Legislature(2017 - 2018)CAPITOL 106
01/23/2018 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Role of Contraceptive Coercion in Domestic Violence | |
| HB162 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 162 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 23, 2018
3:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Vice Chair
Representative Sam Kito
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative David Eastman
Representative Jennifer Johnston
Representative Matt Claman (alternate)
Representative Dan Saddler (alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ROLE OF CONTRACEPTIVE COERCION IN DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 162
"An Act relating to criminal and civil history requirements and
a registry regarding certain licenses, certifications, appeals,
and authorizations by the Department of Health and Social
Services; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 162
SHORT TITLE: DHSS CENT. REGISTRY;LICENSE;BCKGROUND CHK
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/08/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/17 (H) HSS, JUD
01/23/18 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DANIELLE CAMPOAMOR
Brooklyn, New York
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during a presentation on the role
of contraceptive coercion in domestic violence.
GINNY WALSH, Program Coordinator
Arctic Women in Crisis
Utqiagvik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during a presentation on the role
of contraceptive coercion in domestic violence.
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Statewide Section Supervisor
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 162 on behalf of the Rules
Committee at the request of the Governor.
MARGARET BRODIE, Director
Director's Office
Division of Health Care Services
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during discussion of HB
162.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:04:32 PM
CHAIR IVY SPOHNHOLZ called the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.
Representatives Spohnholz, Tarr, Claman (alternate), Johnston,
Saddler (alternate), Eastman, and Edgmon were present at the
call to order. Representative Kito arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
^PRESENTATION: ROLE OF CONTRACEPTIVE COERCION IN DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE
PRESENTATION: ROLE OF CONTRACEPTIVE COERCION
IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
3:05:40 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the first order of business would
be a presentation on the role of contraceptive coercion in
domestic violence. She said that Representative Claman, sponsor
of HB 25 which related to contraceptives, would introduce the
topic and then the committee would listen to invited testimony.
3:05:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, as sponsor of HB 25, explained the
relationships of the proposed bill to the presentation, pointing
out that the bill expanded access to birth control by giving
women full access to birth control methods without barriers on
cost or availability. The proposed bill would also allow women
to have a one-year supply of contraceptives. He reported that,
since then, there was an increased national and statewide
awareness on domestic violence and sexual assault. He explained
that contraceptive coercion was a form of domestic violence that
was perpetuated by abusers, as abusers could dictate when and
how contraceptives can and cannot be accessed as a means of
gaining power and control. He listed hiding, withholding, or
destroying the birth control to deliberately cause pregnancy, as
well as lying about having had a vasectomy, forcing a partner to
forego birth control, or forcing a partner to become pregnant or
end a pregnancy against her will. He declared that this blatant
disregard for women's health, women's rights, and women's
autonomy was inexcusable. He stated that the presentation would
further educate about issues such as contraceptive coercion,
stressing that this was a serious form of domestic abuse. He
emphasized that contraceptive coercion was a public health
issue, as well as a public safety issue. He declared that
access to affordable and reliable contraception would help
current and potential victims of abuse.
3:10:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER (alternate) asked how, if an abusive
partner kept oral contraception away from their partner for one,
two, or three months, did extending that for one year make any
qualitative difference in the level of abuse.
3:11:02 PM
DANIELLE CAMPOAMOR stated that she had been born and raised in
Eagle River, Alaska, and was currently living in Brooklyn, New
York. She shared her background, that she grew up in a home
with a physically, verbally, and financially abusive father.
When her mother became pregnant, she had been forced to leave
her work, and subsequently she was financially dependent on her
husband, Ms. Campoamor's father. She reflected that her first
memories were of extreme physical violence, and that, when she
was about 15 years of age, she experienced extreme pain when she
started her period. She later found out that this was caused by
endometriosis. Her mother was aware that birth control could
mitigate some of the side effects of endometriosis, so she
broached the topic with her father, only to be beaten as he
believed that birth control had one purpose and would give her a
freedom that he did not want to allow. As she and her mother
were financially dependent on her abusive father, they had no
idea what to do until they were made aware of the Planned
Parenthood Clinic in Anchorage, Alaska. She was able to save
money and buy her own birth control which helped with the
effects of the endometriosis and allowed her to not miss any
more school. She reported that she was only able to get three
months of birth control at a time, which made it more difficult
to navigate the complexities of procurement without her father's
knowledge. She pointed out how scary it was to live in an
abusive home where her life was controlled by the abuser. She
declared that "every part of your day is riddled with fear. You
have no idea what will set them off and you have no idea what
kind of person you're going to be having to deal with day to
day." She shared that she had no idea how she would continue to
access the birth control, and that, when she was caught, she did
suffer. She emphasized that she had seen the effects of
domestic violence and that the ability to procure birth control
allowed a victim, whether a child or an adult, a tiny bit of
control and freedom over her own life.
3:15:56 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked how a 12-month supply of contraception
would help someone experiencing contraceptive coercion.
MS. CAMPOAMOR allowed that, although a 3-month supply sounded so
easy for someone not in an abusive situation, consistent trips
to a pharmacy or place you don't want the abuser to know about
was "extremely difficult and extremely scary." When women were
able to make one trip for an entire year supply, this would keep
women safer and would hopefully offer the next step toward
leaving the abusive and dangerous situation.
3:17:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER (alternate) acknowledged the pain from
endometriosis and asked how many women in Alaska used birth
control for medical purposes versus contraception.
MS. CAMPOAMOR said that she was unable to answer the question as
she was not privy to the medical history. She declared that 59
percent of adult women in Alaska experienced partner violence,
and that 30 percent of Alaskans were not able to access victim
services or encourage others to do so because there were not
services available locally. She reported that the reasons women
procure birth control ran "the gamut from endometriosis to"
painful cramps to a wide variety of reasons.
3:18:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER (alternate) asked whether this was her
personal story or whether she was an expert in the area of
public health.
3:19:10 PM
MS. CAMPOAMOR replied that this was her personal story, and
that, even though she lived in New York, she still cared about
Alaska. She reported that she was an editor in New York, had
been able to attend college and leave the abusive situation, and
that she volunteered for many domestic violence related
organizations trying to combat systemic sexual violence.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked if she believed long acting, reversible
contraceptives could aid those suffering from contraceptive
coercion.
3:20:14 PM
MS. CAMPOAMOR replied, "I do." She offered her belief that it
was important for all forms of birth control to be considered,
as those were easier to conceal from the abuser. As she had
been beaten when caught with birth control, she offered her
assumption that there were "plenty of other women in Alaska who
have faced similar situations and circumstances."
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked for any recommendations for consideration
to prevent contraceptive coercion.
MS. CAMPOAMOR replied that this was the first step, that open
dialogue and, as Alaska had a horrific domestic violence and
sexual assault problem, affordable access to birth control was a
big part.
3:22:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR spoke on the power individuals had over the
ability to manage reproductive health care needs.
3:22:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER (alternate) asked to what degree were we
trying to solve the problems of domestic violence and abusive
parents, as opposed to the limitations on contraceptive
prescriptions.
3:23:25 PM
MS. CAMPOAMOR opined that "they go hand and hand." She declared
that domestic violence was insidious and the ways an abuser will
try to control their victim were multiple. She acknowledged
that, although it seemed that birth control was a minor part of
a women's life, it was not. This was a way for a woman to
protect herself from future abuse, as the majority of women in
abusive situations were also raped. Birth control could help
ensure that a woman did not have more children to keep her in an
abusive situation. She declared that birth control was a vital
part of a woman taking that first step. She offered her belief
that if there was a desire to combat domestic violence in
Alaska, it was necessary to investigate all avenues in which
domestic violence was able to run rampant.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER (alternate) suggested that public health
experts should testify and to not limit testimony to a single
person's experience.
3:25:38 PM
GINNY WALSH, Program Coordinator, Arctic Women in Crisis, stated
her support for HB 25, as contraceptive coercion was, in part,
about victims not having the understanding that this form of
coercion counted as an abuse tactic in the cycle of power and
control. She said that contraceptive coercion was especially
dangerous because it often built on mental, economic, physical,
and sexual abuse. She reported on stories from her shelter
about the sabotage of birth control and the threats from violent
partners. She declared that education, medical screening, and
other prevention tools were urgently needed. She stated that
comprehensive insurance coverage of contraceptives offered
victims a great variety of options, including access to a 12-
month supply of contraceptives for use in safety planning and
healthy relationships. Harm reduction intervention for this
group of women needed to include steps which ensured affordable
access to emergency contraception and forms of contraception
that were less susceptible to detection and tampering. She
declared that access to affordable birth control and avoidance
of pregnancy were steps toward freedom and safety.
3:27:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR acknowledged the concerns expressed by
Representative Saddler that much of this would be considered
anecdotal unless a university researcher had collected the data.
She asked about the frequency for hearing these concerns as part
of the cycle of abuse being personally experienced.
3:28:40 PM
MS. WALSH reported that she could not give exact statistics.
She shared a conversation with a young woman who was forced to
continue with a pregnancy which she did not want, as she was
afraid of an escalation of violence in the relationship. She
opined that once a month someone spoke with her about access to
birth control and a desire to either terminate or continue a
pregnancy from which they did not feel self-determination.
3:29:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR mused that the people working with this
every day could give better information, and that she believed
this was a regular occurrence with all types of abuse being
under reported.
MS. WALSH expressed her agreement that it was underreported,
noting that it took a long time to create a relationship whereby
someone would feel comfortable with sharing.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER (alternate) expressed caution that this
was an important issue and it was important to ensure that the
committee was informed by evidence and defensible statistics and
sampling, and "not driven or guided by hand chosen assumptions."
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked whether Representative Saddler was
suggesting that these experiences were not valid.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER (alternate) replied that he was not
saying that.
3:31:06 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked if she was familiar with the HB 25, which
was being considered by the legislature.
MS. WALSH said that she was.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked how this proposed bill would affect women
who experienced domestic violence, and how would it empower them
to respond to contraceptive coercion.
MS. WALSH offered some examples of self-determination, including
access to emergency contraception and forms of contraception
which were less susceptible to detection and tampering. She
declared that this offered more freedom and many more options
for choice about pregnancy.
3:32:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR shared her personal experience as the
director of group that helped women access services. She
suggested that it was good to remember that many of these women
already had children and wanted to keep them safe in these
abusive situations. She opined that this was part of the
conversation to give women more ability to leave the abusive
situation, as well as protect the children.
3:34:02 PM
MS. WALSH shared a story from a participant who was forced into
a pregnancy that impacted her health and family. She reiterated
the importance for women to have options and access to birth
control.
3:34:45 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:35:34 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ brought the committee back to order.
HB 162-DHSS CENT. REGISTRY;LICENSE;BCKGROUND CHK
3:35:45 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 162, "An Act relating to criminal and civil
history requirements and a registry regarding certain licenses,
certifications, appeals, and authorizations by the Department of
Health and Social Services; and providing for an effective
date."
3:36:09 PM
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Statewide
Section Supervisor, Human Services Section, Civil Division
(Juneau), Department of Law, offered a brief overview of HB 162.
She noted that participation in many federal programs such as
Medicaid and foster care required that states conduct criminal
background checks before licensure or payment for services.
Department of Health and Social Services has been doing
background checks for many years, and, in 2005, the Legislature
passed a bill which codified a background check process for all
persons who were paid for in-whole or in-part by the Department
of Health and Social Services, as noted in AS 47.05.300. Since
then, the background check was conducted in two parts: first, a
fingerprint based criminal history check for all state and
federal criminal offenses; second, a civil history check of
various data bases, some federal and some state. This was
required for anyone applying to be a foster parent or a personal
care attendant, among others. She reported that several gaps,
overlaps, and inconsistencies had been identified and addressed
through the regulatory process. The remainder of these issues
needed to be fixed in statute.
3:38:44 PM
MS. KRALY explained that the proposed bill clarified that a
civil history check was a check of already existing registries,
and that a stand-alone registry or database was not being
created as it was not operationally or fiscally feasible. It
also clarified that background checks were required of licensed
entities, as well as the owners and the workers. She said that
the proposed bill further renamed the two existing registries,
one of which was currently called the central registry and the
other was called the centralized registry. These two registries
would be renamed the civil registry and the child protection
registry. She added that the proposed bill made amendments to
AS 47.32, the licensing provisions of the Department of Health
and Social Services. She explained that this allowed licensing
investigators to share licensing investigations with law
enforcement when there were concurrent investigations. She
added that another change would allow the three licensing
divisions to share information.
3:41:28 PM
MS. KRALY stated that this would allow the division to
investigate individuals who were accused of abusing, neglecting,
or exploiting an individual in care.
3:42:46 PM
MS. KRALY paraphrased from the Sectional Analysis [Included in
members' packets], which read:
Section 1. This section would make conforming edits to
rename the centralized registry to the civil registry
to avoid confusion under the current law with the
centralized registry (AS 47.05.330) and the central
registry in AS 47.17.040 (see section 14).
Sections 2 and 3. These sections would amend AS
47.05.310(d) and 47.32.310(d) to clarify that barrier
crimes apply to individuals as well as entities.
Section 4. This section would amend AS 47.53.310(e) to
allow an individual to seek a background check; under
the current law only entities can seek a background
check. This section would also remove, at the request
of the Department of Public Safety, the designation of
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) as
a criminal justice agency for purpose of the
background check program.
Section 5. This section would amend AS 47.05. 310(f)
to make it clear that the DHSS may, in addition to
exceptions to the barrier crime provisions, approve a
variance for a barrier crime.
Section 6. This section would amend AS 47.05.310(h) to
address how a non-licensed provider, such as a
relative who is receiving payment by the Office of
Children's Services, is treated under the statute.
This amendment would make it clear that such
providers, while not being paid by DHSS, are still
subject to background checks prior to placement.
Section 7. This section would make a conforming edit
to AS 47.05.310(i) to rename the centralized registry
to the civil registry (similar to section 1).
Section 8. This section would add a new section to AS
47.05.310 to address immunity from civil or criminal
liability for reporting during the background check
process.
Section 9. This section would provide a similar
framework for the civil registry checks as background
checks (see AS 47.05.310). This means that the same
process applies to a person who is found to have a
barring criminal conviction under AS 47.05.310 as well
as a barring civil finding under AS 47.05.330.
Section 10. This section would be repealed and
reenacted to outline how the department will review
existing registries, rather than create yet another
separate database. This section would also identify
what DHSS will be looking for in terms of civil
findings that are inconsistent with licensure or
payment (e.g., CINA findings, terminated from DHSS for
assaultive/neglectful or exploitative behavior).
Information contained or obtained via the registry
would be confidential and not subject to a public
records request.
Section 11. This would amend the current immunity
section to reflect the change to civil registry from
centralized registry.
Section 12. This would establish a new section to
address the ability to seek a variance for any finding
under this chapter and how to appeal a decision if you
disagree with any decision made by DHSS.
Section 13. This section would amend AS 47.05.390(6)
to expand the definition of entity to include an
individual service provider.
Section 14. This section would rename the central
registry maintained by the Office of Children's
Services to the child protection registry to avoid
confusion. It also clarifies what is maintained on
this registry, including substantiated findings under
AS 47.10 or AS 47.17.
Section 15. This new subsection would clarify that
before a substantiated finding can be placed on the
child protection registry the person must have been
afforded notice of the finding and the opportunity to
challenge the finding.
Section 16. This section would make a conforming edit
to AS 47.32.010(c) replacing centralized registry with
civil registry (similar to section 1).
Section 17. This section would amend AS 47.32 to
provide authority for DHSS to consider prior adverse
licensing findings in determining whether to grant or
deny a license or whether to place a condition on a
license.
Section 18. This would add a new section to make it
clear that when there is an allegation that an
employee or individual affiliated with a licensed
entity is alleged to have engaged in any behavior that
would impact the safety or welfare of a resident, the
department may investigate that individual and issue a
report on the findings of that investigation. This
section would further provide that if a finding of
abuse or neglect is substantiated then that finding
will be part of the civil registry process and may
result in a person being prohibited from employment or
licensure in the future. This section would also make
it clear that before such a finding can be used, due
process must be afforded.
Section 19. This is technical fix that would clarify
when formal hearings are required when an enforcement
action is taken after a licensing investigation.
Section 20. This would add a new section to clarify
that that when law enforcement is investigating a
crime that is also the subject of a licensing
investigation, the material gathered by DHSS may be
shared with the law enforcement as a matter of law.
Section 21. This section would clarify that all
divisions who implement AS 47.32 may share information
with each other for the purpose of administering the
licensing programs at DHSS.
Section 22. This section would repeal reference to
provisions of the current law that are no longer
necessary or have been determined to be superfluous.
Specifically, the section would repeal the reference
to the civil registry when doing a background check,
references to DHSS as criminal justice agency, and
statutes stating an administrative hearing is not
required when the enforcement action sought is a plan
of correction.
Section 23. This is an applicability section for
purposes of applying the criminal and civil background
checks before, on or after the effective date of this
act.
Section 24. This section would advise the revisor
regarding title changes to reflect amendments in this
act, including the change to include the civil history
registry.
Section 25. This provides for an immediate effective
date.
3:50:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 20 of the
Sectional Analysis and asked how it would work for sharing
information between multiple investigations.
MS. KRALY, in response, said that the most obvious circumstance
was a crime committed at a licensed entity, such as an assisted
living home, resulting in an immediate response by multiple
agencies and a concurrent investigation. Currently, in such a
case, law enforcement would ask for the licensing files although
the provisions that were confidential could not be shared even
though there was an ongoing criminal investigation.
3:51:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO expressed his concern for privacy. He mused
that it was necessary to attain a formal legal document to get
information, and, as this document would have provisions for
accountability, the individual receiving information would be
aware of the confidentiality and privacy requirements for this
information. He asked, if this privacy requirement were
removed, who would ensure that the individual requesting
information was accountable.
3:53:07 PM
MS. KRALY, in response, explained that confidential information
existed throughout the Department of Health and Social Services,
although she was not aware of how the DHSS dealt with this.
3:54:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO expressed his concern that any situation
which authorized "more eyes to see particular pieces of
information" was "making the opportunity for the release of that
information increase." He asked to ensure that, as there was no
side of accountability for individuals to request legal
documents, there were provisions in place to maintain the
privacy and confidentiality.
3:54:59 PM
MARGARET BRODIE, Director, Director's Office, Division of Health
Care Services, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
explained that the department had many different types of
security, that the background check was from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI), and this was all contained in a log to
ensure that "people have only gone where they need to go." She
reported that should any document be missing, this would be
reported to the Office of the Attorney General and to the
Department of Public Safety. She added that a full
investigation would be conducted through Department of Health
and Social Services and the "state's IT office," as well as the
Department of Public Safety and the FBI. The Office of the
Attorney General would "wrap it all up."
REPRESENTATIVE KITO asked if the individual accountability
procedures were applicable if "we remove the firewall of having
to request information from another silo through a legal
process."
MS. BRODIE replied that there were still the same requirements
and accountability.
3:56:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER (alternate) asked, "How many bad apples
are now slipping through the cracks... how many people are
getting licensed that having more consistent, broader, and
efficiently applied licensing background checks is going to
fix." He requested a description of the seriousness of the
problem.
MS. BRODIE, in response, explained that if an individual had any
finding in their background check, they were denied clearance.
She noted that they could then go through a variance process
involving all the divisions within the Department of Health and
Social Services to show mitigating circumstances and to allow
explanations for why this finding was no longer an issue. She
explained that this explanation was reviewed by a committee, a
recommendation was made to the division director, and a
recommendation was then brought to the commissioner.
3:58:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER (alternate) asked Ms. Kraley how many
people this bill would catch.
MS. KRALY offered some individual statistics for FY17, reporting
that 23,175 individuals submitted information for the background
check process at DHSS. Of those, about 3.2 percent, 556
individuals, had barring conditions. Of these 556 individuals,
185 individuals had requested variances and 158 of those
individuals had received approval for variance.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER (alternate) asked how big was the problem
that was being addressed by the proposed bill.
MS. KRALY acknowledged that there was not a problem for that
purpose, as those with criminal and civil histories that were
inconsistent with licensure and had a predictive factor for use,
neglect, or exploitation were being identified. She opined that
the program, as it was designed, worked exceptionally well. She
declared that the proposed bill was designed to clean up some
language and some confusion within the statute and within the
process, so this was more understandable for the applicants.
She added that this allowed a clean-up for language and
identified gaps. She noted that these issues had been
identified many years earlier.
4:01:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER (alternate) pointed out that this was not
a huge problem that needed to be addressed although it was
making a system work better.
4:01:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked about the limitations to the multiple
state data bases for integrated information sharing.
4:03:20 PM
MS. KRALY said that efficiency was a good topic although it was
beyond the scope of the proposed bill. She explained that the
criminal background checks were performed by stand-alone data
bases, and she opined that these were not integrated and did not
access each other. She stated that the data bases accessed for
civil history purposes were civil findings unless you were
convicted of Medicaid fraud. She declared that these were
efficient registries although they were not interactive.
4:05:16 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ said that HB 162 would be held over.
4:05:55 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 162 Fiscal Note DHSS-HCS 01.22.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/20/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 162 |
| HB162 Governor Transmittal Letter 1.22.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/20/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 162 |
| HB 162 Fiscal Note DPS-SS 01.22.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/20/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 162 |
| HB162 Sectional Analysis ver A 1.19.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/20/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 162 |
| HB162 Supporting Document-FAQs on Background Checks 1.19.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/20/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 162 |
| HB162 Supporting Documents-Proposed Background Check Process 1.22.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/20/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 162 |