Legislature(1993 - 1994)

02/15/1994 09:20 AM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
                                                                               
                             MINUTES                                           
                    SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                   
                        February 15, 1994                                      
                            9:20 a.m.                                          
                                                                               
  TAPES                                                                        
                                                                               
  SFC-94, #25, Side 1 (000-end)                                                
                                                                               
  CALL TO ORDER                                                                
                                                                               
  Senator  Drue  Pearce,  Co-chair, convened  the  meeting  at                 
  approximately 9:20 a.m.                                                      
                                                                               
  PRESENT                                                                      
                                                                               
  In addition to  Co-chairs Pearce and Frank,  Senators Kelly,                 
  and  Rieger were present.   Senators Sharp  and Jacko joined                 
  the meeting after it was in  progress.  Senator Kerttula was                 
  absent.                                                                      
                                                                               
  ALSO ATTENDING:   Josh Fink, aide  to Senator Kelly;  Portia                 
  Babcock,  aide  to Senator  Leman  and Senate  State Affairs                 
  Committee, sponsor of SJR 39;  Dean J. Guaneli, Chief, Legal                 
  Services  Section,  Criminal  Division,  Department of  Law;                 
  Dugan  Petty,   Director,  Division  of   General  Services,                 
  Department  of  Administration;  Clyde   Stoltzfus,  Special                 
  Assistant,    Commissioner's    Office,     Department    of                 
  Transportation   &   Public  Facilities;   Jerry  Gallagher,                 
  Legislative  Liaison, Department  of Natural  Resources; and                 
  Mike Greany, Director,  Legislative Finance Division;  aides                 
  to committee members and other members of the legislature.                   
                                                                               
  SUMMARY INFORMATION                                                          
                                                                               
  CSSB 212(L&C): An Act relating to the giving  of procurement                 
                 notices; changing the content of the required                 
                 procurement reports to the legislature by the                 
                 commissioner of  administration; relating  to                 
                 publications  produced  by   state  agencies;                 
                 establishing   an   innovative   construction                 
                 procurement   methods   pilot   program;  and                 
                 establishing    legislative    findings,    a                 
                 legislative purpose,  and legislative  intent                 
                 for state procurement;  and providing for  an                 
                 effective date.                                               
                                                                               
                 Josh  Fink,  aide to  Senator  Kelly  and the                 
                 Labor  & Commerce  Committee,  sponsor of  SB
                 212,  testified  in   support  of  the  bill.                 
                 Amendment 1  by Co-chair  Pearce was  ADOPTED                 
                 with  no  objections.    CSSB  212(FIN)   was                 
                 REPORTED OUT  of committee with a  "do pass,"                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
                 a  zero fiscal  notes for  the  Department of                 
                 Administration,   a   fiscal  note   for  the                 
                 Department  of  Administration-Statewide  for                 
                 $256.1, and a fiscal note for the  Department                 
                 of Transportation & Public Facilities in  the                 
                 amount of $5.0.                                               
                                                                               
  SJR 39:        Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of                 
                 the State of Alaska to guarantee, in addition                 
                 to the right  of the people to  keep and bear                 
                 arms as approved by the voters at the time of                 
                 ratification of the state  Constitution, that                 
                 the individual right  to keep  and bear  arms                 
                 shall not be denied or infringed by the state                 
                 or a political subdivision of the state.                      
                                                                               
                 Portia  Babcock,  aide   to  Senator   Leman,                 
                 sponsor of  SJR 39,  testified in  support of                 
                 the   resolution.     Dean   Guaneli,  Chief,                 
                 Department of Law,  testified to his concerns                 
                 for  existing  laws if  the  Constitution was                 
                 amended.  He stated that  SJR 1 was preferred                 
                 by   the   Department    of   Law   and   the                 
                 administration  in  general.     SJR  39  was                 
                 REPORTED OUT  of committee  with a  "do pass"                 
                 and a zero fiscal note from the Department of                 
                 Public  Safety,  and  a  fiscal note  in  the                 
                 amount  of   $2.2  from  the  Office  of  the                 
                 Governor, Division of Elections.                              
                                                                               
  CSSB 210(RES): An Act  relating to  disposals of  state land                 
                 within  five miles of the right-of-way of the                 
                 Dalton Highway  to a licensed  public utility                 
                 or  a licensed  common  carrier; relating  to                 
                 disposals  of  state land  for nonresidential                 
                 development in nodes of development along the                 
                 Dalton Highway; and allowing state leases and                 
                 materials   sales    for   construction    or                 
                 maintenance  of  airports  along  the  Dalton                 
                 Highway.                                                      
                                                                               
                 Senator Sharp,  sponsor of SB  210, testified                 
                 in  support  of  the bill.    Amendment  1 by                 
                 Senator Sharp was ADOPTED with no objections.                 
                 CSSB 210(FIN)  was REPORTED OUT  of committee                 
                 with a "do  pass" and  zero fiscal notes  for                 
                 the Department of  Natural Resources and  the                 
                 Department   of   Transportation   &   Public                 
                 Facilities.                                                   
                                                                               
  CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 212(L&C):                                             
                                                                               
                                                                               
       An Act relating  to the giving of  procurement notices;                 
       changing  the  content   of  the  required  procurement                 
       reports  to  the  legislature  by  the  commissioner of                 
       administration;  relating  to publications  produced by                 
       state agencies; establishing an innovative construction                 
       procurement  methods  pilot  program; and  establishing                 
       legislative  findings,  a   legislative  purpose,   and                 
       legislative intent for state procurement; and providing                 
       for an effective date.                                                  
                                                                               
  CO-CHAIR PEARCE announced that CSSB  212(L&C) was before the                 
  committee.  She invited Josh Fink, aide to Senator Kelly and                 
  the Labor & Commerce  Committee, sponsor of SB 212,  to come                 
  before the committee.                                                        
                                                                               
  JOSH  FINK  said  that  SB  212,  termed  the "buy  Alaskan"                 
  legislation, had several  components.   The idea behind  the                 
  bill was that the state is one of the largest  purchasers of                 
  goods and services  in the state purchasing  everything from                 
  road design and  construction services to copy  machines and                 
  paper and  pencils.  This bill aimed  to strengthen Alaska's                 
  economy   by  increasing  the   share  of  State  government                 
  contracts  going  to Alaskan  businesses.   This  bill would                 
  establish  an  Innovative  Construction Procurement  Methods                 
  pilot  program  within  Dept.  of  Transportation  &  Public                 
  Facilities (DOT&PF) for  a period of two years  to implement                 
  an Alaska Bonus Program to replace the current preferences.                  
                                                                               
  He  went  on  to  say that  current  incentives  include the                 
  Alaskan   Bidders    Preference,   Alaska    Subcontracting,                 
  Disadvantage    Business     Enterprises/Equal    Employment                 
  Opportunity  programs, Alaska  Products Preference,  and the                 
  Alaska  Hire  Program.     The   latter  two  were   largely                 
  unworkable,  under-utilized,   or  not   utilized  at   all.                 
  Allowing DOT/PF to  test, on a  trial basis, a bonus  system                 
  which provided bonuses at project completion  and encouraged                 
  the same policy goals would  be more economically beneficial                 
  for vendors,  reduce administrative costs  and bid protests,                 
  and could  likely be  used in  joint federal/state  projects                 
  where state preferences were currently not allowed.                          
                                                                               
  The  commissioner  would  establish   this  program  through                 
  regulation and report  to the  legislature on the  program's                 
  progress  15  to   27  months  after  implementation.     If                 
  successful,  the legislature  could  expand and  extend  the                 
  program indefinitely, replacing current preferences.                         
                                                                               
  Lastly, this bill  incorporates a number of  provisions from                 
  the "Make-It-Alaskan" legislation from the 17th Legislature,                 
  HB 245, which would  also increase the amount of  state work                 
  going  to  Alaskans.     This   bill  would:  1)   encourage                 
  procurement  officers   to  restrict   notice  of   contract                 
  solicitation to Alaskan suppliers  and providers of services                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  desiring to compete  for state contract work  (this practice                 
  is already standard in DOT/PF);  2) require the commissioner                 
  to  include  in  his  report  to  the legislature  on  state                 
  procurements,  the number  of  bidders located  in-state and                 
  out-of-state  that bid  or made  proposals on  procurements;                 
  and,   3)  replace  the  statutory  requirement  that  state                 
  publications be produced at state-operated facilities with a                 
  requirement that state publications be produced at a private                 
  sector facility located  in the state when practicable.   In                 
  addition, standards for the production of publications would                 
  be established  by the Dept.  of Administration, and  a cost                 
  box  would  be  required  for  all  publication's  exceeding                 
  $1,500.  With that, he concluded his testimony.                              
                                                                               
  In answer to Co-chair Frank, Mr. Fink said that page 4, line                 
  29,  is   where  the   section  relating   to  printing   of                 
  publications began.   Co-chair Pearce believed this  was the                 
  same language used in Co-chair Frank's  bill that was in the                 
  house.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Pearce  stated that  amendment  #1 was  before the                 
  committee.  She said it strengthened the cost box portion of                 
  SB 212.  She said  that it was not aimed at  the Division of                 
  Tourism's planner because  it was  not required by  statute.                 
  This was aimed at annual reports  required by law from state                 
  agencies.                                                                    
                                                                               
  SENATOR  KELLY MOVED for adoption  of amendment #1.  Hearing                 
  no objection, it was ADOPTED.                                                
                                                                               
  Senator  Kelly  MOVED  for  passage  of CSSB  212(FIN)  from                 
  committee  with individual  recommendations.   No  objection                 
  having  been  raised,  CSSB  212(FIN)  was REPORTED  OUT  of                 
  committee with  a "do  pass" recommendation,  a zero  fiscal                 
  note for the Department of Administration, a fiscal note for                 
  the Department of Administration-Statewide for $256.1, and a                 
  fiscal note for  the Department  of Transportation &  Public                 
  Facilities  in the  amount of  $5.0.   Co-chairs Pearce  and                 
  Frank,  Senators  Kelly, Sharp  and  Jacko voted  "do pass."                 
  Senator Rieger voted "no recommendation."                                    
                                                                               
  SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 39:                                              
                                                                               
       Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State                 
       of Alaska to guarantee, in addition to the right of the                 
       people to keep and bear arms  as approved by the voters                 
       at the time of ratification  of the state Constitution,                 
       that the  individual right to keep and  bear arms shall                 
       not be denied or infringed by  the state or a political                 
       subdivision of the state.                                               
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Pearce  announced  that  SJR  39  was  before  the                 
  committee.    She invited  Portia  Babcock, aide  to Senator                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Leman and Senate State Affairs Committee, sponsor of SJR 39,                 
  to come before committee.                                                    
                                                                               
  PORTIA BABCOCK said that SJR 39 was introduced by the Senate                 
  State Affairs  Committee to better guarantee  the individual                 
  right to  keep and bear arms in the  future for the state of                 
  Alaska.  In the past ten years this issue had come up and in                 
  polls taken it was estimated that 78-90 percent  of Alaskans                 
  supported this resolution and supported  the ability to vote                 
  on  changing  the  Constitution   to  better  guarantee  the                 
  individual right to keep and bear arms.  There was currently                 
  no Alaska Supreme  Court interpretation  of the language  in                 
  Article  I, Section  19.    It  was commonly  and  generally                 
  understood that  it did protect the individual right to keep                 
  and bear arms.  Hearings had been held during the interim in                 
  the   Senate  State  Affairs   Committee  where  750  people                 
  testified and 1500 letters, poms and testimony were received                 
  in  support  of  this  resolution.     The  municipality  of                 
  Anchorage and Fairbanks Northstar Borough passed resolutions                 
  in support of the amendment for the individual right to keep                 
  and bear arms.  There were currently  resolutions pending in                 
  the Mat-su Borough as well as the Kenai Peninsula Borough.                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR  RIEGER asked  if this  amendment was  to pass,  how                 
  would it effect the concealed weapons law that the state had                 
  on  the books  at present.   Ms. Babcock said  it should not                 
  effect that law,  however, it had not been  challenged under                 
  the  Alaska  Supreme Court  so there  have  no idea  how the                 
  current language would be interpreted.  Senator Rieger asked                 
  if  it  had  been  discussed  in  the Senate  State  Affairs                 
  Committee  whether  the  addition  of  this  language  would                 
  prohibit the  state from  exercising any  kind of  statutory                 
  restrictions on carrying  a concealed  weapon.  Ms.  Babcock                 
  said it had been discussed but  the impact was unknown since                 
  the court had not interpreted the language.  She said no one                 
  knew the answer.   Senator  Rieger asked the  intent of  the                 
  resolution.  Ms. Babcock said she  thought the intent was to                 
  keep very unreasonable restrictions on regulations that were                 
  needed for  the  public to  insure  it as  a  constitutional                 
  protection, a stronger and clearer standard for the right to                 
  keep and bear  arms.  The  court would have  to balance  the                 
  state's  police power  with the  individual's constitutional                 
  right to keep and bear arms.                                                 
                                                                               
  Senator Rieger felt that it seemed  that the intent was that                 
  the courts not take the resolution  literally and he was not                 
  comfortable with that.                                                       
                                                                               
  DEAN  J.  GUANELI, Chief,  Legal Services  Section, Criminal                 
  Division, Department of Law, came  before committee and said                 
  that the Department of Law, Department of Public Safety, and                 
  the   Alaska   Police  Chief's   Association   opposed  this                 
  resolution in  its present form.   The legislature  over the                 
  years had  provided Alaska  citizens with  the most  liberal                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  firearms' laws in  the country.   Firearms could be  carried                 
  openly anywhere in the state with  the exception of bars and                 
  schools.  Firearms could be carried concealed while hunting,                 
  fishing,  while in  your home, and  on property  adjacent to                 
  your home.   He felt there really  was no need to  amend the                 
  Constitution.                                                                
                                                                               
  Mr. Guaneli  heard people testify  in the last  hearing that                 
  this resolution was  a preventive measure.  The  question to                 
  ask was what  a citizen would  receive with this  amendment.                 
  Was it only preventive  maintenance and an attempt to  fix a                 
  problem that did not exist?  He felt that was not much.  The                 
  question he would like  to answer was what is the  risk.  He                 
  submitted that  several of  Alaska's weapons  laws would  be                 
  thrown into doubt and may be held unconstitutional.  One law                 
  prohibited the possession  of switchblades  and would be  in                 
  doubt if  the amendment passed.   The  Oregon Supreme  court                 
  struck  down  a similar  law  based on  their Constitutional                 
  right to bear  arms.  There  were laws that prohibit  felons                 
  from possessing  firearms.  Even  if you were  a non-violent                 
  felon, you were prohibited from  touching a handgun for  ten                 
  years or living  in a  household where a  handgun was  being                 
  kept.  The state  of Colorado struck down portions  of their                 
  laws.   The statutes prohibiting carrying  concealed weapons                 
  would  be  in doubt  if this  amendment  should pass.   Some                 
  speakers have said that this amendment would allow people to                 
  carry assault  weapons or  military-type weapons.   He  felt                 
  that an amendment should not be passed if the interpretation                 
  was not clear.   In  referring to Senator  Leman's wish  for                 
  simple and direct language, Mr. Guaneli felt this resolution                 
  did not give the court enough to go on for intent.                           
                                                                               
  In 1972, voters  passed the right  to privacy.  Three  years                 
  later that  law said  that the  right to  privacy meant  the                 
  state  could  not enforce  its  marijuana laws  in someone's                 
  home.   That kind  of interpretation could  happen with this                 
  amendment.  This  right to privacy  had effected the  search                 
  and seizure procedures.  He felt the voters had not intended                 
  to hamper police investigations.   He said that he  had been                 
  called  a Nazi and  ultra-liberal.  He felt  he was giving a                 
  middle-of-the-road  view of  the potential problems  at risk                 
  with  this  amendment.   He  submitted  SJR 1  was  a better                 
  approach if the legislature deemed it necessary to amend the                 
  Constitution.   SJR  1  included  a second  section  to  the                 
  Constitution that gave the court a little guidance in how it                 
  was to interpret this provision.  It said it  did not change                 
  any law that  was in effect  nor the judicial standard  that                 
  had been applied to firearms laws.                                           
                                                                               
  SENATOR SHARP  asked if federal law would prevail over state                 
  laws.   Mr. Guaneli agreed but said that  the feds had, as a                 
  practical matter, very little presence in  Alaska.  The U.S.                 
  Attorney's Office was small and simply not enforcing federal                 
  laws such as the marijuana laws.                                             
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp said Representative Foster might disagree with                 
  that statement.  He asked if this would allow municipalities                 
  the ability  to pass  more  restrictive laws.   Mr.  Guaneli                 
  agreed that  municipalities could  pass firearms  laws which                 
  were broader than  the state laws but it was  unclear if the                 
  amendment would prohibit  that ability.  Some  supporters of                 
  this amendment  have said that  they want precisely  that to                 
  happen, that municipalities would be unable to enact firearm                 
  laws.  He  pointed out that  problems in downtown  Anchorage                 
  might be drastically different than in a rural area, and the                 
  local  municipality  should  be  given  the  opportunity  to                 
  address those local problems.                                                
                                                                               
  Co-chair Pearce asked if the Municipal League was in support                 
  of SJR 39.  Ms. Babcock said she did not know.                               
                                                                               
  Co-chair Pearce asked Mr. Guaneli  for the official position                 
  of  the  administration.   He  said that  the administration                 
  agreed  with the  Department of  Law and  the Department  of                 
  Public Safety in  that there were  problems with SJR 39  and                 
  preferred  SJR  1.    This   position  had  been  consistent                 
  throughout this administration  and past  ones for the  last                 
  ten years.                                                                   
                                                                               
  CO-CHAIR  FRANK  voiced  his  opinion  that  the  collective                 
  "individual" was represented by the  National Guard and that                 
  the  key  word in  this  amendment  was  "individual."    He                 
  personally felt  that it  was important  for individuals  to                 
  have the right to  keep and bear arms.   He did not see  any                 
  heightened protection in this  amendment but a clarification                 
  that it  was an individual  rather than a  collective right.                 
  He agreed that it was unknown what the courts would do.   He                 
  voiced his opinion that as we move into an area of increased                 
  government activity regarding attempts to  control crime, it                 
  was important to keep "individual" rights.                                   
                                                                               
  Mr. Guaneli  said that was  a good point.   He said  that in                 
  past  years there had  been suggestions for  amendments.  He                 
  listed some of the proposed language.  The word "reasonable"                 
  was unacceptable  to people.   The  courts  look largely  at                 
  language used in voter pamphlets  and the history behind the                 
  legislation.    He  said that  he  fears  for  the few  laws                 
  aforementioned or any new laws that might be enacted.                        
                                                                               
  Discussion followed  between Co-chair Frank  and Mr. Guaneli                 
  regarding court opinions,  possible intent and how  it would                 
  effect  existing   laws.     Mr.  Guaneli   said  when   the                 
  Constitution was  changed, the courts said that  had to mean                 
  something.   It  meant  that the  way  the Constitution  was                 
  interpreted would change,  so instead of a  reasonable basis                 
  test, the legislature  wanted to apply some  higher standard                 
  of  scrutiny.  In other  words, take a  harder look at these                 
  laws.   By simply inserting the word "individual", the court                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  may say it  elevated this right.   If it did not  elevate it                 
  what  was the  purpose of  amending the  Constitution.   The                 
  Court  would look  at this  question.   If  it was  merely a                 
  matter of philosophy, then he recommended passing SJR 1.                     
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp MOVED for  passage of SJR 39 out  of committee                 
  with individual recommendations.   No objection having  been                 
  raised, SJR  39 was  REPORTED OUT  of committee  with a  "do                 
  pass" recommendation, a zero fiscal  note for the Department                 
  of Public Safety,  and a fiscal note  for the Office  of the                 
  Governor/Division of  Elections for $2.2.   Co-chairs Pearce                 
  and Frank, Senators Kelly, Sharp and Jacko  voted "do pass."                 
  Senator Rieger voted "no recommendation."                                    
                                                                               
  CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 210(RES):                                             
                                                                               
       An  Act relating to disposals of state land within five                 
       miles of the  right-of-way of the  Dalton Highway to  a                 
       licensed public utility  or a licensed  common carrier;                 
       relating to disposals of state  land for nonresidential                 
       development in  nodes of  development along the  Dalton                 
       Highway; and allowing state leases and  materials sales                 
       for construction  or maintenance of airports  along the                 
       Dalton Highway.                                                         
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Pearce invited Senator  Sharp to speak  to SB 210.                 
  Senator Sharp stated  that under  current statute the  state                 
  was  prohibited  from  disposing of  or  leasing  state land                 
  within  5 miles of  the right-of-way of  the Dalton Highway.                 
  The state owned many acres that could not be leased or sold.                 
  These acres had  recently been transferred from  the federal                 
  to  the  state  under  the  state  selection  process.    He                 
  explained that the extreme limitations on state land did not                 
  recognize or  allow for public  need on  the newly  acquired                 
  state  land.   He  went  on  to explain  problems  with both                 
  existing and new  leases to  utilities.  He  said this  bill                 
  would enable telephone service,  other utilities and airport                 
  and highway and other public service needs  to be addressed.                 
  He urged favorable consideration of SB 210.                                  
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp explained that his  proposed amendment 1 would                 
  tighten the  title enough  to allow  for reconstruction  and                 
  maintenance of state highways and on page 2 would delete the                 
  words "the highway  north of 68 degrees north  latitude" and                 
  adds the words "or construction or maintenance of airports."                 
                                                                               
  End SFC-94 #25, Side 1                                                       
  Begin SFC-94 #25, Side 2                                                     
                                                                               
  Senator Rieger asked for a definition of a development node.                 
  Co-chair Frank believed that the BLM had been designated for                 
  service development.                                                         
                                                                               
                                                                               
  CLYDE STOLTZFUS, Special  Assistant, Commissioner's  Office,                 
  Department of Transportation & Public Facilities came before                 
  the committee to answer Senator Rieger's question.   He said                 
  that  BLM,  in  setting  up  a  management  scheme  for  the                 
  corridor, established eight development nodes.  A node was a                 
  land area set aside to be managed for development.  Co-chair                 
  Frank felt  that the  regulation would  prevent the  private                 
  sector  from  building  restaurants  or  gas  stations  just                 
  anywhere.  Mr. Stoltzfus said he did not know the size  of a                 
  node  but  BLM managed  them  and  it was  constricted  to a                 
  certain size.                                                                
                                                                               
  JERRY GALLAGHER, Legislative Liaison,  Department of Natural                 
  Resources, said that  there were maps available  that showed                 
  the  development   nodes.    The  bill  identified  specific                 
  development  nodes  by  name and  were  shown  on this  map.                 
  Distinct areas  comprised several sections.   These sections                 
  of  state  owned  land were  available  along  the corridor,                 
  comprised of several thousand acres,  and generally south of                 
  the Brooks Range.   Co-chair Pearce said the nodes  were not                 
  necessarily by pump  stations.   They represented  currently                 
  developed activities along the corridor  for either road and                 
  airport  maintenance, or road  service facilities,  such as,                 
  fish & game camps, gravel sites, etc.                                        
                                                                               
  Senator  Rieger  asked  the  pattern  going  up  the  Dalton                 
  Highway.  Mr.  Gallagher confirmed  that it was  state-owned                 
  land that was being permitted for development.  BLM land was                 
  not.  He  said it was especially true south of the divide on                 
  the  Brooks  Range.    Yukon   Crossing  and  Coldfoot  were                 
  essentially the only state-owned land.                                       
                                                                               
  Senator Rieger said he felt that BLM had drawn a line around                 
  the outside state-owned  and said, this was  the development                 
  node.  Mr. Gallagher felt it was a fair assessment.                          
                                                                               
  Senator  Sharp  MOVED for  adoption  of  amendment  1.    No                 
  objections being heard, amendment 1 was ADOPTED.                             
                                                                               
  CO-CHAIR  FRANK  MOVED for  passage  of CSSB  210(FIN).   No                 
  objections being heard,  CSSB 210(FIN)  was REPORTED OUT  of                 
  committee with a  "do pass", and  zero fiscal notes for  the                 
  Department  of  Natural  Resources  and  the  Department  of                 
  Transportation  & Public Facilities.   Co-chairs  Pearce and                 
  Frank,  Senators  Jacko  and  Sharp   signed  a  "do  pass."                 
  Senators Kelly and Rieger signed "no recommendation."                        
                                                                               
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m.                        

Document Name Date/Time Subjects