02/16/1998 03:21 PM House L&C
Audio | Topic |
---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE February 16, 1998 3:21 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chairman Representative Jerry Sanders Representative Joe Ryan MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Bill Hudson Representative Tom Brice Representative Gene Kubina COMMITTEE CALENDAR * HOUSE BILL NO. 363 "An Act relating to social security numbers; providing for the limitation of use of social security numbers; and making the improper use of a social security number a prohibited unfair trade practice." - HEARD AND HELD * HOUSE BILL NO. 321 "An Act relating to trusts, to the prudent investor rule, and to standards of care applicable to personal representatives, conservators, and trustees; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HB 321 OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 363 SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NO. SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KEMPLEN, Kohring, Phillips Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/28/98 2154 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)01/28/98 2154 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY 02/04/98 2223 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS 02/16/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 321 SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM PRUDENT INVESTOR ACT SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) RYAN Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/15/98 2054 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/15/98 2054 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE 02/16/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE J. ALLEN KEMPLEN Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 112 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2435 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 363. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-14, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:21 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Cowdery, Sanders and Ryan. HB 363 - DISCLOSURE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NO. Number 0048 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee would take up HB 363, "An Act relating to social security numbers; providing for the limitation of use of social security numbers; and making the improper use of a social security number a prohibited unfair trade practice." He noted the sponsor would present the bill. Number 0071 REPRESENTATIVE J. ALLEN KEMPLEN thanked the committee and noted he has personal experience with this issue. He related during the interim he went to an Anchorage business to rent a musical instrument for his son. The business's form required a drivers' license number, major credit card for deposit, and social security number. He said he did not think it was necessary to provide his social security number in order to rent an instrument, but he was told that was how the business tracked its accounts, and if he did not provide his social security number, he was not a welcome customer. Representative Kemplen stated he thought that was an invasion of privacy and did not rent an instrument. Number 0233 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said made him think about the whole issue of social security numbers, computers, the "information age." He had thought Alaska was different because the right of individual Alaskans to privacy was laid out in a clause of the state constitution and "shall not be infringed." Representative Kemplen noted he found, however, that there wasn't anything that really prohibited this business person from requiring his social security number. His research showed there had been a big concern about privacy in the late 1960s, early 1970s. He stated the Fair Credit Reporting Act was passed in 1970; it gave consumers a right to know what was in their credit files and to demand corrections for errors. The public response was that the government tells citizens what records it keeps on them while insisting that information be kept private unless it was required by law. In the private sector each industry was pretty much allowed to create its own guidelines, which worked until personal computers (PCs) came on board. He said it was not such a big issue with large mainframe computers but the rapid growth of PCs has changed things fairly remarkably. Representative Kemplen stated that the growth of the Internet over the last three to five years has also changed things dramatically. He stated privacy is becoming a victim of this "information age." Number 0430 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said it seems to him Alaska is unique, and he noted the state constitution has the strongest privacy clause of all of the state constitutions in America. He said if any state stands up for individual privacy, it would be Alaska. He stated that is the purpose of this legislation: to stand up for the rights of individual Alaskans. It says that the individual demands a right of privacy, and someone who wants information about that individual, particularly as it relates to the social security number, which is linked to so many databases, needs the individual's written permission. He stated that information cannot be mandated from an individual. Number 0510 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY stated he thought the social security document was a federal document, not a state one, and he noted their medical insurance plan identification numbers were their social security numbers. He asked if Representative Kemplen thought that would cause a disruption or inconvenience. Representative Cowdery also noted a social security number was requested when obtaining information by phone about an escrow account, former bank, credit card, et cetera, and he asked about that impact. Number 0601 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN stated the only impact on insurance would be the necessity of obtaining an individual's written permission to use a social security number to track that person's accounts. He said it put the power back into the hands of the individual, rather than in a big organization's. Number 0638 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated that if use of the social security number was denied to insurance companies, then the number's use could be denied in all documents including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) forms. Number 0650 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied that the legislation as written states, "Except where required by federal or state law." Number 0663 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted he appreciated the privacy direction Representative Kemplen was going in, but he wondered if that was reality. Representative Cowdery commented on the many places social security numbers occurred, including drivers' licenses; he noted it is a "number world," as Representative Kemplen had said, and mentioned the current sophistication of computers. Number 0706 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN brought up the concept of identity theft, noting that stealing someone's identity is a concern when social security numbers are increasingly required. He said with all the information people, retail store clerks for example, have access to, including a social security number, someone can fill out a credit application with all of an individual's relevant data and have a credit card in that individual's name sent to another address. Representative Kemplen noted that person can then use that individual's good credit to run up a comfortable lifestyle. He stated the notion of stealing someone's identity is something they need to be thinking about and acting to minimize. Number 0793 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated he understood the comfortable lifestyle situation, but commented some people think getting caught and going to jail would be a lifestyle improvement. Number 0812 REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN stated he appreciated this bill and asked if Representative Kemplen was aware that, in order to require a person's social security number, a disclaimer was required by federal law. He said he has notified several branches of the state's government that they are not in compliance, noting he had called the Division of Retirement and Benefits and the health people, asking them who had given them the authority to use his social security number as a medical number. He received the response that they have always done it as a (indisc.), to which he replied he had caught them and did not want them to continue the practice. Representative Ryan noted he hasn't been successful so far, but feels he will be able to convince them it is not a good thing for them to do in his case. He stated he liked this kind of legislation, and noted when he was a child a lot of people came from Europe with numbers tattooed on their arms - they had been reduced to a number - and he did not like being reduced to a number. Number 0885 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the absence of any supporting background from state business-type organizations in the submitted bill package, and asked Representative Kemplen if he had investigated whether or not this legislation would have any kind of negative impact on commerce in the state of Alaska. Number 0915 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN answered he had not. Number 0928 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated it was one of the committee's purviews and charges to ensure that, when it does pass legislation, the legislation meets muster, doesn't create undue burdens, or impact job creation and the economic health of the state. Chairman Rokeberg commented that the committee had received a call the previous week from an organization in Washington, D.C., opposing this type of legislation; unfortunately the committee has not been able to reestablish contact with that organization. He said, in terms of his own comfort, he would like to make sure that the issue received a full hearing before the committee took final action. Chairman Rokeberg suggested Representative Kemplen make inquiries to organizations like the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and other business-type organizations that might have opinions. He commented Representative Kemplen might find support from these organizations, and he noted there was certainly a lot of merit in the thrust of the bill. Also, Chairman Rokeberg asked if it might be necessary to check with the Division of Insurance regarding insurance forms and things of that nature, referring to Representative Cowdery's comment that even their own group-administered health plan used social security numbers. He also noted the state government was basically exempted as the bill was drafted, and he asked if that was fair, questioning whether it was one of those deals where Congress and the legislature can get away with it but everybody else can't. Number 1035 Representative Kemplen answered that if a business is required to collect social security numbers, as a federal or state requirement, that would not be affected by this legislation. Number 1054 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Representative Kemplen knew of instances where that was the case. Number 1061 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said his intuition told him there certainly were instances where social security numbers are required by federal or state statute, but none came immediately to mind. Number 1086 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "Besides IRS forms...." Number 1087 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated they had passed SB 154, last year for child support enforcement [SB 154, Child Support and Paternity, misstated as HB 154 on tape], and it required any kind of license received in the state of Alaska to have a social security number: drivers', hunting, fishing, occupational, et cetera. He said a social security number had to be given so (indisc.) be in compliance with the federal statute. Representative Ryan noted he had not voted for the bill, and disliked it, but said that was the situation they were currently in. He also referred to one of Chairman Rokeberg's previous comments about the exemption of state government, "the king can do no wrong," and said he "couldn't buy" that exemption, noting he did not think this government was that wise. Number 1130 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked about things like union pension plans which were required by federal law to use social security numbers. Number 1144 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that most military personnel are on military reservations and federal property, and are therefore exempt from state statute, but said he would be concerned because the military currently uses social security numbers instead of the previously used serial numbers. Chairman Rokeberg stated this change occurred after he had left the military, noting he had been a US (ph), a draftee, not an RA, regular army, person, and those distinctions have now been lost because of the military's switch to social security numbers. Chairman Rokeberg asked if that use of social security number would have any impact, giving the example of a credit granting business. He asked if it would not be appropriate for that business to ask for an active duty military member's serial number as part of the individual's personal information. Number 1205 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN agreed, but said all the bill does is allow the business to get permission through the individual who is requesting that credit. He noted it moves something from a mandatory type of situation to a voluntary situation, and it gives the individual the discretion to decide whether or not the individual wants to give his or her social security number. If the individual wants the credit card, all he or she has to do is sign the written permission saying, "Here is my social security number." Number 1251 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to page 2, subsection (c) which reads "(c) A person may not offer or accept an offer for goods or services, for sale or lease, on the condition that a consumer provide consent to the use of the consumer's social security number for identification." Chairman Rokeberg asked if that meant the closing of a sale could not be made contingent on the granting or giving of the social security number. Number 1286 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN answered in the affirmative. Number 1288 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified, "So they can't withhold their sale without a person coming forward with the number." Number 1298 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated, if memory served him right, other than the various things that were included under subsequent federal statutes like the child support enforcement, an individual is not required to give a social security number, or the number cannot be used under the federal statutes, except for purposes of income reporting to the IRS, and there are related federal statutes. Representative Ryan stated, "Everybody ... kind of blows it off and doesn't pay any attention, 'cause everybody and his brother found that a common data base -- we get your social security number, we link you into all kinds of things -- and it's easier to keep track of you, and to build up files on you, and make sure you get a lot of junk mail." Number 1340 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "If that were the case, then why is there in the bill package from the sponsor, federal legislation on this very topic? Or are you making a public assumption about what's required?" Number 1354 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted he had stated he was speaking from memory. Number 1356 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Representative Kemplen could shed any light on this matter. Number 1360 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN noted that the federal legislation was a proposal introduced last year in Congress because of the concern being raised, in a number of different places, about the increasing use of a social security number as a unique identifier, and the number being mandated by a number of different organizations and entities because of convenience. Representative Kemplen said there is also growing concern that technology is making it so easy to cross-check on people that it is really becoming an invasion of their privacy, and this concern has moved up to the congressional level. He noted Alaska, because of the very strong privacy clause in its state constitution, really has legitimate cause to be in the forefront of action on this issue at the state level. Number 1423 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he would like to give Representative Kemplen the opportunity to generate some support, particularly from the business community, noting he did not think anyone in the committee would not want to pass this bill out, but needed to be convinced that this would not be a burden on business. Chairman Rokeberg commented that, perhaps, if there were some witnesses who could testify to that effect, and the committee was provided with some documentation, the committee would be happy to move this bill along. However, the Chairman said he thought they would not be doing their job, given the brevity of testimony and support of this bill, in passing the bill until they were convinced. Chairman Rokeberg asked Representative Kemplen if he had any problems with that. Number 1458 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied he did not, he thought that was a very prudent course of action. Number 1463 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated HB 363 would be held. HB 321 - UNIFORM PRUDENT INVESTOR ACT Number 1471 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business was HB 321, "An Act relating to trusts, to the prudent investor rule, and to standards of care applicable to personal representatives, conservators, and trustees; and providing for an effective date." Chairman Rokeberg asked Representative Ryan, the bill sponsor, how he wished to proceed. Number 1481 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted there was information in the bill packet that briefly outlined the bill function. He said it is uniform law [promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws], it is not something that would be new and unique to Alaska; he thought there were 19 other states who have already adopted this. He said the bill mainly deals with trustees of trusts, the people who are running trusts, and he stated, "The trustee must manage a trust in such a manner that they look to manage the assets of the trust for the maximum benefit of the beneficiaries, that's the primary duty of ... the trustee." He said trustees have been constrained in some previous legislation and court decisions that allow the trustees, or make it difficult for them, depending on the type of asset in the trust, as to what they can do with it. He stated, "This bill sets up the standards for prudent investor, and I'll ... read you a slight paragraph here [from a letter by L.S. "Jerry" Kurtz], 'Many fiduciaries find themselves holding mines, family businesses, fishing boats, real estate, zero coupon bonds and other property, which doesn't produce interest and can feel ... compelled under common law to liquidate such property, when common sense dictates otherwise. [The] Prudent Investor Act makes it clear that a fiduciary must use good sense rather than rigid guidelines in carrying out fiduciary duties, and consider the current status of markets, tax consequences, liquidation and other factors before taking such action.'" Number 1576 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated HB 321 gives trustees latitude for making investments; at the same time, it also gives them ethical guidelines inasmuch as the trustee may be the trustee for numerous trusts. He noted there are many provisions in the bill about dealings between trusts, selling one asset of one trust to another, and it states how the trustees must act if they have any kind of a relationship with any of the beneficiaries. He said it tells them what they do and they don't do, to make sure everybody gets a square deal, and to cover their liability standards. Representative Ryan stated this is to avoid unnecessary litigation if some person feels that the trustee has taken an investment action which wasn't as optimum as it could have been. He stated the reason he was putting this bill forward, "We passed a trust bill last year, and it was signed by the Governor on ... April 1. Subsequently the state of Delaware, in two weeks, passed an identical bill, because they saw that Alaska was going to get ahead of 'em. So in only two weeks time, and it took two years to do here, it was through and became law." Number 1648 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated this bill was the Alaska trust Act. He noted Delaware made one small error, it allowed the corpus of the trust to be invaded for child or spousal support; he said there was a "rule of thumb" in the estate planning community and the court decisions that have been made, that if invasion of the corpus was allowed for any reason, it could be allowed for all reasons. He stated Delaware was going to amend their law this year to do away with those provisions. Representative Ryan commented on the provision in Alaska's law, that an individual could not settle any assets into the corpus of a trust if the individual was 30 days or more in arrears on child or spousal support. He stated, "What you're basically doing when you establish a trust is you're making a gift, you pay a gift tax, and Alaska law is unique, inasmuch as once you've settled it, and the money is what we call, quote, clean money, there are no obligations or pending obligations or so forth, that money cannot -- it's a gifting, it's gone away, for tax purposes it doesn't become part of your estate when you die, and ... it cannot be attacked by subsequent creditors, ... it stays inviolate, and that's a unique feature of Alaska law, as long as it wasn't a fraudulent transfer, and we have a (indisc.) portion in there for that, but that's getting away from what this does." Number 1713 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said the major point of HB 321 is that the standards of prudence apply to a trust as a whole instead of individual investments. He said that when an individual makes an individual investment the overall portfolio of the corpus of the trust needs to be looked at, the various investments that are being made, and the question asked, "Is this a prudent action on the part of this individual as far as the whole trust assets are concerned, versus that particular individual investment?" Representative Ryan stated, "The overall investment strategy should be based upon risk and reward objective suitable for the trust." Since the distributions in most trusts usually come from the earnings of the trust, which is a capital gain, rather than from the corpus, it is a good point that an income necessary for the distributions must be maintained, but at the same time, he stated, "You don't want to be too conservative because you won't have any monies to do it." Number 1763 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that the duties to diversify must be part of the investment strategy, unless the trustee reasonably determines it is in the interests of the beneficiaries not to diversify, taking into account the purposes, terms and provisions of the governing document. He noted, when a governing document is set up instructing how the trust will be managed and how distributions will be made, indenture, et cetera, the person who settles the trust outlines what he or she wants to do. Representative Ryan commented that now some people allow distributions out of the corpus too, depending upon how they want to structure the trust. He stated Alaska has made an exception to the statute on perpetuities, allowing the trust to go on in perpetuity, and he described the financial considerations, "If you were to settle a million dollars in a trust today, at the 8 1/2 percent that the markets returned over the last couple hundred years, in 120 years you'd have over a billion dollars in that trust, so money does grow money, depending upon the management of the trust." Representative Ryan commented that no special status was given to the original investments and the trustee must review those investments from time to time. He stated, "(Indisc.) corporate trusts (indisc.) paid professional advisor acting as trustee is accountable under special investment skills standard, and the delegation of investment authority is permitted but the trustee retains liability for the investment performance of the 'delegee.'" Number 1836 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted that not all trustees are good financial managers, so they are allowed to hire professionals, but the trustees still bear the responsibility if those investments go wrong to the point where it adversely affects the trust; this raises the level of responsibility and duties to the beneficiaries. He stated the overall strategy is to be designed to enable the trustee to make appropriate present and future distributions to the beneficiaries. Representative Ryan noted 20 states have anticipated this, and he said it looks like a lot more will in the future because it is a standard that can be used, a uniform law, all over the country. He stated, "You can be as assured as you possibly can that you're getting responsible actions from the trustee." He stated he was open to questions, noting he was the author of the Alaska trust Act. Number 1903 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted the presence of a letter from Attorney General Bruce M. Botelho supporting HB 321 in the bill packet. Number 1910 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented that politics made strange bedfellows. Number 1919 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Representative Ryan could provide a copy of the uniform law issued by the uniform law conference to the committee, and also give the committee the listing of the states which have adopted it, or some modification. Chairman Rokeberg noted Mr. Peterson indicates his letter listed the only changes made to the uniform Act by HB 321. He asked Representative Ryan if that was correct, noting it was hard to make that analysis without having the uniform Act, as far as the committee was concerned. Chairman Rokeberg also asked Representative Ryan if he had requested a sectional analysis from Legislative Legal and Research Services. Number 1978 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN replied that legislative legal had been very busy lately trying to draft bills for the deadline, and fighting cases in the court at Legislative Council's request, noting he thinks they have three current cases. He said his office will urge them to see what they can do with it. Number 1998 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Representative Ryan had talked to many investment houses in the state, and any other investment bankers, banks or other investment mediums. Chairman Rokeberg noted, as he took it, this would not affect those entities; the repeal of the "prudent man rule" and its replacement with this prudent investor Act was only in relationship to trusts. Number 2018 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated that was correct and noted it did not apply to the permanent fund either. He said he had called them early on and asked if they would like this law to be applicable to them. He stated they took some time to consider it and decided to pass. Representative Ryan commented his response was that he had no desire to include them against their wishes. Representative Ryan also said he had spoken with Jerry Weaver from NBA (National Bank of Alaska) who was the spokesperson for, not only NBA, but also a consortium of representatives of the banking community. Representative Ryan stated Mr. Weaver said he had seen the bill and didn't have any problem with it, but commented he would get back to Representative Ryan if he came up with something. Representative Ryan stated that trust business was an arcane sort of a business, it was not very large in Alaska, but was building since the passage of the [trust] law last year. He said, however, a few banks have trust companies, noting he thought both KeyBank (KeyBank National Association) and NBA do. Number 2064 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG added that both NBA and First National (First National Bank of Anchorage) have trust departments, and he stated it might even be helpful if Representative Ryan had some kind of correspondence from those institutions indicating they had looked the legislation over. Number 2070 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented he had been assured by Mr. Weaver that they had, but he would have somebody go back and check. Number 2077 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained he was suggesting they help build the record here so HB 321 could proceed. Number 2082 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that there was quite a record, and he would have Mr. Peterson provide the committee with more information, if that was the wish of the committee, than they would probably want to see. Number 2095 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated there were just a few things he would recommend; he didn't think he was asking for any more than any of his colleagues "down the stream" would be asking for, and noted he was attempting to assist Representative Ryan. Number 2103 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented he was sure everyone understood this trust business very well and said he would have his staff get on that. Number 2114 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if investment bankers that act at the behest of, or (indisc.) by their clients to make investments, would be governed by this particular provision. Number 2120 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated, from inquiries made last year when they were working on the trust bill, that, to his knowledge there are no investment bankers in Alaska. Number 2130 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that Merrill Lynch (Merrill Lynch and Company, Incorporated), Paine Webber (Paine Webber Incorporated) and all (indisc.) are investment banking houses. Number 2135 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN replied that those institutions do not claim to be investment bankers according to what they had done last year, but perhaps the institutions had reassessed themselves. Number 2140 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that was just the companies' general definition. He said he meant that is what they are, and stated, "You can authorize -- you could sign a contract setting up a managed account for investment purposes with those institutions that gives the discretion to the investment manager to run those accounts. Now will this bill affect any of that type of business?" Number 2160 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN replied in the negative. He stated one does not create a legal trust situation when one does that, referring to the first paragraph, "A personal representative is a fiduciary who should observe the standards of care applicable to trustees, under AS 13.36.200." Number 2184 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted then, that to Representative Ryan's knowledge, there was no other duty in state statute for investment houses and things of that nature, unless there was a formal trust established, asking if this only affected that. Number 2191 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that you have to be a trust company to handle trusts in the state of Alaska, they had set that up last year in the bill, as to what constitutes the Alaska trust Act and how it was structured. Number 2206 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "But it's your opinion, Representative Ryan, that the act of an individual under contract for an investment banking house and managing money is not the creation of a trust, is that correct?" Number 2215 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that a trust has particular rules (indisc.) has to operate, and (indisc.) managed accounts under a investment house was not the same as a trust. Number 2225 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he was sorry Mr. Kirkpatrick (Willis Kirkpatrick, Director, Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations, Department of Commerce and Economic Development) could not be here to elucidate on this for the record, in order to make sure. Number 2234 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 4:00 p.m. The committee reconvened at 4:03 p.m. Number 2236 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he would entertain a motion. Number 2249 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 321 to the next committee of referral with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. Number 2251 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, HB 321 was so moved. ADJOURNMENT Number 2258 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting at 4:06 p.m.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|