01/25/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Department of Administration, Division of Personnel | |
| HB21 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 25, 2005
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 21
"An Act relating to false statements in state election
advertising; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 21
SHORT TITLE: POLITICAL ADVERTISING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) STA, JUD
01/25/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
MILA COSGROVE, Director
Division of Personnel
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the overview of the Department of
Administration's Division of Personnel.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 21.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of APOC during
the hearing on HB 21.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:01:54 AM. Representatives
Gatto, Elkins, Lynn, Gardner, and Seaton were present at the
call to order. Representatives Ramras and Gruenberg arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW(S)
^DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL
8:02:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was the
overview from the Division of Personnel.
8:02:55 AM
MILA COSGROVE, Director, Division of Personnel, Department of
Administration, said the division has changed considerably. In
September 2004, the governor announced that he wanted to
integrate human resource (HR) services to form an enterprise
model of service delivery. She said on October 16, all HR staff
transferred into the direct line of supervision of the Division
of Personnel, and by November 10, most of those individuals had
been physically moved and co-located, and their assignments had
been changed. She emphasized that the transitional change has
been massive. She referenced a one-page handout [included in
the committee packet], entitled, "Division of Personnel HR
Integration Year One Accomplishments." She listed the
governor's four goals, as noted on the handout, to: standardize
HR policy and practice within the executive branch; implement
enterprise technology systems and tools to improve service
delivery; increase operational efficiency; and reduce
administrative costs.
8:05:35 AM
MS. COSGROVE gave examples of how all four goals are being
reached, including a new system that allows unions and
management to go through the grievance process online. She said
there is a new online position description system that will
allow people to submit classification actions through the web.
In terms of reducing administrative costs, Ms. Cosgrove stated
that the division has reduced the budgeted positions by at least
7.9 percent. She noted that the average salary range of HR
employees has decreased from 15.3 to 14.7, thus, the division is
doing more "with a whole lot less."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what the enterprise model of delivery
mentioned by Ms. Cosgrove is and, if it is the new model, how it
differs from the old model.
8:08:41 AM
MS. COSGROVE explained that with the earlier model, the 14
different operating agencies had their own HR services,
including managers and payroll, and approximately 225 people
delivered those services. After integration, all of the people
providing HR services were integrated into the Division of
Personnel.
8:09:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the number of grievances increases
when the grievance process is streamlined, and if there is a
backlog of filed grievances.
8:10:44 AM
MS. COSGROVE said the only change is that the grievance is filed
electronically, and she said she is not aware of an increase in
filing or a significant backlog in grievances.
8:11:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON wanted clarity on how agencies are charged for the
HR services, and if the savings are passed on to them.
8:11:51 AM
MS. COSGROVE said the division now has a complex cost allocation
model that is based on each individual worker. A good portion
of the budget comes from federal funds, and some of it comes
from general funds. She noted that approximately 85 percent of
the budget is staffing charges. She explained that there's been
an overall reduction in the number of bodies, but associated
costs, such as the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)
and leasing costs, have gone up. In response to a question from
Chair Seaton, she said that - looking at the state as a whole -
it could be said there is definite cost savings, while the
prices of individual agencies may fluctuate more or less,
depending on the number of individuals servicing them now.
8:15:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON queried whether individual agencies might have seen
a cost increase because the Division of Personnel functions are
being charged back to them.
8:15:39 AM
MS. COSGROVE said that the entire model is being split 14 ways.
She turned to a one-page handout [included in the committee
packet] that shows a functional overview of the Division of
Personnel. She pointed out that the division has administrative
services, and its own information technology services. In
response to a question from Representative Gatto, she explained
that she uses the phrase "like pay for like work" rather than
"equal pay for equal work," because that is how it read in
statute.
8:19:35 AM
MS. COSGROVE, in response to a question from Representative
Gatto, said she is not aware of any overarching grievances that
have been filed regarding discrimination issues. She noted
that, within the last several years, an outside review of the
classification scheme showed that there weren't any gender,
racial, or other inequities; however, she said there are times
when unions assert that there is a class of people who is
underpaid compared to another class, and then the division does
an analysis.
8:21:18 AM
MS. COSGROVE, in response to a question from Chair Seaton,
stated that the classification and pay plan is separate from the
state's pay policy. The former assigns relative pay, and the
latter sets the actual dollar amount. She said the dollar
amounts of the ranges change, and that an employee can get step-
raises within a range. In response to a follow-up question from
Chair Seaton, she said a Range 19 in one state agency can be a
different level than a Range 19 in another state agency.
8:24:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON surmised that the policy description of a
particular range should be the same even if the pay is
different. He requested a spreadsheet detailing pay ranges.
8:25:05 AM
MS. COSGROVE offered to provide a list of pay ranges by
bargaining unit for the committee.
8:25:30 AM
MS. COSGROVE returned to the division chart, to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Program (EEOP). She explained what that
program entails, and said that it is a successful program. In
response to Chair Seaton, she said EEOP is not the same as
Alaska Commission on Human Rights, but that the two interact.
In response to a question from Chair Seaton, she said it is the
division's hope that people with a complaint within the
administration go through EEOP before filing with the Alaska
Commission on Human Rights. In response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg, she said she believes that the EEOP
and the Alaska Commission on Human Rights should be kept
separate, because the division provides proactive training to
management to ensure that problems don't arise, and it resolves
informal complaints.
8:29:31 AM
MS. COSGROVE pointed to Workplace Alaska on the chart and said
that agency has won awards. The agency works with hiring
managers to maintain consistency with employment law.
Furthermore, it also houses a recruitment section that works
with the Department of Corrections, the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities, and the Department of Public
Safety, to recruit people who are certified by the Alaska Police
Standard Council, including: troopers, correctional officers,
and airport safety officers. The agency also houses the
Employee Call Center.
8:31:46 AM
MS. COSGROVE said Employee Services also manages the Employee
Records function and a small program called WorkFirst, which
works to get people on occupational disability back on the work
force. She offered an example.
8:34:07 AM
MS. COSGROVE, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner regarding how effective the program is, said the
division is presently putting together a report. She offered to
send the report to the committee.
8:34:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON said there is a problem in Seward in getting and
retaining corrections officers because of the backlog and timing
in actually getting a person hired. He said he appreciates the
efforts of HR services to speed the process.
8:36:37 AM
MS. COSGROVE, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
said "that is part of our WorkFirst program." She offered
further details. In response to a follow-up question, from
Representative Gruenberg, she said recruitment is set up so any
person with disabilities does not have an adverse experience in
the hiring process.
8:39:09 AM
MS. COSGROVE, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg regarding the grievance process, said people who are
not state employees can file a complaint with her, while state
employees go first through their department coordinators and
then, depending on the issue, they come to the division. She
stated that, almost exclusively, employment related grievances
end up in HR. She offered further details.
8:40:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG
8:40:22 AM
MS. COSGROVE, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, said there is a right to appeal. She spoke about the
procedure and the right to file through the federal government.
In response to a follow-up question from Representative
Gruenberg regarding dissatisfaction with a decision about
hiring, she said she believes people have formal complaint
rights and can go through the statewide ADA coordinator's
office, as well as filing through federal avenues. In response
to questions from Chair Seaton and Representative Gruenberg, she
offered her belief that people would also have the option to
file through the Alaska Human Rights Commission or EEOP.
8:41:40 AM
MS. COSGROVE explained that each agency has an ADA coordinator.
8:42:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there is a state law that
specifies what the procedure is.
8:42:30 AM
MS. COSGROVE said she would get back to Representative Gruenberg
on that question.
8:42:52 AM
MS. COSGROVE directed attention back to the handout and pointed
to management services, which includes training and development,
statewide planning and research, and the management consulting
unit. She described the function of each service. The
management consulting unit includes the general agencies group,
the resources group, the public protection group, the DOT&PF
group, and the [Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS)]
group.
8:47:37 AM
MS. COSGROVE, in response to a question from Representative
Gatto, said there are 14,500 permanent employees in the state
executive branch core work force. She estimated there are
approximately 1,200-1,300 supervisors and probably another 200-
300 people operating as division directors or in a supervisory
capacity in a partially exempt service.
8:48:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said it sounds like one out of ten is a
supervisor, which is above the recommended one out of five or
six.
8:49:05 AM
MS. COSGROVE surmised that one out of ten sounds about right,
but many of those supervisors have assistants helping them. In
response to a question from Representative Gatto regarding
whether a supervisor with an office manager would be counted as
two supervisors, answered that it depends on whether it was a
permanent duty assignment; if that manager was indeed
supervising staff, he/she would be placed in a supervisory
bargaining unit and that position would then be included in the
numbers the committee is reviewing. She noted that on the
division's web page, under web-based planning and research, is a
workforce profile.
8:51:08 AM
MS. COSGROVE pointed out the box on the handout showing
technical services (TS), which includes a general government TS
center, a resources TS center, a public protection TS center, a
DOT&PF TS center, and a [DHSS] TS center.
8:52:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON said one of the reasons for overviews is to look at
missions and measures. He offered a recent history of adopting
missions and measures. He stated concern that the department
may go one direction while the legislature has not formally
adopted measures to give the administration the tools to
proceed. He mentioned the Budgetary Finance Committee. He
asked Ms. Cosgrove to briefly address missions and measures and
the procedures of the division regarding them.
8:55:09 AM
MS. COSGROVE said the missions and measures of 2001 and 2002
would not match today's department, because the missions have
changed. The old ones were good for the limited core services
existing at that time. She said HR is not only looking at
client base but is considering the following: overall
effectiveness base, quality of how services are delivered,
recruitment, internal alignment, and effectiveness of training.
8:57:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he wants continued communication in the future
regarding this issue.
8:58:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that AS 37.07.050 requires that
agencies submit a report annually. He asked if her agency has
submitted such a report.
8:58:35 AM
MS. COSGROVE responded, "The document that I referred to, in
terms of the workforce profile, we believe meets the
requirements in terms of legislative reporting." She offered
further details. In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Gruenberg, she said she has not personally
checked the document against statute, but would be happy to do
so.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:04:10 AM to 9:04:22 AM.
HB 21-POLITICAL ADVERTISING
9:04:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 21, "An Act relating to false statements in state
election advertising; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt HB 21 as the working
document. There being no objection, HB 21 was before the
committee.
9:04:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of
HB 21, said the bill is coined the "liars' bill." He said the
moral intention of the bill is excellent, but trying to prove it
is the challenge. He said it can be shown that people do cross
the line [regarding making false statements during campaigns].
9:06:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said there are three options to counter an
attack of false statements: to counter with a similar type of
attack; to spend a considerable amount in defense against the
falsehood; and to file a complaint to the court system. He said
he hopes that HB 21 will provide a simpler method by allowing a
person to file a complaint with the Alaska Public Office
Commission (APOC). A person would use a simple form and provide
proof that the statement is false, and APOC, under an expedited
review, would be able to dispute the [false] advertisement and
force it to be discontinued and would have the authority to fine
the offending campaign or individual. He said the purpose of HB
21 is to ensure that the standards for truth in advertising
would apply to political campaigns, just as they do in regard to
buying commercial products or service.
9:08:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS talked about a 1994 gubernatorial campaign
when someone was charged with domestic violence - a charge which
was later proven to be unfounded. He offered further examples.
He said the result of false accusations is that good people are
backing away from the process to protect their integrity.
9:12:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON let the committee know that his intent was not to
move HB 21 from committee today.
9:12:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she applauds Representative Ramras's
intent. She described a scenario in which a private citizen may
speak on the radio, not in the form of paid advertising.
9:13:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said that issue has been considered. He
indicated that a person speaking on his own behalf via public
radio [has that right through] the First Amendment. He said he
thinks adding the word "paid" to the bill might clean up the
process.
9:13:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN applauded the purpose of bill. He asked if
the bill differentiates between a purposeful lie versus a
situation where someone failed to check readily available facts.
He suggested it's the difference between a lie and being
incompetent. He offered an example where he had been accused of
being absent during contentious votes. He said anybody could
check the House journal to find out that wasn't true. He said,
"It's like debating what's the capital of North Dakota when you
can look at a map." He said responding to that may have given
wings to the lie and probably would have caused more damaged
than he suffered. He questioned whether he suffered damage,
since he was reelected.
9:16:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said Representative Lynn's example is
relevant. He said he thinks it would be beneficial to use APOC
as a referee, of sorts. He concurred that if a person chooses
to respond to false accusations, that person may dignify the
act.
9:17:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS, in response to a question from
Representative Elkins regarding whether the bill had been
checked for constitutionality, said the bill was shown to
Legislative Legal and Research Services, and he said his
recollection is that there is a law like this in the State of
Washington. Representative Ramras reiterated that First
Amendment rights are a concern. He noted that Representative
Bruce Weyhrauch suggested there could be language added, like
the previously mentioned word "paid." He said he would leave it
to the committee to decide.
9:19:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if it was practical or even
possible for APOC to do an adequate investigation in just a few
days.
9:20:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he thinks the committee should hear
from APOC on that issue.
9:20:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON turned to page 1 of the bill [lines 5-7], which
read as follows:
Sec. 15.13.092. False statements in election
advertising. (a) A person may not make a false
statement in election advertising with knowledge that
the statement is false or with a reckless disregard
for whether or not the statement is false.
CHAIR SEATON said he interpreted the language as only referring
to a situation in which someone knows that a statement is false.
9:21:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he thinks that's true. He said the
intent of HB 21 is to protect someone like Representative Lynn,
where the person who made the accusations could have know they
were false by looking at the records.
9:27:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON mentioned an incident during a Senate race when a
person was accused of "inadequate residency." He indicated that
being able to say whether a person is a resident is a legitimate
issue and a determination from APOC may take that issue off the
table when it's perfectly legitimate. He said challengers may
have a hard time if the intent is that they only talk about
themselves.
9:29:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO presented a possible scenario wherein an
opponent brags about his/her abilities as a candidate, but
someone may question his background in areas related to driving
under the influence or pedophilia and want that investigated.
9:29:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said Representative Gatto's point is well
taken; however, he turned back to Representative Lynn's
previously stated example and asked how a person defends against
that.
9:31:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS referred to Representative Gatto's
previously stated scenario. He said, "What if that statement
was made in a radio interview and somehow then it was picked up
by the press and printed in the press. It's not advertising,
it's not true, but it's there.
9:31:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said, "Then I think you have an entirely
different problem. He said he thinks there's a difference
between regular discourse in an interview and purposely sitting
down to write a campaign advertisement that is intentionally
false.
9:32:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to the following language in subsection
(c):
(c) If the person who disseminates the false
statement is not the maker of the false statement, the
person who disseminates the statement violates (a) of
this section only if the person had actual knowledge
that the statement was false before disseminating the
statement.
CHAIR SEATON said residency, in regard to where a person will
file, is loosely interpreted by the court. He asked if that
language would preclude someone talking about someone's
residency.
9:34:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he is not an attorney and doesn't
know how someone would specifically interpret the language. He
invited the committee to tighten up the language of the proposed
legislation. He restated the intent of HB 21.
9:36:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON said it is incumbent upon the committee to consider
what would and would not be acceptable with the outline of the
proposed legislation. He agreed that it will be a balancing act
[to figure it out].
9:37:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the policy against expanding
liable and slander causes of action is in accord with a long
line of U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme court cases. He
suggested HB 21 runs counter to that trend.
9:38:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he doesn't know.
9:38:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG shared an anecdote about his dog that
had been alive and prominently displayed in his campaign photo
when the photo was taken, but died shortly thereafter. He asked
if that would be considered an actionable lie.
9:40:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON paraphrased from [AS] 15.13.380,
[subsection (d), paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), included in the
committee packet], which read:
(d) If the commission expedites consideration,
the commission shall hold a hearing on the complaint
within two days after granting expedited
consideration. Not later than one day after affording
the respondent notice and an opportunity to be heard,
the commission shall
(1) enter an emergency order requiring the
violation to be ceased or to be remedied and assess
civil penalties under AS 15.13.390 if the commission
finds that the respondent has engaged in or is about
to engage in an act or practice that constitutes or
will constitute a violation of this chapter or a
regulation adopted under this chapter;
(2) enter an emergency order dismissing the
complaint if the commission finds that the respondent
has not or is not about to engage in an act or
practice that constitutes or will constitute a
violation of this chapter or a regulation adopted
under this chapter; or
(3) remand the complaint to the executive
director of the commission for consideration by the
commission on a regular rather than an expedited
basis.
9:41:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked how disruptive this process would be to a
candidate during his/her campaign.
9:42:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he thinks it would be very
disruptive, which is the intent of HB 21. He noted that each
election cycle is worse than the last one. He offered examples.
He questioned who will want to participate in the future.
Representative Ramras said it seems like this issue is right for
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
9:46:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to [AS 15.13.380, subsection
(g)], which read:
(g) A commission order under (d) or (e) of this
section may be appealed to the superior court by
either the complainant or respondent within 30 days in
accordance with the Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that that process would
hold in abeyance any order from APOC, until the appeal process
was complete. He explained that he is considering the timeline
of the process and would like feedback from APOC.
9:48:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that the steps to proceeding
with a suit include showing that the information is false. She
asked, "What about showing that the person knew it was false?"
Representative Gardner indicated that the legislation refers to
a person who presents false information, and she noted that
there have been times when organizations "do misleading or
intentionally false things." She offered examples.
9:49:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that the proposed legislation
could be used adversely. For example, if a political race was
close, one candidate could submit a report of falsehood against
his/her opponent, thereby pulling that opponent away to go deal
with the complaint.
9:49:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said Representative Gardner brings up some
interesting points. However, in the interest of time, he did
not respond to them. He emphasized that the issue surrounding
HB 21 is an important one and he encouraged the committee to
work on changing any language to "clean up the process."
9:50:36 AM
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), said it is difficult to determine the impact
of the bill on APOC, but she is sure it will have impact because
of the scope of the bill. She explained that the commission
already receives phone calls regarding the content of political
advertising, but during its 30-year history has had no authority
to address them, with one exception: the requirement through AS
15.13 regarding a "correct identifier." Ms. Miles also noted
that the commission has no authority regarding residency; that
rests with the Division of Elections.
9:52:40 AM
MS. MILES said the commission has not met yet regarding HB 21,
but she is speaking on behalf of the staff. She applauded
trying to "make campaigns more accountable." She said she has
concerns over First Amendment rights, specifically in regard to
including ballot proposition advertisements. She noted that
"administering the campaign disclosure law, with respect to
ballot propositions, is the most lenient." She offered
examples.
9:54:07 AM
MS. MILES said she looks forward to working on the bill. She
recommended that the committee consider that anything more than
taking the advertisement off the air and being subject to a $50
fine is not currently in statute. She said she would like
committee members to review AS 15.13.095; that Section speaks to
false statements in telephone polling or "calls to convince."
MS. MILES addressed the commission's complaint process. She
offered her understanding that the committee is "looking for
this to come before the commission on an expedited basis." She
noted that the statute is permissive and requires that when a
complaint is filed, the complainant must request expedited
consideration, the commission must meet within 48 hours to
decide whether or not to expedite the consideration, and the
hearing must occur within 48 hours if the complaint is accepted.
She continued as follows:
Because of that very short time frame, the regulations
that the commission has adopted regarding expedited
hearings virtually requires that the complainant
prosecute her or his own case. And that's simply
because, in the time frame, there's not sufficient
time for commission staff to conduct an in-depth
investigation. However, we are available to assist
the complainant with respect to issuing subpoenas and
many other administrative assisting skills.
MS. MILES, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, said she
believes that subpoenas can be served in a time-sensitive
manner.
9:57:52 AM
MS. MILES, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, confirmed that the hearings could extend in the
legislative session. However if any party to the complaint was
a legislator, the issue would be held in abeyance "until after
five days after the legislature adjourns, because of legislative
immunity from civil process." In response to a follow-up
question from Representative Gruenberg, she said it's her
understanding that a legislator cannot waive legislative
immunity, even if that legislator wants to participate in a
hearing before APOC. She said cases can certainly go for 130
days with no action.
9:59:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that the municipal elections
wouldn't be exempt. He asked Ms. Miles if she would provide the
committee with an estimated number of complaints received
regarding false advertising.
[HB 21 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:01:26 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|