Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/08/1998 01:40 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
April 8, 1998
1:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Sean Parnell
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice-Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 232
"An Act relating to electronic signatures, electronic records,
requirements for records, and the reproduction of public records."
- HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 190(CRA)
"An Act relating to eminent domain and to negotiations to purchase
property before it is taken through eminent domain; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 306
"An Act relating to the authority to claim a child who is the
subject of a child support order as a dependent for purposes of a
federal income tax exemption; relating to certification of child
support arrears; amending Rule 90.3, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure."
- MOVED CSSB 306(JUD)
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 232 - See Labor and Commerce Committee minutes dated 3/31/98.
SB 190 - See Community & Regional Affairs minutes dated 2/18/98.
SB 306 - See HESS minutes dated 2/25/98.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Dave Donley
State Capitol
Juneau, Ak 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 306
Senator Jerry Mackie
State Capitol
Juneau, Ak 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 190
Mr. Dave Gray
Staff to Senator Jerry Mackie
State Capitol
Juneau, Ak 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 190
Mr. Andy Kline
Special Assistant to Lt. Governor Fran Ulmer
PO Box 110017
Juneau, Ak 99811-0017
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 232
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-31, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:40 and called up SB 306 as the first order of business.
SB 306 - TAX EXEMPTIONS IN CHILD SUPPORT CASES
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, prime sponsor of SB 306, said the current
federal tax law allows a tax deduction for a person even if this
person fails to make child support payments, unless they
voluntarily sign over the deduction to the custodial parent or the
custodial parent takes them back to court. SENATOR DONLEY said his
original bill set up a system whereby the non-custodial parent
would fill out a form during the settlement, to be held by the
court until such time the non-custodial parent was in arrears and
the court would release the form, which would trigger the reversion
of the tax credit to the custodial parent. SENATOR DONLEY said the
court system had objected to the expense and trouble of keeping
these forms on file and had no better suggestions to offer, so the
bill had been modified to require a judge to include a provision in
a child support order that stipulates if the payor receiving the
tax deduction fails to pay, the deduction will revert to the
custodial parent. SENATOR DONLEY said this bill is not as good as
the original bill and won't be as easy for the custodial parent,
but will be better than the current system and addresses the
concerns of the court system.
SENATOR PARNELL moved the adoption of the new committee substitute,
version H. Without objection, it was so ordered.
Number 098
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the person wanting the exemption would need
to request the document in writing, or if an automatic issuance had
been considered. SENATOR DONLEY replied that was how the original
bill had been set up. Now, the person seeking the exemption may
have to go to the court again but it would be easier for them since
the court order would already be in their favor if the payor is in
arrears.
SENATOR ELLIS thought that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) held
a dim view of conditional exemptions. SENATOR DONLEY replied that
if the court orders the award of the exemption, the IRS will go
along with it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR remarked that federal tax law allows the exemption
to the parent who is paying more than 50 per cent of support and
this is difficult to determine. He said this exemption seemed to be
awarded by the court as a part of the settlement, and said he was
concerned about a person who may be paying more than 50 per cent of
their net pay plus arrearage might lose this exemption on top of
all that. SENATOR DONLEY explained that current law provides that
if a non-custodial parent cannot pay, they are allowed to enter
into an agreement of a payment schedule that is liveable. If they
do not fall more than four months behind on this payment schedule,
they are allowed to keep the deduction. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if
this also applied to keeping any licenses this person held and
SENATOR DONLEY said it did.
Number 198
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that a significant change of circumstance is
required before a change to a support order and a request for such
a change can only be filed once every six months. He said he, as a
judge, has required each party to send a copy of their tax return
to the court and to their ex-spouse. This allows each spouse as
well as the court a self-enforcing mechanism to appropriately
adjust a support order. This mechanism is self-enforcing due to the
fact that perjury committed on a tax return is a felony. CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR asked if there was any way to work some kind of provision
like this into the bill.
MS. CECILIA LACARA, Deputy Director of the Child Support
Enforcement Division (CSED) of the Department of Revenue, testified
that she had not seen the latest version of the bill but had no
position for or against the original bill. She mentioned it will
cost something to track compliance and likely would require the
hire of a temporary person for part of the year. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
asked if the division already tracks those people who are in
arrears. MS. LACARA said the way an arrearage is now traced is in
the form of a long audit statement, the division had envisioned a
simple one page form.
SENATOR DONLEY reported that the section of the bill dealing with
CSED was the same in both versions of the bill.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved to the next order of business, SB 190.
SB 190 - ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE BEFORE EMINENT DOMAIN
SENATOR JERRY MACKIE, prime sponsor of SB 190, said this bill
attempts to bring fairness as well as expediency to the acquisition
of land by the state and municipal government. SENATOR MACKIE
explained that SB 190 requires the government to make a good faith
effort to purchase land from a land owner prior to invoking the law
of eminent domain. SENATOR MACKIE said he is not trying to remove
the authority of the state to take land by eminent domain, only
adding a provision to ensure there is a good faith negotiation on
the part of the state or municipal government before they claim
land under eminent domain. SENATOR MACKIE indicated that in some
cases a landowner can be at the mercy of the government, as their
only recourse to keep their land once eminent domain has been
invoked is a costly and time-consuming court challenge, which
generally only serves to set the price to be paid for the land
anyway. SENATOR MACKIE stated that 23 other states have similar
requirements.
SENATOR PARNELL asked what is meant by the language that adds "and
the property interest to be taken." SENATOR MACKIE replied that
this change was added by the drafter to make the bill more
specific. MR. DAVE GRAY, staff to SENATOR MACKIE, interjected that
these would be interests in addition to the property itself and
might include rights of way or logging rights. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
asked if a view could fall under this, for example if a power line
was directly obstructing a view from a view lot - would this
diminish the property. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed concern that this
"property interest" may expand things beyond the actual property
itself. SENATOR MACKIE said he was only concerned about things that
would be taken under eminent domain; he said a view would not be
taken under eminent domain and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR disagreed, saying it
would apply if the value of a view lot was diminished by the loss
of the view. MR. GRAY specified that there was never any discussion
of this, and the change was intended for other kinds of interests
other than pure ownership, like partnership.
Number 385
SENATOR MACKIE mentioned he had a proposed committee substitute
that would clear up some ambiguities in an earlier draft of the
bill and he hoped the committee would consider it.
SENATOR ELLIS asked why one version of the bill had included a
reasonable and diligent effort and the proposed committee
substitute required a good faith effort. SENATOR MACKIE replied
that the Community and Regional Affairs Committee thought
reasonable and diligent was too stringent a standard to require and
could prevent any takings by eminent domain, so they had changed
the wording to good faith. SENATOR ELLIS clarified that good faith
is a lower standard than reasonable and diligent. SENATOR MACKIE
agreed good faith would be less problematic for a government
entity. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR interjected that these are terms often used
in title actions and a diligent inquiry can be quite a bit of work.
SENATOR MACKIE said all he wanted to see was that agencies extend
the common courtesy of a good faith effort before taking a piece of
property under eminent domain. SENATOR MACKIE said he did not mean
to imply this was not being done now, he just wanted to ensure it
would always be done.
Number 440
SENATOR PARNELL asked if under the current process, the state used
eminent domain to obtain a right of way. SENATOR MACKIE said they
did. SENATOR PARNELL asked if this bill expands or just clarifies
how things are done now. SENATOR MACKIE replied that depends on who
you ask. He said there are good and bad cases of takings by
government entities. SENATOR PARNELL clarified that this bill would
only add the requirement of a good faith negotiation and
consideration of other property interests and SENATOR MACKIE said
he was not sure but further testimony might enlighten them.
MR. BILL CUMMINGS, representing the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) for the Department of Law, urged
everyone to remember that 95 to 98 per cent of the land obtained by
DOT/PF was through negotiation, while only 2 to 5 per cent was
through the condemnation process and the invocation of eminent
domain. MR. CUMMINGS said he is the last person to see a project
before it goes out to bid and briefly explained the process by
which a piece of property is appraised; an offer is made and the
negotiation takes place. He said eminent domain is used as a last
resort. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted they were working off the Community
and Regional Affairs Committee as the work draft brought by the
sponsor had not yet been adopted.
MR. CUMMINGS said now, a property owner who is not satisfied or
unable to reach an agreement with the state can, when the state has
taken his or her land under eminent domain, file a petition with
the court challenging the project in terms of if it really achieved
the goal of the maximum public good for the minimum private injury.
MR. CUMMINGS said this bill adds two new provisions; a property
owner can now file an additional court challenge to the
appropriateness of the particular property interest that the state
takes for any particular project. MR. CUMMINGS explained the state
can take a number of different property interests in a piece of
property depending on the particular needs of a given project. For
example, some projects require a fee simple interest which is the
ultimate property right and acquires the entire property down to
the core of the earth. Other projects may require only an easement,
and the type of property interest to be taken is generally left to
the discretion of the condemning authority. MR. CUMMINGS said
generally they try to take the minimum property right they need
for any project.
MR. CUMMINGS said his question about this bill is: what's broken?
He said good faith negotiations are happening now and only
exceptional cases wind up in court. This bill will introduce a
complicated process that will add to the cost of projects. MR.
CUMMINGS concluded by saying that eminent domain is very generous
in its compensation to property owners and owners who contest
eminent domain and win are reimbursed for their court costs,
awarded any damages due to their land and they get their land back.
MR. CUMMINGS said his concern is that there is nothing wrong with
this process to require the changes proposed in this bill.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he did not see how this could be a major
hurdle if it was already being done in 95 per cent of cases. MR.
CUMMINGS replied that this legislation allows a property owner to
contest the propriety of the taking as well as whether the
negotiations were conducted in good faith. MR. CUMMINGS explained
this may significantly delay a project while waiting for a court
decision. He said this provision would allow for significant,
inappropriate delays. SENATOR MACKIE interjected that this is
exactly what the bill is intended to do - to allow property owners
recourse when the entity taking their land cannot show that just
compensation was awarded for it after good faith negotiations.
SENATOR MACKIE said it is not his intent to stop development, but
only to codify the requirement for a good faith negotiation to
prohibit an any possible abuse of the process.
Number 569
SENATOR PARNELL asked again about the "property or interest"
language and asked if this will expand the type of property
interests the state will be paying for or if it only puts in
statute what is already happening. MR. CUMMINGS replied it
increases an owner's ability to contest a taking, they may contest
the nature of the interest taken as well as the taking itself. For
example, a property owner may contest the necessity of a fee simple
taking, saying an easement could have been used instead. SENATOR
PARNELL said this gets at the issue of the maximum public good for
the minimum private harm, but MR. CUMMINGS disagreed, saying that
issue has more to do with the nature and location of a project than
the type of land interest taken.
Tape 98-31, Side B
Number 001
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he's afraid the bill expands beyond
negotiating in good faith. He asked about page two of the latest
draft ("K"). MR. CUMMINGS said he thinks that part says if a
property is to be condemned the condemning authority must be able
to show they participated in a good faith negotiation prior to the
condemnation, and that the person with whom they negotiated was not
lacking intellectual capacity.
Number 552
SENATOR MACKIE agreed with the question regarding what might be
considered an additional interest, but he asked for them to
consider possible timber interests and like things.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR. CUMMINGS if since most cases are resolved
through negotiation, the others are not simply because there was no
attempt to negotiate. MR. CUMMINGS replied the reasons cases are
not settled include bad legal advice, greed and philosophical
differences. He cited a case in Ketchikan in which the property
owner wanted an amount about twenty times higher than what the
state was willing to pay. SENATOR MACKIE asked if the state
determined the price through an appraisal process and MR. CUMMINGS
indicated that was correct. SENATOR PARNELL asked if a jury would
then determine what the value is using a body of case law that
assign value to different things. MR. CUMMINGS said this was also
correct, and a master would be appointed to make the final
declaration of value under instructions given by the Superior
Court. If the owner is dissatisfied with the decision of the
master, they can appeal and exercise their right to a jury trial.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the appraisal happened before this and MR.
CUMMINGS said it did. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR clarified that the master
comes in after the owner has said no and a condemnation and a
declaration of taking has been filed. MR. CUMMINGS said this is
correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR mentioned that they then deposit the
amount of the appraisal in an account on behalf of the property
owner who has immediate access to the money should he or she
choose; the owner can even take this money, continue the protest
and try to get more money on top of this. MR. CUMMINGS agreed this
was all correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR explained the master can then
rehash the whole situation and change the award made by the
condemning entity. If the master does increase the award, the
property owner can even appeal this, all the while having access to
the extra money deposited for the increased award.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the government entity has already had the land
conveyed at this point and may continue with the project even as
the value continues to be contested. MR. CUMMINGS replied this was
also correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the property owner still at this point has
the right to challenge the public interest of the project and MR.
CUMMINGS said no, that must be done within 20 days of the filing
for the taking. He added there are provisions for expedited
discovery in these cases. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR concluded that the
project could still be delayed by a court proceeding over the
public interest issue. MR. CUMMINGS replied that was correct.
Number 450
MR. RICHARD HARRIS, representing Sealaska Corporation, supported
the bill. MR. HARRIS stated that Sealaska Corporation, an Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporation, holds about
330,000 of fee estate land and an equal amount of subsurface land
in Southeast Alaska. Sealaska also owns other properties and MR.
HARRIS said Sealaska views and values all these properties
differently. ANCSA lands are a treasure that took hundreds of years
to secure and Sealaska finds condemnation of these properties
problematic, and thinks SB 190 is an important vehicle to provide
additional protection for landowners and ensure a diligent attempt
is made to buy private land before any condemnation proceeding.
MR. HARRIS said Sealaska would merely like to level the playing
field by requiring two simple things: a good faith effort at
negotiation and the requirement of demonstrating a project is
necessary. MR. HARRIS indicated that 20 other states do this now
and it is recommended procedure under the Universal Eminent Domain
Act.
Number 418
MR. HARRIS remarked that it is not always necessary to take a fee
simple interest in a piece of property. He gave an example in which
he did not think the proper property interest had been taken; it
involved an air easement needed for an airport. The government
bought only the air rights to the land adjacent to the airport, but
placed restrictions on how high the trees on the land could grow.
Because this was timber land, the height restriction devalued it
considerably, though Sealaska was not compensated for this.
MR. HARRIS said a good faith effort is a reasonable requirement,
and might help avoid some problems in the future. MR. HARRIS said
the bill does not expand the jurisdiction of government entities,
and added that view rights can be challenged now as a property
interest.
MR. HARRIS said the bill is a reasonable one and sufficiently
protects the state. The burden of proof is on a property owner to
show grounds for a complaint and the state is only required to show
that a proper assessment has been made, that they are taking the
least interest needed for the project and that they have negotiated
the deal in good faith. MR. HARRIS gave an example in which the
state took fee estate for a piece of jointly owned property and
left the two property owners to fight amongst themselves for the
lump sum of money. He does not see this as a proper good faith
negotiation.
MR. HARRIS stated that though Sealaska is not interested in selling
land, they are willing to trade for other land. Unfortunately, the
agency they deal with most (DOT) has no lands of its own and is
unlikely to get land from its "sister agencies." MR. HARRIS said he
is not happy with this and has tried to address this problem to no
avail.
MR. HARRIS restated his point that this is a reasonable bill that
does not require much more than what is happening now. He stated it
gives a level of protection to landowners and levels the playing
field for negotiations between the two parties.
SENATOR PARNELL asked, in the airport example, what prevented
Sealaska from showing a loss of interest in the land. MR. HARRIS
replied that nothing prevented that, he would just prefer for
Sealaska to ask the state to buy the fee estate in a case like
this. He said it is important to have a fair consideration of the
land owner's interest and come to an agreement about the
appropriate interest to be acquired.
SENATOR PARNELL asked if the language "or interest in the property"
would extend this beyond the direct property owner and MR. HARRIS
replied he did not think so.
Number 285
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if any other states are held up in their
condemnation proceedings by this type of provision, as they only
employ the good faith negotiation portion of this legislation. MR.
HARRIS said he was only saying that the interest to be taken should
be negotiated with a property owner as well, in order to determine
the minimum necessary property owner. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if
there are any other states that do this, he said he could imagine
a dispute over the property interest might hold projects up or
overly limit them. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he could see a myriad of
opinions as to the correct property interest to be taken for a
given project, and he remarked that the efficiency of the process
must be maintained. MR. HARRIS replied that there is insurance
built into the bill by the fact that the burden of proof is on the
party opposing the taking. He said a simple challenge will not stop
a project from progressing, especially if the state realizes it is
an invalid claim.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if, in the airport example, they could file
a suit of inverse condemnation for wrongful taking. MR. HARRIS said
they could and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR added they could prove that through
the same mechanism in the bill also if it were adopted. MR. HARRIS
said they were trying to avoid getting to that point and merely
avoiding the "iron glove" of condemnation by establishing a system
in which the interest and its worth are negotiated in good faith.
He again said this would simply codify, for the most part, what is
already being done.
Number 195
MR. BOB NAVRO testified via teleconference and said the bill is
"wonderful." He is in the middle of a condemnation proceeding and
takes exception to the comment that sometimes people contest these
proceedings due to greed. He argued that our Constitution
guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He equates
happiness with property and says an assessment might not equal the
value of a piece of property in a property owner's mind's eye. He
disagreed with the state's appraisal of his land and supported the
bill.
SENATOR PARNELL moved to adopt work draft "K" as the committee's
working document. Without objection, it was so ordered.
MR. BILL CUMMINGS testified again, saying he is sympathetic to
Sealaska's concerns, but feels they have been dealt with in good
faith.
Number 058
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that it seems the state is limited by the
value determined by the appraiser. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how and
when the state can deviate from this appraisal. MR. CUMMINGS
replied there must be a good reason for any deviation and an owner
needs to show some level of proof for their claim that the land is
worth more than the assessment, but the state wants to settle these
disputes and they benefit from being able to do so.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was an offset for any increase to
the value of the property made by the condemning authority to the
condemned land. MR. CUMMINGS replied this was correct.
SB 306 - TAX EXEMPTIONS IN CHILD SUPPORT CASES
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed his intent to hold on to this bill for
now and entertained a motion to move CSSB 306(JUD). SENATOR PARNELL
so moved and without objection, it was so ordered.
SB 232 - ELECTRONIC RECORDS; RECORD REQUIREMENTS
SENATOR PARNELL, prime sponsor of SB 232, explained that this bill
establishes electronic signatures as a legal practice with the same
standing as a standard signature and allows the Lt. Governor or
another state agency to promulgate regulations for using electronic
signatures by private and public entities. The bill also
establishes criteria for electronic signature regulations and
repeals some state agencies' selective notarization requirements to
better utilize the efficiencies of electronic signatures. SENATOR
PARNELL said the bill will allow such practical applications as
filing articles of incorporation or dissolution or articles of
merger, etc. using electronically transmitted signatures.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked who benefits from this and SENATOR PARNELL
replied both public and private industry will benefit by allowing
the use of electronic signatures, as well as state agencies.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if this included all corporate officers and
SENATOR PARNELL replied it did.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked why the penalty was being changed from
"verified and under oath" to one of "unsworn falsification."
SENATOR PARNELL suggested that MR. ANDY KLINE, staff to Lt.
Governor Fran Ulmer might be better able to answer that. MR. KLINE
came forward and explained the idea behind the change is that an
oath is something sworn in person, involving writing. He said this
is the same penalty, applied in an electronic format.
SENATOR PARNELL offered an amendment on this point which ties the
penalty for unsworn falsification to the precise criminal statutes
it would fall under. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the amendment takes care
of one of his concerns.
SENATOR PARNELL moved his amendment as amendment #1. Without
objection, it was adopted. SENATOR PARNELL remarked that he had no
opposition to the bill and the Department of Administration and the
Lt. Governor both supported the bill.
SENATOR PARNELL said he had a second amendment regarding
certification of electronic signatures and asked MR. KLINE to
explain it. MR. KLINE said the bill does not specify what type of
technology will be used for electronic signatures, since this
technology changes so rapidly. MR. KLINE said instead the sets out
certain criteria that electronic signatures must meet.
MR. KLINE explained that the way this works is there are two halves
to an electronic signature: the public key and the private key. The
two keys contain encrypted codes which must match for the signature
to be authentic. The electronic signer keeps one key and the other
is retained by the certifying authority.
MR. KLINE indicated there are two ways to set up a certifying
authority, either through the state or through the private sector.
MR. KLINE said the amendment establishes that the certifying
authority will be public in a private to private transaction. This
will encourage businesses, typically banks, to come forward and act
as certifying authorities. The amendment allows the state to be the
certifying authority in any transactions in which the state is
involved, permitting the state to go forward with the use of
electronic signatures even if the private sector is not yet
employing them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he was concerned about hacking and the
possibility that someone might break into the system and alter
information. MR. KLINE said the bill does not set out any anti-
hacking criteria. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR agreed, saying electronic
signatures eliminate the third party witness currently required by
law to prosecute crimes such as forgery. He said he would not have
much comfort as a bank president under this bill. SENATOR PARNELL
informed him that was part of the reason he wanted the state to act
as a certifying authority. He said the bill enables the state to be
the certifying authority and to set standards and protocols to
prevent hacking. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what would protect other
transactions to which the state is not a party.
Number 212
SENATOR PARNELL explained if CHAIRMAN TAYLOR would like the state
to be the certification authority for all transactions, he should
vote no on amendment #2. SENATOR PARNELL then moved amendment #2.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR objected.
SENATOR ELLIS asked MR. KLINE what his position was on the
amendment. ANDY KLINE indicated he supported the amendment. He
added that he shares CHAIRMAN TAYLOR's concerns but explained that
all the literature he has reviewed has indicated that these
electronic signatures are secure and very verifiable. MR. KLINE
says the bill does not specify the technology to be used, but only
requires electronic signatures to meet the same criteria set out
for written signatures. SENATOR PARNELL commented that another
safeguard is the fact that it is very much in the interest of a
private certification authority to ensure safeguards are in place
to protect the validity of electronic signatures. MR. KLINE also
mentioned that the bill is permissive, not restrictive, and simply
allows the use of electronic signatures in addition to written
signatures.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the roll on the amendment and voted against
it. Both SENATOR ELLIS and SENATOR PARNELL voted in favor of the
amendment. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR explained he has further concerns with
the bill including state bank reporting requirements.
SENATOR PARNELL moved the bill with individual recommendations but
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he'd rather hold it. The bill was held in
committee.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR indicated he had a list of witnesses suggested by
MR. NORSWORTHY and asked if any members had additional witnesses to
add to the list. Hearing none, CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he would bring
the matter up later for discussion with the entire committee. The
meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|