Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/29/1993 08:00 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 29, 1993
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice-Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Cliff Davidson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
EO 83: Merging the State Geographic Board and the
Historic Sites Advisory Committee into the Alaska
Historical Commission in the Department of Natural
Resources.
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
EO 85: Moving the bonding program that serves as security
for the collection of wages and payments for raw
fish from the Department of Labor to the
Department of Revenue.
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
EO 86: Transferring the functions and duties of the
division of fisheries rehabilitation, enhancement
and development (FRED) to the Department of Fish
and Game.
HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
WITNESS REGISTER
Kristie Leaf
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-3500
Position Statement: Summarized the intent of EO 83
Leo Land
Box 122
Haines, Alaska 99827
Phone: 766-2466
Position Statement: Expressed concern over the disposition
of Native Alaskan artifacts
Donald G. Study, Acting Director
Division of Labor Standards and Safety
Alaska Department of Labor
P.O. Box 20630
Juneau, Alaska 99802-0630
Phone: 465-4855
Position Statement: Explained the transfer of the bonding
program
Rod Mourant, Assistant Commissioner
Alaska Department of Revenue
P.O.Box 110400
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0400
Phone: 465-2300
Position Statement: Testified on EO 85
Geron Bruce, Special Assistant II
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 465-4100
Position Statement: Testified on EO 86
Jeff Koenings, Director
Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement and
Development
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 465-4100
Position Statement: Explained the Division's oversight
functions
Representative Cliff Davidson
State Capitol, Room 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-2487
Position Statement: Asked questions related to EO 86
John McMullen
Prince William Sound Aquaculture
P.O. Box 1110
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Phone: 424-4334
Position Statement: Testified on the role of the Division of
Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement
Development
Bob Clasby, Acting Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Phone: 465-4210
Position Statement: Testified on EO 86
PREVIOUS ACTION
ORDER: EO 83
SHORT TITLE: MERGER OF STATE GEOGRAPHIC BOARD AND HISTORIC
SITES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SPONSOR(S): GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
TITLE: Merging the State Geographic Board and the Historic
Sites Advisory Committee into the Alaska Historical
Commission in the Department of Natural Resources.
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/11/93 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES,
FINANCE
01/19/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/29/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ORDER: EO 85
SHORT TITLE: MOVING THE BONDING PROGRAM RE RAW FISH FROM
DOL TO DOR
SPONSOR(S): GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
TITLE: Moving the bonding program that serves as security
for the collection of wages and payments for raw fish from
the Department of Labor to the Department of Revenue.
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/11/93 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES,
FINANCE
01/19/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/29/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ORDER: EO 86
SHORT TITLE: TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS FROM FRED TO ADF&G
SPONSOR(S): GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
TITLE: Transferring the functions and duties of the
division of fisheries, rehabilitation, enhancement and
development (FRED) to the Department of Fish and Game.
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/11/93 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES,
FINANCE
01/19/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/29/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-10, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS called the meeting of the House
Resources Committee to order at 8:07 a.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson,
Bunde, Carney, Davies, Green and James.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee would address
three executive orders, and referred to the procedure for
adopting or rejecting executive orders, specified under
Article III, Section 23 of the Alaska Constitution. He
noted legislative action had to be taken by the sixtieth day
of the session, or the executive orders automatically become
law. The chairman acknowledged Representative David
Finkelstein joined the meeting at 8:10 a.m.
EO 83: MERGER OF STATE GEOGRAPHIC BOARD AND HISTORIC SITES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced further that the committee would
first consider EO 83. He then introduced the first witness.
KRISTIE LEAF, representing the GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, addressed
the committee with a summary of the intent of EO 83. She
said the consolidation was recommended by a task force and
the same duties now met in the separate entities would be
maintained. She said the new consolidated commission would
have a total membership of nine individuals, reduced from
the current 21 among the three separate entities. Ms. Leaf
cited increased accessibility and lower administrative costs
as justification for the consolidation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Ms. Leaf why a zero fiscal
note had been submitted if any cost savings were
anticipated.
MS. LEAF responded that the FY 94 budget did not reflect the
savings that might be realized, and no figures were
available at this time.
Number 164
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON referred to the memorandum in
members' packets from the Division of Legal Services
(1/18/93, Lauterbach). He asked Ms. Leaf about the possible
legal question discussed in paragraph two of the memorandum,
regarding the removal of partially exempt employees into
classified service by executive order.
MS. LEAF told the committee that aspect of EO 83 had not
been looked at by the Governor's Office.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested the next committee of
referral address that question.
Number 194
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES MOVED that the committee records
reflect the committee's concern over the potential legal
problem in paragraph two of the Lauterbach memo, and
cautioned that precedent not be set.
Number 218
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE suggested the committee draft a
letter reflecting that recommendation.
Number 234
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked members if there were any objections
to the motion that the committee attach a letter of intent
with the executive order noting the committee's concern
about partially exempt state employees' status, as
identified in the 1/18/93 Lauterbach memo. Hearing no
objection, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 257
LEO LAND of Haines offered testimony on EO 83. He expressed
concern over the disposition of Native Alaskan artifacts as
a result of the changes called for in EO 83.
Number 330
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES explained that only the
structure of the Historical Commission would change, not the
policies of the committees it would encompass.
Number 351
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out lines seven and eight on
page two of EO 83, which referred to the exclusive right of
the state to conduct field archaeology on state-owned or
controlled land. In response to Mr. Land's concerns, he
noted: "Nothing in AS 41.35.010 - 41.35.240 diminishes the
cultural rights and responsibilities of persons of
aboriginal descent or infringes upon their right of
possession and use of those resources that may be considered
of historic, prehistoric, or archaeological value."
Number 372
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to move EO 83 from
committee with the letter of intent regarding the Lauterbach
memo and adopting the zero fiscal notes. He asked for
unanimous consent.
EO 85: MOVING THE BONDING PROGRAM RE RAW FISH FROM DOL TO
DOR
Number 385
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
motion. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. The chairman
announced the committee would next hear testimony on EO 85,
which related to the transfer from the Department of Labor
(DOL) to the Department of Revenue (DOR), of a bonding
program for the collection of wages and payment for raw
fish.
Number 394
DONALD G. STUDY, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS AND SAFETY, DOL, explained the transfer of the
bonding program was to make the program's administration
more expedient, as the DOR already administered related
programs. He said an automated system that handled the
program would also be transferred to the DOR. He explained
the zero fiscal note did not reflect a savings of $55,000
previously deleted from the DOL's FY 94 budget submission.
Number 434
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented the memorandum from Legal
Services regarding EO 85 showed substantial changes in the
fish bonding program, and he hoped the committee would
address that question.
Number 444
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON referred to the same memo, dated
January 19, 1993 from George Utermohle to the House
Resources Committee. He mentioned a section regarding
provisions for adopting regulations on the fish bonding
program within the DOR. He felt executive orders were not
the best way to effect changes such as this one, and that a
bill allowing for provisions for substantive changes might
be more effective.
Number 465
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE expressed concern that it would not be
wise to leave questions unanswered, allowing for future
changes in regulations that were not intended.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES offered her concern that provisions for
filing evidence of compliance were not clearly specified in
EO 85. She felt that aspect of the bonding program should
also have specifically been transferred to the DOR.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN agreed with Representative Hudson's
view and suggested the committee could do as they did with
EO 83, and attach a letter of intent expressing the concern
about evidence of compliance regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE added it was important to provide for
consistency in the state bureaucracy. He agreed with the
proposal before the committee to include a letter of intent
with EO 85.
Number 508
ROD MOURANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DOR, testified that the
issue of transferring the fish bonding program had been
studied in the past, with the conclusion that such a move
would make good administrative sense. He said the DOR
presently required evidence of compliance in fish bonding
for the purposes of potential tax liability. Under EO 85,
he explained, the responsibility for the verification of a
labor bond would be transferred to the DOR. He said it was
the intent of the DOR that regulations be adopted requiring
a certificate of evidence of bond to be presented prior to a
license being issued.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES supported the transfer and the
simplification of the process, but expressed concern that
procedural matters not be overlooked. She agreed concerns
should be expressed in writing.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON discussed the powers of the DOR to
implement regulations necessary to implement the transfer of
the fish bonding program. Noting the Commissioner of the
DOR had the authority to adopt such regulation, he said that
was sufficient provision.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES concurred with Representative Hudson.
He did not see any substantive change in the duties of the
respective commissioners.
Number 565
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Mr. Mourant whether there would
be any transfer of functions or positions from the DOL to
the DOR when the bonding program was transferred.
MR. MOURANT responded that there would not be any dedicated
positions or funding transferred with the program. Within
the DOR, he said the bonding program would be located in the
Income and Excise Audit Division. He added it was the
Department's intent to protect fisheries employees and would
adopt the necessary regulations to accomplish that.
Number 585
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to pass EO 85 from the
committee.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
motion.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered a friendly AMENDMENT to the
motion that the committee attach a letter of intent to EO 85
regarding the committee's concern about the bonding
procedure and compliance verification.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON ACCEPTED the friendly AMENDMENT and
revised his motion that EO 85 be passed from committee with
individual recommendations and including the letter of
intent for the next committee of referral.
EO 86: TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS FROM FRED DIVISION TO ADF&G
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS suggested the committee add to the motion
the acceptance of the fiscal note. He asked for objections
to the motion, and hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. He then
presented EO 86 for the committee's attention.
TAPE 93-10, Side B
Number 000
GERON BRUCE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT II, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH
AND GAME (ADF&G), explained the intention of EO 86 was to
place the functions of the Division of Fish Rehabilitation,
Enhancement and Development (FRED) into the ADF&G as a
whole, eliminating the FRED division. He described the
history of the FRED division, and its successful efforts in
developing salmon fisheries. He discussed the growing role
of non-profit hatcheries in the success of fisheries
development in Alaska. The action proposed in EO 86, he
said, was in response to a need to streamline government.
He added that a savings of $300,000 was already realized in
the ADF&G's FY 93 budget, and any further savings had not
been identified.
MR. BRUCE added the core functions of the FRED division
would continue, particularly support of the private sector,
limnology, and disease control, among others.
Number 106
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Bruce what efficiencies
would result from implementation of EO 86.
MR. BRUCE cited some administrative savings, and noted that
some programs were presently operated partially by separate
divisions and integration of such programs would be more
efficient. In response to Rep. Davies' question regarding
the zero fiscal note and where savings would be realized,
Mr. Bruce responded that initial savings of $300,000 had
already been taken in FY 93.
MR. BRUCE said additional savings beyond that initial amount
had not yet been identified. Many functions of the FRED
division and the Commercial Fisheries Division would be
maintained, he added.
Number 149
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Bruce to identify
overlapping functions which EO 86 promised to eliminate.
MR. BRUCE answered that, as an example, both the FRED
division and the Commercial Fisheries Division had area
management biologists specializing in different areas but
stationed in the same location. He explained that in such
situations, it might be possible to combine those functions
in one individual with possibly an assistant, which could
result in some savings.
Number 174
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked whether the role of the
Department in offering technical assistance and oversight to
the private sector hatcheries would be diminished or remain
essentially the same.
MR. BRUCE said that question would best be answered by Mr.
Jeff Koenings.
Number 190
JEFF KOENINGS, DIRECTOR of the FRED division, explained the
oversight functions for conducting the state's private non-
profit aquaculture programs. He reported the FRED division
had made efforts to strengthen those areas of its services.
He reiterated it was best to combine functions that
overlapped. The strengthening of protection for both wild
and hatchery stocks was a priority of the department that
would not be diminished by EO 86, he said.
Number 245
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE expressed surprise that a whole
division of state government could be eliminated without
saving money. He asked about the status of state employees
working in privatized state hatcheries, and whether they
would, as a result of EO 86, remain state employees.
MR. KOENINGS responded that four facilities were to be
transferred to the private sector, and state employees at
those facilities might either be employed by the
associations taking over the facilities, or be involved in
the state employment bumping pools. He said the answers to
those questions were not known yet and possible alternatives
were being explored. He expressed hope that the private
sector might pick up some of the displaced employees
affected by the changes.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested few state employees would be
willing to give up the state's benefits package to pursue
employment in the private sector. He also voiced concerns
that his constituents would be interested in the
preservation of sport fishing enhancement. He said he was
doubtful that the private sector would pick up that role.
Number 280
MR. KOENINGS answered the concerns raised by Rep. Bunde by
saying that in the FY 94 budget, sport fish producing
facilities located in Anchorage would be transferred to the
Division of Sport Fish. Those facilities, he said, were
user-pay facilities through federal and ADF&G funding
sources and did not rely on general fund money for
operation.
(Chairman Williams announced for the record that
Representative Eldon Mulder joined the meeting at 9:05 a.m.)
Number 304
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that although he favored the
consolidation, he had concerns about the actual savings that
would result. In particular, he asked Mr. Koenings whether
the $300,000 saved in the FY 93 budget might be requested
again in the FY 94 budget.
MR. KOENINGS responded that the department did not
anticipate the budget creeping up again, and that the money
already saved included reductions in staff.
Number 333
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES supported the consolidation, and added
the role of fisheries rehabilitation was a very important
one for the state. She was concerned that the emphasis on
rehabilitation and enhancement would be diminished with the
elimination of the FRED division. She questioned the
effectiveness of non-profit facilities to fill that role.
Number 350
MR. KOENINGS told the committee that the Department would
work in partnership with the non-profit hatcheries to
develop fish populations, and said the state's abilities to
perform its share had been diluted with reductions in
funding. He stressed the planning process and management
plans in place had given the state a good working
relationship with the private sector.
Number 372
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated more savings ought to be
realized by the elimination of an entire division than what
had already been taken from the budget.
Number 378
MR. KOENINGS responded that it had been planned to take that
$300,000 cut in anticipation of this consolidation of
functions, and that the adjustments being made now should
not call for further cuts. He added, though, that new
problems arose that had to be addressed by the Department,
and there were areas where expansion might be foreseen. He
told the committee that by next year there might be more
specific numbers available on future savings or funding
needs.
Number 408
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked on the diminished
responsibilities in meeting the functions of the FRED
division, and asked Mr. Koenings to clarify whether those
functions would be absorbed into the Commercial Fisheries
Division.
MR. KOENINGS responded that that was a correct appraisal.
He added the process was ongoing and would come to fruition
on July 1, 1993. He explained that a combined division
would result with the critical functions of both former
divisions intact.
Number 415
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON requested the ADF&G provide more
specific details about which positions would be eliminated
and how others would be assigned in the new scheme of the
department.
MR. KOENINGS explained that an interim structure was set up
where interim deputy directors would handle the
responsibilities and functions of both divisions under the
new structure. A core planning group, headed by himself,
would seek advice from people throughout the department and
affected divisions. He said there would be both vertical
and horizontal integration of responsibilities to reach the
ultimate new structure, which would be recommended to the
ADF&G's Commissioner on July 1, 1993.
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked whether the elimination of the
division would accomplish anything other than getting rid of
stationery that says the FRED division. He asked Mr.
Koenings what his role as Director of the FRED division
would be, after July 1, 1993.
Number 460
MR. KOENINGS replied that there was a possibility that his
own job could be eliminated.
Number 474
REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON asked about the number of
employees affected who were state employees in name only,
but who actually worked for and were paid by the private,
non-profit associations. He pointed to the division's
involvement in bottom-fish.
Number 484
MR. KOENINGS explained that in the new division, there would
be commercial fisheries management and development
functions, with an ability to effect management decisions in
the bottom-fish area. The savings that might accrue to the
department would allow the new division to move in that
direction. Currently, there were no resources to meet the
needs in that area, he explained.
MR. KOENINGS further explained that in the FY 94 budget, the
program receipts' authority had been eliminated, so the
Department could not take in funds from aquaculture
associations. Employees at those facilities, he said, would
be operated by the aquaculture associations and not through
the transfer of money to the state.
Number 510
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked what the state would gain from
this arrangement other than just cutting state employees out
of successful hatcheries and thereby undermining the state's
ability to have a close relationship with those hatcheries.
Number 520
MR. KOENINGS believed the department's oversight
responsibility was carried out whether a facility was
operated by a regional or non-profit association. He said
what was good for preservation of a state facility was good
for the non-profit association as well. He did not foresee
the quality of programs being diminished by the proposed
plan, and indicated the non-profits might be able to operate
the facilities cheaper than the state.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON questioned the reasons for getting rid
of the FRED division's language, and suggested the
possibility of shrinking and reorganizing that division. He
also expressed concern about keeping technical support for
hatcheries. He said he would like to see a plan that was
more "fleshed-out." He was also interested in the long-
range plans of the Department.
Number 570
MR. BRUCE said the commissioner was trying to proceed as
Representative Hudson suggested.
TAPE 93-11, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. BRUCE explained the Commissioner's flexibility was
limited as long as the FRED division's duties were
established by statute. Executive Order 86, he said,
provided that flexibility. He also said the commissioner
had been aware of the public and legislative interest in the
continuation of the programs located within the FRED
division. After soliciting public opinion the commissioner
would come back to the legislature with his plan, and
essential services would be preserved, he said.
Numbder 047
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES questioned the underlying motivation
for the action. She said both net results and cost-savings
were critical, and the emphasis on the FRED division's
services seemed to be getting lost without resulting in any
real savings, which should be the bottom-line in such a
measure.
Number 088
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed the committee needed a clearer
idea of the department's plans before taking action on EO
86.
MR. KOENINGS presented a chart showing the interim structure
that would be in place until July 1, 1993.
Number 103
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY was not convinced the
consolidation was a good idea, but said further information
could change his mind.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE inquired into the need to combine the
FRED division's functions if a savings had already been
realized, especially if the newly reorganized department's
first action was to hire new employees.
Number 171
JOHN McMULLEN of PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND AQUACULTURE in
Cordova, testified to the role of the FRED division. He
contrasted the low catches of the 1960's and 1970's with
much larger catches in recent years. He cited favorable
environmental factors as partly responsible for the growth
in catches. Regarding the implementation of changes
proposed in EO 86, Mr. McMullen suggested a scenario where
certain functions and services of the FRED division might be
maintained for user agencies. He recommended the FRED
division be realigned in a way that preserved the division's
role as an advocate for salmon enhancement.
Number 294
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. McMullen if his move from
state employment to the private enterprise was an example of
a smooth transition that could be followed by other division
employees affected by the change in division status.
MR. McMULLEN responded that he had done other things after
leaving the FRED division and did not go directly to Prince
William Sound Aquaculture Corporation.
Number 302
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. McMullen's position on EO
86.
MR. McMULLEN did not argue for the preservation of the
entire FRED division, but for those functions which he
described as being very important to the success of non-
profit hatcheries.
Number 379
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that although the FRED
division contributed to building up fish stocks in Alaska,
history had shown what could happen. He said the division
served a critical function and he wanted more specific
information before voting on EO 86.
Number 342
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES had a question regarding the cyclical
nature of fish populations and the drastic changes in a
twenty-year period.
Number 355
MR. McMULLEN referred to the resurgence in fish populations
in 1979, and cited factors like water temperatures, plankton
levels and other environmental influences.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented there was an even more acute
need now for good fisheries management as we approached a
down cycle in fish populations.
MR. McMULLEN agreed and added it was important to diversify
the salmon industry.
Number 392
BOB CLASBY testified on behalf of the DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL
FISHERIES. He had not heard objections within the division
to the proposed consolidation. He emphasized the cuts taken
in the FY 93 budget were the first step in the department's
integration.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE requested the committee also hear from
the Division of Sport Fish before taking action on EO 86.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Number 430
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced EO 86 would be held over until
an unspecified date in early February, and the committee
would not meet on Monday, February 1, 1993, but members of
the committee were invited to attend a meeting of the
Special Committee on Fisheries at 8:30 a.m. in Room 17. He
also announced the committee would hold an overview on the
Mental Health Lands issue on February 3, 1993, at 8 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no other business, Chairman Williams adjourned the
meeting at 9:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|