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State                                                                      
     of Alaska relating to state aid for education.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
9:09:11 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
GAIL FENUMIAI,  DIRECTOR, DIVISION  OF ELECTIONS,  OFFICE OF                                                                    
THE  LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR,  explained  the  fiscal note.  She                                                                    
stated  that  the  fiscal  note was  from  the  Division  of                                                                    
Elections  for $1,500.  She stated  that the  cost reflected                                                                    
the  expenses associated  with publishing  information about                                                                    
the  constitutional  amendment   in  the  official  election                                                                    
pamphlet,  which was  required by  statute. She  stated that                                                                    
the $22,000 that was noted  in the analysis section would be                                                                    
required  if the  constitutional amendment  depended on  the                                                                    
division to go  to a larger ballot. The  $22,000 would cover                                                                    
the cost of printing.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Hoffman queried  what would  necessitate the  issue                                                                    
going  to the  larger paper.  Ms. Fenumiai  replied that  it                                                                    
would occur  if there  were a  large amount  of judges  in a                                                                    
judicial  district  or  if  there were  a  large  amount  of                                                                    
constitutional  amendments or  measures that  were appearing                                                                    
on the general election ballot.  She doubted that the larger                                                                    
ballot would be required, but  felt that the information was                                                                    
necessary just in case.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
9:11:22 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DAVID   BOYLE,   SELF,   ANCHORAGE   (via   teleconference),                                                                    
testified in support  of SJR 9. He felt that  the authors of                                                                    
the  Alaska constitution  intended no  public funds  were to                                                                    
directly   benefit   religious    or   private   educational                                                                    
institutions.  He   expressed  frustration  with   the  1979                                                                    
supreme court  ruling that included  the word  "indirect" in                                                                    
regards to funding. He felt  that the supreme court took the                                                                    
legislative   prerogative  for   education  away   from  the                                                                    
legislature. He  remarked that the current  discussion would                                                                    
not occur, had  that ruling never taken place.  He felt that                                                                    
SJR 9 made  it clear that the Alaska  Legislature could make                                                                    
choices with regard to the  education of children in Alaska.                                                                    
He stressed  that the legislature  could enact  sound public                                                                    
policy  as bounded  by  the first  amendment  to the  United                                                                    
States  Constitution.  He  remarked  that  there  were  high                                                                    
number  of  individuals  in   Alaska  who  supported  school                                                                    
choice.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Fairclough  wondered if  Mr. Boyle  had testified                                                                    
the previous  day, but figured  out that he had  not already                                                                    
testified.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:15:37 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TOM  FINK, SELF,  ANCHORAGE (via  teleconference), spoke  in                                                                    
support of SJR  9. He felt that the  resolution would remove                                                                    
the  limit on  the legislature  to consider  all options  to                                                                    
improve  K-12 education.  He  stressed  that the  resolution                                                                    
would  remove  an  impediment to  good  legislation  on  the                                                                    
subject. He felt  that the resolution must pass  in order to                                                                    
allow  change.  He  remarked that  the  change  would  allow                                                                    
parents to  fulfill their  duty to  raise their  children to                                                                    
become good  members of society;  and the change  would also                                                                    
allow  improvement  to  K-12 education  through  choice  and                                                                    
competition. He  stated that there had  been three statewide                                                                    
polls over the  last three years on this  subject. He shared                                                                    
that  all  three  public  showed   public  support  for  the                                                                    
constitutional   amendment.  He   stressed  that   the  main                                                                    
opposition  to   the  resolution   was  from   the  National                                                                    
Education Association  (NEA), which  he felt had  a monopoly                                                                    
on K-12 education in Alaska.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
9:18:52 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PATRICK   SHIER,   SELF,   WASILLA   (via   teleconference),                                                                    
testified in  favor of  SJR 9.  He stated  that he  had been                                                                    
involved  in education  issues in  Alaska  for almost  three                                                                    
decades.  He stated  that he  had been  a member  of various                                                                    
organizations that  worked on behalf of  Alaska's school age                                                                    
children. He  stated that his  wife was a teacher,  and both                                                                    
of his  sons were teachers.  He felt that he  was intimately                                                                    
aware  of   issues  that   faced  local   school  districts,                                                                    
teachers, and  administrators. He  shared an  anecdote about                                                                    
how  some small  schools had  opened to  serve the  needs of                                                                    
students  that  were  living just  outside  of  some  school                                                                    
districts near Anchorage.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:21:53 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KRISTINA  JOHANNES,  SELF, ANCHORAGE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
testified in  support of SJR  9. She felt that  the language                                                                    
in the current constitution  was anti-Catholic. He felt that                                                                    
the language  derived from an  animus against  her religious                                                                    
ancestors.  She quoted  the language  that would  be in  the                                                                    
constitution,   if   the   constitutional   amendment   were                                                                    
ratified.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:23:54 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RANDY  VIRGIN, SELF,  ANCHORAGE (via  teleconference), spoke                                                                    
in opposition  to SJR 9. He  shared that he was  a parent of                                                                    
two  students in  the Anchorage  School District.  He stated                                                                    
that his  sons had been  able to apply to  several different                                                                    
schools in  the district,  and never  felt that  his choices                                                                    
were  restricted. He  remarked  that he  was very  satisfied                                                                    
with alternative options. He felt  that there was not enough                                                                    
funding already  for schools, so the  finance options should                                                                    
not be expanded to include  private schools. He shared that,                                                                    
in his  research, the largest  private school in  Alaska was                                                                    
the  Anchorage Baptist  Temple.  He was  not  in support  of                                                                    
diverting public  money to religious schools  at the expense                                                                    
of public funding.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
9:26:21 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
WAYNE   OSKY,  SELF,   EAGLE  RIVER   (via  teleconference),                                                                    
testified in  support of  SJR 9. He  felt that  parents were                                                                    
frustrated  with  the current  system,  and  hoped that  the                                                                    
legislation would pass to ease that frustration.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
9:27:12 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DANIEL  RAWLINGS,  MEMBER,  NATIONAL  EDUCATION  ASSOCIATION                                                                    
(NEA),  testified  in opposition  to  SJR  9.  He was  in  a                                                                    
teacher in  the Anchorage School District.  He stressed that                                                                    
he was in  support of school choice, but  against the school                                                                    
voucher  system.  He shared  that  he  had attended  private                                                                    
catholic  schools  in Ohio  in  his  youth. He  stated  that                                                                    
Cleveland, Ohio  was a  case study  for school  vouchers. He                                                                    
stated that Cleveland starting  accepting school vouchers in                                                                    
the late 1990s,  and he graduated from high  school in 2003.                                                                    
He  observed that  the  school voucher  system  in Ohio  had                                                                    
negative  consequences.   He  stated  that  the   system  in                                                                    
Cleveland became a  "voucher plus" system. He  felt that the                                                                    
school  vouchers did  not even  come close  to covering  the                                                                    
cost of tuition, so the  schools would not make enough money                                                                    
to stay open.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Senator   Olson  asked   for  an   example  of   a  negative                                                                    
consequence of vouchers, understanding  that Alaska had a 30                                                                    
percent  dropout rate  in the  public schools.  Mr. Rawlings                                                                    
responded that  there was not  a 30 percent dropout  rate in                                                                    
the  private schools  in Cleveland,  Ohio. He  stressed that                                                                    
parents of  private school  children were  actively involved                                                                    
in  their child's  education. He  felt that  the tuition  in                                                                    
most  private  schools  was   significantly  higher  than  a                                                                    
voucher would be, so the  voucher system did not enhance the                                                                    
choices of Alaska parents.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Senator Olson wondered  if that was the  only negative thing                                                                    
that  Mr. Rawlings  could think  of. Mr.  Rawlings responded                                                                    
that  the voucher  system  would take  money  away from  the                                                                    
public  schools, so  the public  schools  would be  weakened                                                                    
from lack of funds.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Dunleavy  wondered  if Mr.  Rawlings  thought  that                                                                    
children would leave  the public school from  the passage of                                                                    
the legislation,  and if  so, to  what degree.  Mr. Rawlings                                                                    
did  not  know,  but  felt  that  there  would  be  a  small                                                                    
percentage of  students that  would move  on to  the private                                                                    
schools.  He remarked  that there  would  be cheap,  private                                                                    
education systems  that would sprout  up and do  not produce                                                                    
the same quality education as other private schools.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Kelly  remarked that  the committee  should refrain                                                                    
from  asking too  many questions  of testifiers,  because he                                                                    
did not want to intimidate the testifiers.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:33:38 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
IRENE  MATHEIS,  MEMBER,   NATIONAL  EDUCATION  ASSOCIATION,                                                                    
spoke against  SJR 9.  She stated that  the school  that she                                                                    
worked at was a Title 1  school, with 600 students. She felt                                                                    
that  there was  a safety  issue  related to  the number  of                                                                    
students  and  the number  of  teachers.  She stressed  that                                                                    
there  were many  budget  decreases in  the  state that  had                                                                    
resulted  in  layoffs of  teachers,  so  diverting money  to                                                                    
private schools would be detrimental to the public schools.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
9:34:53 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VALERIE  SPENCER,  MEMBER, NATIONAL  EDUCATION  ASSOCIATION,                                                                    
testified  in opposition  to SJR  9. She  stressed that  the                                                                    
benefit of living in the  United States was the availability                                                                    
of the  best education  possible. She  was in  supportive of                                                                    
private and  religious institutions, but felt  that they did                                                                    
not  offer  choice  for  everyone.  She  stressed  that  the                                                                    
private and  religious schools had admissions  policies that                                                                    
offer admissions  for some students,  but were  not required                                                                    
to admit every  applicant. She shared that she  was a single                                                                    
mother and  a non-tenured  teacher, and  made twice  the per                                                                    
capita  income of  the average  Alaska.  She stressed  that,                                                                    
even with  $6,000 voucher,  she would still  not be  able to                                                                    
afford  to send  one of  her children  to a  typical private                                                                    
school in Anchorage. She felt  that many other parents would                                                                    
be in a similar situation,  and therefore the school voucher                                                                    
system  did  not  offer  a   real  choice  for  parents  and                                                                    
students.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:37:37 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT POPE, SELF,  SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), testified                                                                    
in opposition  to SJR 9.  He stated  that he and  his family                                                                    
were lifelong  Alaskans. He  felt that  the founders  of the                                                                    
constitution had extensive  discussions regarding whether or                                                                    
not public funds should be  used in private schools. He felt                                                                    
that  the  focus  should  be on  the  issues  within  public                                                                    
education,  rather   than  moving  that  money   to  private                                                                    
schools.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
9:39:40 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RISTI  DUGAN, SELF,  NENANA (via  teleconference), spoke  in                                                                    
support  of  SJR 9.  She  felt  that  there should  be  more                                                                    
parental support  of students and  schools, but she  did not                                                                    
feel that  the parental  support would  occur in  the status                                                                    
quo. She  stressed that she  wanted the best choice  for her                                                                    
children's education, but  did not feel that  it was related                                                                    
to public  funding. She felt that  competition may encourage                                                                    
the public schools to enhance their performance.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
9:40:53 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BARBARA  EATON,  SELF,  EAGLE  RIVER  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
testified in  support of  SJR 9. She  felt that  the federal                                                                    
government  was continually  restricting Alaskans.  She felt                                                                    
that  choice  was  a  part   of  the  American  and  Alaskan                                                                    
tradition. She  remarked that all of  Alaskans were affected                                                                    
by  the   issue,  so  all   of  Alaskans  should   have  the                                                                    
opportunity  to vote  on the  amendment. She  felt that  any                                                                    
individual who  did not support  the resolution would  be on                                                                    
the  wrong  side  of  history, because  she  felt  that  all                                                                    
Alaskans were  in support of  this issue. She  remarked that                                                                    
school choice would not make education more expensive.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
9:42:47 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARK WIGGIN, SELF, ANCHORAGE  (via teleconference), spoke in                                                                    
opposition to SJR  9. He believed that the  resolution was a                                                                    
way to  force him to  subsidize his money for  religious and                                                                    
private  academies. He  felt that  it  was a  levied tax  in                                                                    
support  of   religious  schools.  He  cared   about  public                                                                    
schools, and  shared that his  children had a  very positive                                                                    
experience  in  the  Anchorage   public  school  system.  He                                                                    
understood that  Alaska schools were  not perfect,  but they                                                                    
were very  good. He felt  that diverting money  to religious                                                                    
schools would force residents to  either pay higher taxes or                                                                    
sacrifice the vitality of the public schools.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
9:45:38 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KATHLEEN   TONN,  SELF,   ANCHORAGE  (via   teleconference),                                                                    
testified in  support of SJR  9. She  stated that she  was a                                                                    
member of the Anchorage Baptist  Temple. She shared that she                                                                    
was in support  of the resolution, because  her children had                                                                    
some very negative experiences in  the public school system.                                                                    
Her children  had a  principal and some  peers who  had died                                                                    
while  they  were in  school.  She  also felt  public  funds                                                                    
should be  used toward  religious schools, because  she felt                                                                    
that  tax  payer  money  was  also being  used  to  pay  for                                                                    
abortions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:49:48 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CELESTE   HODGE,   EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR,   SHILOH   COMMUNITY                                                                    
DEVELOPMENT INC.,  ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),  spoke in                                                                    
opposition to  SJR 9. She  stated that the  Shiloh Community                                                                    
Development    Incorporated   was    a   local    non-profit                                                                    
organization  that  empowered  youth,  minorities,  and  the                                                                    
disadvantaged.  She explained  that the  organization's goal                                                                    
was to  enhance the quality  of life for the  less fortunate                                                                    
by   providing  transitional   assistance;  economical   and                                                                    
educational  opportunities;   job  search   support;  health                                                                    
education,  prevention,  and  wellness programs;  and  youth                                                                    
mentoring. She  spoke very strongly  against SJR  9, because                                                                    
she felt it could be used as a tool to discriminate.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
9:51:40 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  BAUMEISTER,  SELF,   ANCHORAGE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
spoke in  support of SJR  9. He  felt that the  parents were                                                                    
ultimately  responsible   for  the  child's   education.  He                                                                    
remarked  that   the  success  of   a  child   was  directly                                                                    
correlated  to how  involved the  parent is  in the  child's                                                                    
education.  He felt  that any  tool that  could be  given to                                                                    
parents  to enhance  the child's  education was  positive in                                                                    
the long term. He stressed that  the voucher would only be a                                                                    
percentage of  what the expense  of just one child.  He felt                                                                    
that because the voucher was  only a percentage, there would                                                                    
be more money per student in the public school system.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
9:53:49 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DEBORAH  BROLLINI,  SELF,  ANCHORAGE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
testified against  SJR 9. She  stated that her  children had                                                                    
attended  both  public  and private  schools.  She  did  not                                                                    
believe that  there should be a  constitutional amendment in                                                                    
support  of funding  private school  education, because  the                                                                    
children in rural villages and  districts would not have the                                                                    
option  to attend  private schools.  She wondered  where the                                                                    
families  in  extremely  rural  communities  would  use  the                                                                    
vouchers.  She also  expressed concerns  about  the lack  of                                                                    
standards and supervision in private  schools. She felt that                                                                    
her son  had been academically and  emotionally harmed while                                                                    
he attended a private elementary school.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
9:55:50 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KATHERINE  HICKS,  SELF,   ANCHORAGE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
spoke in  support of  SJR 9. She  remarked that  Alaskans do                                                                    
not pay  taxes, rather  Alaska receives  money from  the oil                                                                    
companies. She felt that educators  were blaming parents for                                                                    
the lack of participation in  the failing schools in Alaska,                                                                    
but the  educators were now  refusing to let the  parents be                                                                    
involved  in the  education choices  of their  children. She                                                                    
felt  that the  teachers should  either take  responsibility                                                                    
for  what they  were producing,  or the  teachers needed  to                                                                    
allow parents the choice to  be involved in their children's                                                                    
education.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:57:44 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARIA   RENSEL,   SELF,  FAIRBANKS   (via   teleconference),                                                                    
testified in favor of SJR 9.  She stated that she was raised                                                                    
Catholic.  She   echoed  the  sentiments  of   the  previous                                                                    
testifiers  who   spoke  in   support  of   the  resolution,                                                                    
especially the  comments of  David Boyle  and Tom  Fink. She                                                                    
felt that the  resolution gave the people of  Alaska a voice                                                                    
in making  the decision  to remove  the impediments  to good                                                                    
legislation. She  stressed that monopolies, like  the public                                                                    
schools, end  up keeping the  costs high. She felt  that the                                                                    
vouchers would have  a positive effect on  state budgets for                                                                    
education, because some money was  left behind in the public                                                                    
schools.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
10:00:31 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CANDICE  JESCLARD,  SELF,  ANCHORAGE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
testified in  support of SJR  9. She felt that  the citizens                                                                    
of Alaska should  be given the opportunity to  decide if the                                                                    
language  of the  constitution should  remain the  same. She                                                                    
felt weary of a judge  making the decision that she believed                                                                    
parents should be more involved  in. She stated that she had                                                                    
five grandchildren  that were currently attending  school in                                                                    
the Anchorage School  District, and she hoped  that the bill                                                                    
would pass so Alaskans could  vote and make their own choice                                                                    
in the future of Alaskan children.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
10:03:58 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Dunleavy  stated that  SJR  9,  if passed  by  both                                                                    
bodies   of  the   legislature,   places  a   constitutional                                                                    
amendment before the  voters in the general  election in the                                                                    
fall of 2014. This ballot  proposal provides voters a chance                                                                    
to amend the Alaska Constitution  to allow the use of public                                                                    
money   for   the   benefit    of   all   Alaskans   seeking                                                                    
educational/training aid, regardless  of whether individuals                                                                    
enroll  in public  or  private  institutions. Currently  the                                                                    
Alaska Constitution  prohibits the  use of public  funds for                                                                    
the direct  benefit of any private  educational institution.                                                                    
The courts  have determined that  this ban extends  to state                                                                    
funds being  allotted to individual  Alaskans who  choose to                                                                    
attend a  private school. Meanwhile an  increasing number of                                                                    
Alaskans are questioning the  constitutionality of the long-                                                                    
standing practice of  giving educational scholarships/grants                                                                    
to  adults  for  educational  and  training  purposes  while                                                                    
denying children the same  funding opportunities. Passage of                                                                    
SJR  9 clarifies  the question  on the  constitutionality of                                                                    
current educational  practices. More  than that,  the ballot                                                                    
question allows the voters to  decide whether to maintain or                                                                    
abolish the  restrictions on the  use of public  dollars for                                                                    
the education of children. SJR  9 gives the voters the power                                                                    
to decide  what is  right for them,  their families  and the                                                                    
State of Alaska. It is important  to note that even with the                                                                    
adoption of  this constitutional amendment by  a majority of                                                                    
voters,  the  Legislature  still  needs  to  have  a  robust                                                                    
discussion on  how to go  forward. These  deliberations will                                                                    
occur  before  any Alaskan  child  receives  state funds  to                                                                    
attend  a private  educational institution.  The passage  of                                                                    
SJR 9 allows these discussions to begin.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
10:13:56 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Senator Dunleavy  stressed that the issue  should be focused                                                                    
on  and determined  by all  Alaskans. He  remarked that  the                                                                    
choice should be made by all Alaskans.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Meyer queried Senator  Dunleavy's background in the                                                                    
education system.  Senator Dunleavy responded that  he was a                                                                    
graduate  of  public schools;  he  attended  both state  and                                                                    
private colleges;  he received  his master's degree  at UAF;                                                                    
he  had  been  a teacher,  assistant  principal,  principal,                                                                    
director of  various departments,  assistant superintendent,                                                                    
and superintendent; he  had been both a  school board member                                                                    
and  school  board president  in  the  Matsu; and  a  former                                                                    
member of the NEA.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Senator Olson  felt that there  may be some people  in rural                                                                    
Alaska who  may not  be able  to make the  choice on  how to                                                                    
vote  on  the issue,  because  they  were unable  to  become                                                                    
educated  on  the  subject. Senator  Dunleavy  replied  that                                                                    
those people should be given  the opportunity to vote on the                                                                    
issue.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
10:18:55 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Senator Olson  stressed that he  is a representative  of the                                                                    
people of Alaska,  so his constituents had  entrusted him to                                                                    
make an  educated decision. Senator Dunleavy  responded that                                                                    
he was  given the  opportunity to make  the choice  to allow                                                                    
Alaskans to discuss the issue.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Olson  felt   that  constitutional  amendments  and                                                                    
ballot  intiatives were  different  ways  to determine  what                                                                    
Alaskans  desire. He  expressed concern  regarding the  high                                                                    
school graduation rate in the  state. He felt that should be                                                                    
the  main  focus  of   the  conversation.  Senator  Dunleavy                                                                    
responded that if  the graduation did not improve  and had a                                                                    
harmful  impact  on  the  state, he  would  engage  in  that                                                                    
conversation.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Kelly  felt  that  the  state  needed  to  have  a                                                                    
conversation  regarding  education.  He  felt  that  special                                                                    
interest  groups   often  dominated  the   conversation.  He                                                                    
remarked  that there  was more  to education  than the  base                                                                    
student  allocation  (BSA). He  felt  that  the teachers  in                                                                    
public schools were very good,  but stressed that the system                                                                    
needed reform.  He did not  like the  continual conversation                                                                    
regarding  increasing  the  BSA.  He  appreciated  that  the                                                                    
conversation  has  changed  to  reform.  He  felt  that  the                                                                    
constitutional amendment spurred conversation about reform.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
10:25:09 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Senator Bishop agreed that the  discussion was important. He                                                                    
felt that  the legislature needed to  recognize the problems                                                                    
and solve those issues before  the need for a constitutional                                                                    
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Senator Hoffman shared  that he had many  concerns, which he                                                                    
would share at a later date.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SJR  9  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
consideration.