Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/25/1994 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 25, 1994
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair
Rep. Al Vezey
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Harley Olberg
Rep. Bettye Davis
Rep. Irene Nicholia
Rep. Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 362: "An Act establishing the crime of aiding the
nonpayment of child support."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
NANCY MANLEY
Legislative Aide
Rep. Terry Martin
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-3783
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 362
MARY GAY, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th, Ste. 312
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3556
Phone: (907) 269-6800
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 362
(spoke via offnet)
PHILLIP PETRIE
Acting Operations Manager
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th Ave., Ste. 312
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3566
Phone: (907) 269-6800
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 362
(spoke via offnet)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 362
SHORT TITLE: AIDING NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,B.Davis
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/11/94 2033 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/94 2033 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
01/13/94 2056 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B. DAVIS
02/22/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/22/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/25/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-61, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m., noted
members present and announced the calendar. He brought HB
362 to the table.
HB 362 - AIDING NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT
CHAIR BUNDE explained that the bill had been heard
previously and had been referred to a subcommittee which at
the present time had not come forth with recommendations.
(Chair Bunde indicated that Rep. B. Davis arrived at 3:07
p.m.)
REP. TOOHEY asked if NANCY MANLEY would come forward to
answer questions.
Number 010
NANCY MANLEY, Legislative Aide to Rep. Terry Martin, Prime
Sponsor of HB 362, stated that the legislation was designed
to make it illegal to aid in the nonpayment of child
support. She indicated that the Child Support Enforcement
Division would target those people who intentionally are
aiding obligors who are avoiding child support payments.
She also indicated there is a committee substitute (CS) that
she would defer to MARY GAY to explain.
Number 110
(Chair Bunde indicated that Reps. Olberg and Nicholia
arrived at 3:11 p.m.)
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Gay to address the CS.
Number 111
MARY GAY, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division,
Department of Revenue, testified via offnet in support of HB
362. She stated that currently the statute of limitations
on child support arrears is ten years. She said there is
$7.1 million in unpaid child support that "is currently 69
years old." She indicated that as arrears reach the ten
year limit the division must have the Department of Law
reset the arrears judgement, which is quite expensive. She
said if the statute of limitations could be extended just
for child support, "we would save the state money in AG
time." She also indicated that a considerable portion of
that money is owed to the state of Alaska because AFDC was
provided to the families who did not receive child support.
Number 199
CHAIR BUNDE clarified and said the division would be
attempting to collect arrearage up until the child is 21
years of age, but not asking for child support up until the
age of 21.
MS. GAY answered yes.
Number 217
CHAIR BUNDE observed that Representatives G. Davis and Vezey
had concerns regarding the original bill and indicated that
the CS was before the committee.
REP. TOOHEY made a motion to adopt the CS for HB 362. She
further indicated that the work draft was version J
(8-LS1459\J).
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, he stated that the CS for HB 362 was so moved.
REP. TOOHEY asked Ms. Gay if there would be a "plus fiscal
note" for the bill.
MS. GAY said yes.
Number 254
REP. G. DAVIS related that his initial concern with the bill
was that the law requires employers to assist the Child
Support Enforcement Division in collecting back child
support. He asserted that the division has numerous powers
that affect the opportunity to collect the payments. He
questioned how many cases the division is following or how
much money they are spending trying to prove that people are
intentionally being deceptive in regards to their employees
and their support payments. He felt there is not much value
in the legislation. Rep. Davis indicated that the division
has subpoena powers now and doubted that the proposal would
help to increase their receivables. He further indicated
that he did not have a problem with the CS regarding the
collections of arrearage up to the age of 21. He felt more
testimony should be heard.
Number 338
MS. GAY asserted that the aiding portion of the proposal is
not directed at employers. She said the division is
concerned with cases where the obligor transfers their
assets over to relatives, friends, or new spouses. She
explained a case where a girlfriend of an obligor owned a
couple of businesses and the obligor worked in the
businesses, but the businesses maintained that the obligor
was not involved. She said the girlfriend takes the assets
and the profits of the company while the two cohabitate and
reap the benefits while the children of the obligor are
unable to collect. She asserted that the legislation will
deter people from setting up those types of arrangements
because there will be punitive consequences. She said under
the most serious situations, the division will want to
prosecute the people, but hopefully once the violators are
made aware of the impending prosecution, the money will be
forthcoming and the charges would not be pursued.
Number 406
REP. G. DAVIS asked if there is more than one case.
MS. GAY responded that there are many cases that would
benefit from the legislation.
REP. G. DAVIS said it sounded as though the division was
focusing the proposal on one case.
MS. GAY stated that she was describing one situation as to
enlighten the committee to the seriousness of the situation.
She related another case where an obligor "put his airplanes
in his brother's name." She said it is common practice that
they list their assets under other people's names to avoid
support.
Number 429
CHAIR BUNDE asked how the division would go about proving
that the situation was not the actual sale of the assets.
MS. GAY replied that an investigator follows the case and
that often there is a large transfer of assets "just before
a (indiscernible word) court order." She said the division
looks to prove that there was no transfer of money.
MS. GAY further indicated that a fiscal note is not attached
to the bill because the cases must be worked on regardless
of whether or not the bill is passed. She said the
legislation would assist the division by enabling them to
address those people who are aiding the obligor in
nonpayment.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there are any other ways the bill would
assist in collecting child support payments besides proving
the transfer of assets.
MS. GAY said, "...if assets, or tax, or property, so there's
not any other vehicle other than the different cases where
it's just obvious that they're not paying, but they're doing
something under the table to get out of paying."
Number 487
REP. TOOHEY asked if it would be her obligation to notify
the division if she hires an employee that she knows has
children and suspects that the person is in arrears for
child support.
MS. GAY said only if the division has requested an employer
to notify them of rehires and new hires. She explained that
with businesses that have less than 20 individuals, the
business would not be required to notify the division.
Number 500
REP. TOOHEY asked if direct contact would be made with the
obligor.
MS. GAY explained that if the division finds out that
someone is employed or suspects that someone is employed, an
order to withhold income and property is sent to the
business. The business would respond by informing the
division whether or not the obligor is being paid or is not
working for them.
MS. GAY related another case where a person was being
investigated because he was seeking disability insurance
while employed as a construction worker. She indicated that
there was no money changing hands in the form of paychecks
and surmised that it was cash. She said the bill would
deter people from entering into such arrangements.
Number 561
CHAIR BUNDE referred to the original bill and related a
scenario where a business was notified that an employee was
not paying child support. He further speculated that the
employee left the business for several years, comes back,
and is rehired. He asked if the business would be in
violation of the law if they do not notify the division of
the employee's return. He asked if there was a time
limitation once a business has been notified.
MS. GAY indicated that the legislation's focus is on the
aiding of nonpayment of child support.
Number 595
REP. VEZEY interjected and said that Chair Bunde was
referring to Title 25, Chapter 27. He said he was concerned
that the bill would focus on employers especially under the
similar scenario that Chair Bunde had just offered. He felt
that the legislation needs to clarify that the focus is on
aiding in nonpayment and not on the employer who fails to
keep a running diary of every employee they've had with
child support obligations.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Vezey if he saw a way that the bill
could be strengthened to provide that direction and intent.
He asked if perhaps an amendment was necessary.
REP. VEZEY felt that there are a number of amendments
necessary, but his greatest concern regarding the bill is
that he had not heard any testimony that indicates that the
division has attempted to use courts to prosecute fraud. He
also stated that if a person accepts property for less than
fair market value, that person has received taxable income
in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He
questioned as to whether the IRS has been brought in to
collect their due. He indicated that there is a 10% percent
finder's fee for turning those people in. He further stated
that there are ample statutes on the books to allow for the
prosecution of fraud and said the proposal is superfluous.
Number 656
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Gay if the division is currently
prosecuting for fraud.
MS. GAY said no and asserted that it is a much more
difficult statute to prove. She reiterated that the
division is concerned with conspiracy to assist another
person in fraud.
Number 675
REP. TOOHEY asked Ms. Gay approximately how many cases the
division is working on and how many they suspect are out
there.
MS. GAY indicated that the division is currently working on
30 cases and said there are more out there. She said at the
present time the division has only one investigator, but
there will be two by the end of the month. There are $320
million in arrears that have not been collected. She
speculated that 10% of that figure constitutes people who
are hiding their assets in one form or another.
Number 701
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Gay approximately how much of the $320
million would go back to the general fund to replace AFDC
payments.
MS. GAY guessed that 30 to 40% would be conservative.
CHAIR BUNDE observed that the division is currently having
problems investigating cases and asked, if the bill passed,
would there be enough personnel to handle the case load or
would there be a need to hire more staff?
MS. GAY explained that the division does not need more
personnel and indicated that they already have one
investigator and will be getting two more that will work on
current cases. She said it was her hope to prosecute some
of the cases, bring it to the public's attention to deter
these types of situations. She said the division is more
focused on deterring the situations than they are on
prosecuting them.
Number 750
REP. VEZEY asked Ms. Gay if the division at any time has
turned information over to the IRS for prosecution of
individuals who appear to be avoiding income tax.
MS. GAY said yes.
REP. VEZEY asked if the IRS responded.
MS. GAY indicated that the IRS is very pleased when the
division reports information to them. She said, "They like
to hear from us. And they do use our information."
REP. VEZEY asked if it has been helpful to the division.
MS. GAY said yes.
Number 768
REP. G. DAVIS thanked Ms. Gay for her clarification. He
said he was reading Section 3 strictly as it relates to
employers. He said her testimony has made it clear that the
legislation targets those individuals who are aiding
obligors in nonpayment. He said the testimony addressed the
majority of concerns he had. He observed that the
legislation should separate a current employer's legal
responsibility in the matter.
MS. GAY asserted that there is already a statute that
provides for employers who refuse to respond to a request
from the division.
Number 807
CHAIR BUNDE referred to the list of the 100 worst offenders
that Rep. Martin had supplied to the committee at a previous
meeting. He asked Ms. Gay, if HB 362 passed, would it
address any of the 100 worst offenders?
MS. GAY said most certainly it would. She said not all the
violators would be addressed as some of the arrearage
amounts may be incorrect or some violators may have no
assets at all.
CHAIR BUNDE observed that not all the people on the list
would be guilty of hiding assets, but certainly some
percentage would be.
Number 837
REP. VEZEY observed that little or no effort has been made
to use the courts to prosecute for fraud, which is a serious
felony. He asked Ms. Gay to address the issue.
MS. GAY deferred to PHILLIP PETRIE to answer the question.
Number 840
PHILLIP PETRIE, Acting Operations Manager, Child Support
Enforcement Division, Department of Revenue, testified via
offnet in support of HB 362. He stated that the last case
that was prosecuted was in the Juneau area. Also, earlier
in the week, he submitted a case to the attorney general
(AG) in Anchorage that pertains to defrauding a creditor and
fraud. He said AG's are reluctant to try cases that are not
directly related to child support because they are viewed as
domestic cases, and the division works primarily with the
Human Services Division of the Department of Law. He said,
"We're currently preparing 20 cases that would fall under
this category for a referral to the Department of Law for
legal action. And, because of a federal statute change,
they may eventually go on to the federal court. Federal law
says that we must examine all legal remedies. The problem
you have is gathering specific evidence. And in our state,
not being a community property state, if someone places the
assets in a current spouse's name or a girlfriend's name,
it's difficult to prove that they did that solely for the
basis of fraud or defrauding the state."
MR. PETRIE related a scenario where two current spouses
formed a company to do substantial long haul trucking. He
said both the current and ex-husband drive the trucks for no
salary and the corporation is all in the wife's name. He
indicated that withholding orders have been sent to the
company and have been returned asserting that the husbands
are not employed, "they just help out." He said it's
obvious the obligor has no visible means of support and
still applies for loans and buys a house -- all in the
girlfriend's or wife's name.
MR. PETRIE stated that fraud is a possibility in that case
if it can be proven. He urged that the proposal would
assist in proving fraud.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Petrie to identify himself for the
record.
MR. PHILLIP PETRIE said he is the Acting Operations Manager
for the Child Support Enforcement Division in Anchorage.
Number 927
REP. VEZEY asked if the arrearage figures on the top 100
list are accurate. He asked how much of the total debt from
the list is represented by underlying assets.
MR. PETRIE said no concerted effort has been made to
identify which figures are represented by assets. However,
he said the division is making efforts in that direction.
He indicated that there will be two new investigators and an
accountant will be moved to the Non-Wage Earners Section
within the division. He also said that data base
information will be exchanged with the municipality of
Anchorage regarding the personal property records section.
He also pointed out that the division's efforts have been
hampered because there has only been one criminal
investigator.
MR. PETRIE stated that within a year the division should
have a better understanding of exactly which figures
represent actual assets. He indicated that the division is
only receiving collections from 46% of their case load, and
a majority of those cases have sizable assets. He then
referred to Ms. Gay's statement that the top 100 list
figures may not be accurate and asserted that the figures
are accurate on their computers today, but many of the
figures represent default orders where a person failed to
provide income information or they have multiple cases. He
explained that a person can provide adequate income
information to the division to have their arrearage amount
adjusted.
MR. PETRIE then estimated that approximately 25% of
collections could be increased if the division can target
the non-wage earners. He indicated that Washington state
has been able to collect several million dollars annually by
targeting vehicles that belong to non-wage earners.
Number 011
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the division is capable of seizing
limited entry fishing permits and then sell it.
MR. PETRIE said yes; and a supreme court decision supports
the process. He also indicated that the IRS has attempted
to seize limited entry permits of obligors who owe child
support, and under IRS regulation the division receives
payment before the IRS.
Number 039
MS. GAY interjected that the division also places liens on
limited entry permits, which in most cases prevents their
transfer.
MR. PETRIE offered that there are over 460 fisherman who owe
over $10 million in arrearages based on 1993 data, and the
1994 figures would be available April 1. He said the
division is also trying to gain permission to place liens on
limited entry international permits.
Number 067
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the division would send copies of the
April 1 report to the legislature.
MR. PETRIE said yes and explained that copies are sent to at
least 580 processors and brokers throughout the state.
CHAIR BUNDE encouraged Mr. Petrie to send a copy to the
entire House of Representatives.
REP. TOOHEY stated for the record, "I am awed and inspired
that there is somebody greater than the IRS. And, it's an
absolute privilege to be talking to you."
MS. GAY explained that the IRS experiences the same problems
in collection that the division does regarding those persons
who are not traditional wage earners.
REP. TOOHEY asked that Ms. Gay accept her gratitude.
(Chair Bunde indicated that Rep. Kott arrived at 3:34 p.m.)
REP. G. DAVIS said, "I would hope that you people are aware
of Sen. Jacko's bill. You might be collecting a lot of your
money from Sea Fab here in the near future, if a certain
bill goes through."
MS. GAY pointed out that the child support provision in that
bill was removed.
REP. G. DAVIS agreed.
REP. VEZEY clarified that Ms. Gay never said the division
was more powerful than the IRS and pointed out that she said
the division is first in line. He then expressed further
concern regarding the effect of the legislation on law
abiding employers. He asserted that currently under Title
25, Chapter 27, there are civil penalties for employers
"which quite frankly I believe are onerous." He felt it
would be possible to clarify in the legislation that the
intent is not focused on traditional wage paying employers
who have merely, in oversight, failed to report to the
division.
TAPE 94-61, SIDE B
Number 000
REP. VEZEY felt the legislation could be construed to
threaten an employer with a felony crime for failing to
honor a withholding order that could conceivably be 21 years
old.
MS. GAY explained that the division does not rely on an
employer to notify them of the rehire of a former employer
who is an obligor. She said the division sends a reminder
notification to the business. There is no way of tracking
until the withholding orders are sent and the obligors are
found to be not complying. She assured the committee that
the division does not bring charges against any employers or
obligors that have not been fully investigated. She
asserted that the division will not waste the Department of
Law's time with cases that they are not absolutely sure are
fraudulent.
Number 055
REP. VEZEY related to Ms. Gay that he was aware of at least
one employer that has been assessed an administrative
penalty equal to the amount of child support that was not
withheld from an employee. He explained that the employee
had been rehired after several years and was terminated
before the new withholding order reached the employer. He
felt the situation to be a grave miscarriage of justice.
MR. PETRIE asked Rep. Vezey or his constituent to contact
him at a later time so he could further review the case. He
then indicated that the last employer noncompliance
judgement the division obtained was in 1989. He said he was
unaware of any cases since that time. He said for
noncompliance to be proven the division must prove that the
employer received the "certified mail green card" and did
not act.
REP. VEZEY said the case was not processed through the
courts or the Department of Law. He said it was done at an
administrative level. He said rather than fight the case,
the employer opted to pay the penalty because it was cheaper
than attorney's fees.
MR. PETRIE asked if the cited case pertains to a contractor
in Fairbanks.
REP. VEZEY said no, the case pertains to Western Mechanical.
MR. PETRIE responded that he would be happy to review the
case. He also said the division will try to settle out of
court first.
MS. GAY further explained that if the money is recovered it
goes to the state, not to the children.
MR. PETRIE said the division would not object to an
amendment that would clarify the issue. He explained that
in most of the cases he works on, the individuals are not
listed as employees, are not reporting wages to the IRS or
the Department of Labor, and they usually are paid cash for
their services. He reiterated that the bill is targeted at
people who deliberately are evading child support by placing
their assets in someone else's name or creating companies in
someone else's name.
Number 181
REP. VEZEY said there are some employers that are criminals,
but expressed the feeling that most are law abiding
citizens.
MR. PETRIE stated that his focus is on those who are aiding
nonpayment.
CHAIR BUNDE said, "I'd like to interject here that certainly
for the record, it's not the Chairman's interpretation of
this bill that an employer who in good faith reemploys an
employee after a period of time should be held liable
without further notification from the Division of Child
Support Enforcement." He said he would take into
consideration any amendment that would better clarify the
issue.
Number 234
REP. KOTT referred to page 2, lines 25-31, regarding
penalties. He stated that criminal nonsupport is a Class A
misdemeanor and the bill indicates that aiding nonpayment of
child support would be a Class C felony. He said the charge
is "one step further" than criminal nonsupport and asked if
that was the intent of the division.
MS. MANLEY asserted that the sponsor attempted to put more
"teeth" into the bill by making it a Class C felony.
REP. KOTT said, "My question, I guess, is we're making
aiding the nonpayment of child support more serious than the
person who is in violation of criminal nonsupport."
MS. MANLEY felt that both crimes should be Class C felonies.
REP. KOTT agreed and expressed that continuity should be
ensured in the penalties.
MS. MANLEY agreed.
CHAIR BUNDE said, "Do I anticipate a bill changing penalties
for lack of child support?"
Number 298
REP. VEZEY maintained that he has attempted to pen an
amendment that would address his concerns regarding
employers, but has yet to come up with the appropriate
language. He suggested Mr. Petrie offer appropriate
language for the amendment that would clarify that the
target of the bill is for fraudulent activity and not for
mere oversight by an employer. He felt the proposal could
be improved if the term aiding nonpayment of child support
is better defined and also if the bill could be expanded to
include the obligor as well as the person who aids and
abets.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Petrie to respond.
MR. PETRIE said he would work on language for an amendment
that would address Rep. Vezey's concerns.
MS. GAY said, "One thought I had was that this law not be
used unless other laws that Child Support Agency has
available are first addressed."
REP. VEZEY expressed that what Ms. Gay had proposed would
address his concerns. But, he felt it would not be too
difficult to include the violation of the obligor in the
statute.
CHAIR BUNDE observed that perhaps there is a need for
drafting language for the amendment. He asked Mr. Petrie if
he was clear as to the direction of the committee.
MR. PETRIE said yes.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if Rep. Vezey and Mr. Petrie could make a
collaborative effort to draft an appropriate amendment.
MR. PETRIE said he would.
Number 389
REP. OLBERG referred to Rep. Kott's earlier point regarding
penalties. He said it is theoretically possible that a
person could be unable to pay child support because he/she
has no money. But, he said if a person conspires to aid
nonpayment of child support, they are well aware that they
are participating in fraudulent activities. He expressed
that he could justify a more serious penalty for aiding than
"being the victim of financial circumstances and being
guilty of nonpayment."
CHAIR BUNDE said it was his understanding that individuals
would be held responsible for accrued payments, but would
not be in violation if they have kept in contact with the
division and have kept them abreast of their dire financial
situation.
MR. PETRIE concurred. He said there must be an ability to
pay. He also said the division must prove beyond a doubt
that the obligor has resources or assets to pay the support.
MS. GAY also explained that obligors can come in for
modifications if their wages have decreased in a new job.
Number 440
MS. MANLEY asserted that the bill is directed at people who
are intentionally aiding nonpayment of child support. She
also indicated that the term "intentional" is defined in
statute.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the potential amendment is addressed in
the definitions in statute.
MS. MANLEY explained that she spoke with Legal Services
specifically regarding the issue. She related that Legal
Services said those concerns are addressed in statute.
REP. VEZEY indicated that in reading the statute he
overlooked the word "intentionally." He felt the statute
addresses his concerns and asked if Mr. Petrie would concur.
MR. PETRIE concurred and said the burden of proof would
exclude those who unintentionally "try to help someone."
Number 510
CHAIR BUNDE withdrew his request that Rep. Vezey and Mr.
Petrie craft an amendment.
REP. BRICE offered to move the bill out of committee.
REP. VEZEY referred to Rep. Kott's statement regarding
penalties. He said if the obligor could be included in the
legislation it would be an improvement in the legislation.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the penalty of the obligor could be
addressed under the title of the bill.
REP. BRICE said he felt the title "is sort of tight."
MS. MANLEY suggested that it perhaps be included in another
statute.
Number 542
REP. KOTT maintained that the issue needs to be addressed as
to afford continuity to the penalties. He said he knew of
no other crime where aiding and abetting is a higher
sentence than the actual crime committed. He then related a
scenario where a man is guilty of not paying child support
and has remarried. He said if the new wife is aware that he
is not paying support, she is guilty of aiding nonpayment.
REP. B. DAVIS disagreed and said the wife would be guilty
only if she intentionally helped him avoid payments.
MS. MANLEY explained that the wife would only be guilty if
she continued to help him evade his responsibilities. She
said she agreed with Rep. Kott that the obligor should
receive the same penalty.
REP. KOTT said a wife would be guilty if the division asked
her where her husband is employed and she refuses to answer.
He further indicated that currently the courts do not
require a spouse to testify against her husband.
Number 591
CHAIR BUNDE suggested that the penalty be increased for the
obligor.
REP. BRICE made a motion to pass the CS for HB 362 with
individual recommendations out of committee.
CHAIR BUNDE, hearing no objections, declared that HB 362 was
so moved. He then read the calendar for the next meeting.
Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR BUNDE
adjourned the meeting at 4:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|