01/22/2007 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB19 | |
| SB20 | |
| SB13 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 22, 2007
1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Gene Therriault
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to a public officer's taking official action
regarding a matter in which the public officer has a financial
interest; and defining 'official action' under the Alaska
Executive Branch Ethics Act and related law."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 20
"An Act relating to disclosure to the Alaska Public Offices
Commission of information about certain income received as
compensation for personal services by legislators, public
members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, and
legislative directors subject to the Legislative Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 13
"An Act prohibiting a legislator from providing consulting
services to a person in the private sector or agreeing to accept
consulting fees from a person in the private sector."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 19
SHORT TITLE: EXEC. BRANCH ETHICS: INTERESTS & ACTIONS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) FRENCH, ELTON, MCGUIRE, WIELECHOWSKI,
THOMAS, HUGGINS
01/16/07 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (S) JUD, STA, FIN
01/22/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 20
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) FRENCH, ELTON, MCGUIRE, WIELECHOWSKI,
THOMAS, HUGGINS
01/16/07 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (S) JUD, STA, FIN
01/22/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 13
SHORT TITLE: BAN CONSULTING CONTRACTS WITH LEGISLATORS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS
01/16/07 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (S) JUD, STA
01/22/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID JONES, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Civil Division
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 19
DON ROBERTS,
Kodiak, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 19
DAN WAYNE
Legal and Research Services Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Drafter of SB 19
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 20
SENATOR GARY STEVENS
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 13
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:34:01 PM. Present at the call to
order were Senator McGuire Senator Therriault Senator Huggins
Senator Wielechowski and Chair French.
SB 19-EXEC. BRANCH ETHICS:INTERESTS & ACTIONS
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH announced SB 19 to be up for consideration
and asked for a motion to adopt Version M committee substitute
(CS), labeled 25-LS0160\M.
1:35:02 PM
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS so moved. There being no objection, CSSB
19, Version M, was before the committee.
CHAIR FRENCH explained that the bill, relating to executive
branch ethics, rewords AS 39.52.110(b). The idea is to prohibit
an executive branch employee from taking official action on
behalf of his or her personal investments and benefiting from
that action through the use of their official position. On page
2, line 2, subparagraph (C)(i) through (viii) lays out the
different ways an employee would be prohibited from taking
official action.
Section 2 expands the definition of "official action" to better
capture executive branch employees' day-to-day work and clarify
that the activities mean official action with respect to an
investment the employee may have in an outside business.
1:37:47 PM
CHAIR FRENCH related that the current subsection (a) lays out
the general duty of a public officer and the new subsection (b)
lays out a series of exceptions. The exception in paragraph (1)
states that if the action or influence is insignificant or it
would have a conjectural effect, then it is not a violation.
Chair French hypothesized that an executive branch employee
could own and take action on $1 million in IBM stock without
violating the law because the action would have an insignificant
or conjectural effect on the value of that stock.
Likewise, the exception outlined in paragraph (2)(A) says that
if the public officer's personal or financial interest is
generally owned by the public, then it is not a violation to
take action on that investment. Thus, a public official who
takes action to increase the size of his or her Permanent Fund
dividend would also increase the size of all other dividend
recipients. Similarly, if a public officer were to take an
action to route the gas pipeline close to his or her home, it
would effectively increase the value of all homes in the area so
the action would not run afoul of the law.
On page 2, line 1, paragraph (2)(B) lays out an exception if the
public officer's personal interest is insignificant. Chair
French noted that definition is probably not perfect, but it
would be difficult to do better.
On page 2, line 2, paragraph (2)(C) addresses financial interest
with respect to a business. He noted that that particular
section, which has the subheadings (i) through (viii) has been
problematic in the past.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Jones to comment on the bill.
1:40:54 PM
DAVID JONES, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law (DOL), said he hadn't seen Version M so his
comments would be directed to the original bill.
MR. JONES expressed concern with the percentage ownership
standard saying it could be difficult to calculate a one percent
interest given the variety of stock classifications. He argued
that, in terms of ethics, the significant interest standard is
preferable. It won't matter to the DOL or to the public whether
the interest amounts to one percent or 50 percent; what matters
is whether or not the interest is significant. He suggested that
the $5,000 standard would be a better measure than the one
percent ownership standard.
MR. JONES posed the hypothetical situation of funding a child's
lemonade stand and noted that because he has a 100 percent
interest in the stand he would be prohibited from taking action
to benefit that child's business even though his investment
might only have been $50. He argued that it's not the percentage
ownership that matters to the public; it's whether it's a
significant interest and it seems that the $5,000 standard would
be preferable, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he had language to suggest if he was
proposing that the standard be listed in something other than
dollar terms. He noted that the significance standard had been
removed in SB 19 because it wasn't defined very well and created
problems two years ago.
MR. JONES clarified that he was suggesting that a flat dollar
measure is preferable to the either or standard, which is either
a dollar amount or a one percent interest in the value of a
company.
CHAIR FRENCH used the lemonade stand example and asked why it
would ever be valued at more than $5,000.
MR. JONES replied it would not.
CHAIR FRENCH questioned how someone could run afoul of the
statute if it was written as proposed.
MR. JONES acknowledged that there probably wouldn't be stock in
a lemonade stand, but if a person owned a controlling interest
in the lemonade stand or more than one percent of the value of
the stand, then that would seem to run afoul of subparagraph
(2)(B) and (2)(C)(i) and (ii), on page 2, lines through 19.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if his concern could be addressed if language
was adopted in sub-subparagraph (i) on page 2, line 5 to say
that the controlling interest in the business is worth more than
$10,000.
MR. JONES agreed that would make sense, but he'd also like the
reference to one percent interest in a business in sub-
subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) to be deleted so there is just a
dollar standard.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it is difficult to value some businesses
and relayed that he was reluctant to simply toss out the
percentage of ownership standard.
MR. JONES theorized that for some businesses there would always
be some difficulty in determining valuation. But the process is
further complicated if a percentage valuation is required. For
example, would stock options be included or excluded from the
percentage interest calculation. Although it wouldn't always be
simple, a flat dollar figure would always be simpler.
1:47:35 PM
SENATOR LESIL McGUIRE said the concern she has with removing the
percentage relates to options to buy and to new or speculative
companies where the valuation hasn't been established. Someone
could use his or her official title to steer activity in a
direction to gain substantial personal benefit, but not be
measured by the $5,000 measure.
MR. JONES acknowledged that is possible, but the root of the
trouble is substantiality and using the one percent measure
might not achieve the goal. A flat dollar figure is more likely
to achieve the goal, he said.
1:49:10 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Jones to send proposed language to his
office so the committee could make a reasoned decision.
MR. JONES agreed to suggest language and further advised that he
would comment on the CS on Wednesday.
1:50:16 PM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI asked whether his comments were on
behalf of the administration.
MR. JONES said yes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the administration supports the
bill with the amendment he is suggesting.
MR. JONES replied he is not authorized to indicate the
Governor's position on the bill. He is authorized to speak on
the effects of the bill as well as any enforcement challenges.
1:51:13 PM
DON ROBERTS, a Kodiak citizen, introduced himself and said when
he began preparing his testimony about ethics he came to the
conclusion that this is more about fairness in the decision
making process and helping legislators and others avoid
conflict-of-interest situations that are likely to be
encountered.
Having done advocacy work for eight or nine years he has
determined that the whole system is unfair in that a single
person can't be heard above the din of money and power. He
suggested the committee look at how an average person can
influence legislation before the law is enacted instead of
finding out about a new law after the fact. The problem isn't
that legislators are unethical; it's more that they are unfair.
Finally, he asked that borough and city governments to be
included because there are problems at that level as well.
CHAIR FRENCH recognized the bill drafter.
1:54:34 PM
DAN WAYNE, Legislative Counsel, Legal and Research Services
Division, Legislative Affairs Agency, introduced himself.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT referenced page 2 and questioned the
need for the language in subparagraph (B) because the language
in subparagraphs (A) and (C) seems to encapsulate it all.
MR. WAYNE responded he couldn't say. Subparagraph (B) has a
function, but it might work without it.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referenced page 2, line 8 and suggested
inserting language about "fair market value" since the term
"value" is somewhat subjective.
MR. WAYNE replied any term relating to value is somewhat
subjective. Using total value leaves it to the person who is
trying to comply with the law to make an interpretation or get
an opinion from the Personnel Board. Then if a complaint is
lodged the Personnel Board would make an interpretation just as
it does for any subjective question.
SENATOR THERRIAULT commented he would like to screw that kind of
thing down as tightly as possible.
He questioned why page 2, line 14, shouldn't be any officer in
the business rather than just an elected officer. Finally, he
noted that page 2, line 5, talks about owning a controlling
interest and he would suggest that that could be subjective as
well.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he highlighted those issues because some
needed to be more specific and another needed a broader
interpretation.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he was musing or did he have specific
language to suggest.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he was musing, but he believes the
committee should be more specific in how to place value. Fair
market value can be tracked if the company is publicly traded
and assets of a business can be appraised based on a fair market
valuation. With regard to an elected officer, he said it should
be any officer, elected or not.
CHAIR FRENCH questioned whether that wouldn't be captured by the
language on page 2, line 19, which addresses an employee of the
business. He questioned whether a person could be an officer
without being an employee.
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied an employee is different and implies
remuneration of some sort. Using his family business as an
example, he said he doesn't believe that "employee of the
business" would automatically sweep everyone in.
2:00:02 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI advised that the definition of "business"
includes for profit and non-profit businesses.
MR. WAYNE noted that that definition was used in drafting the
bill.
CHAIR FRENCH addressed Senator Therriault's first question and
read the definition of "personal interest" into the record to
demonstrate that it's a little broader than financial interest.
Sec. 39.52.960. Definitions.
(18) "personal interest" means an interest held
or involvement by a public officer, or the officer's
immediate family member or parent, including
membership, in any organization, whether fraternal,
nonprofit, for profit, charitable, or political, from
which, or as a result of which, a person or
organization receives a benefit;
SENATOR THERRIAULT agreed.
2:01:42 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI added that subparagraph (B) on page 2 is a
catch all. The other provisions wouldn't necessarily apply to
non-profits, but subparagraph (B) would capture them.
CHAIR FRENCH hypothesized that a Boys and Girls Club board
member could drive a state decision to steer money to that club
and said that they aren't deriving any personal gain, but it
still isn't right.
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would set SB 19 aside and the proposed
amendments would be reviewed on Wednesday.
SB 20-LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES
2:02:40 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH announced SB 20 to be up for consideration
and read the following sponsor statement into the record:
SB 20 is a simple bill designed to clarify Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) reporting
requirements for legislators and other public
officials.
Under the current legislative ethics code a public
official must disclose the nature of any work
performed as personal services for which compensation
greater than $1,000 is received. SB 20 simply adds
language to the existing statute to require the filer
to provide a substantive description of what was done
for the contract, as well as the approximate number of
hours spent.
The public has repeatedly appealed for more
substantive disclosures, and SB 20 provides the
increased degree of openness they are calling for.
This will assure the public that the compensation
public officials receive for outside work does not
conflict in any way with their public duties, without
unduly burdening citizen legislators who perform
legitimate duties outside of the public realm.
The clarification the bill provides will also help
APOC fulfill its mission of encouraging the public's
confidence in their elected and appointed officials.
CHAIR FRENCH related that on page 2, lines 3 and 4 add dividend
income received from a limited liability company to the types of
income that must be reported. Also page 2, lines 6 through 9 add
the requirement that the services performed must be described
such that a person of ordinary understanding is able to grasp
what was done, outside the Legislature, in exchange for the
money that was received. Page 2, lines 10 and 11 require
reporting the number of hours spent performing the service. That
way the public is able to cross-reference and thereby decide
whether the remuneration is market based. Finally, page 2, line
12 outlines that the amount of income received from the source
must be disclosed if the recipient is a legislator or a
legislative director.
Section 2 adds a definition for "professional license" to mean
one that is required for a profession regulated by a state or
the federal government. Lists of such professions are published
and readily available.
Basically, the disclosure is increased so that anyone who reads
the statement is able to determine what the legislator is doing
in exchange for the money that he or she is receiving outside
the Legislature.
CHAIR FRENCH recognized Brooke Miles and noted that she was
available to answer questions.
2:05:20 PM
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), said she did not have anything to add to the
bill overview and reminded members that it is not the
commission's policy to support or oppose legislative changes.
However, everyone appreciates when there is an effort to codify
clarification to existing language that has been difficult to
interpret. This measure does just that, she said.
Section 1 makes it clear that dividend income from a limited
liability company must be reported on the legislative financial
disclosure statement. It also clarifies that when a legislator
or a legislative director receives income from a professional
service, a detailed description of the services must be
provided. She noted the zero fiscal note and said the measure
would make it easier for APOC administer.
2:07:01 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he had two questions. First, he questioned
whether it might be useful to set a threshold, such as $1,000,
for disclosing dividend income from a limited liability company.
MS. MILES said she presumed the threshold would be $1,000 since
Alaska voters established the $1,000 threshold for legislative
disclosure in the 2006 primary.
CHAIR FRENCH said he would prepare an amendment to address that
point.
He asked Ms. Miles to explain the "unless clause" on page 2,
lines 8 and 9 that provides an exception if the services require
issuance of a state or federal professional license.
MS. MILES related that some services, such as analyst or
consultant, are broadly defined and the idea is to make more
information available to the public in those broader areas of
self employment. The intent is not to add requirements for
professions that already report payments in excess of $1,000.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that if the work that is done is
pursuant to a state license, then no further description of the
services provided is necessary. However, if the services fall in
the broader realm of consultant, advisor, or analyst, then there
is need for a more complete description of what is done for the
money.
MS. MILES agreed.
2:10:44 PM
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT asked Ms. Miles to comment on the fact
that on page 2, paragraphs (2)(A),(B), and (C) disclose the
basic information, but do nothing to address whether or not the
compensation is outrageous.
MS. MILES agreed that the bill does not place control on that
issue, but a section of the legislative ethics laws speaks to
employment being commensurate to the amount paid. APOC has the
disclosure and provides the information for the public so the
hours that are reported would provide a useful tool to the
Legislative Ethics Committee in the event that a complaint is
filed. She advised that Joyce Anderson could better address that
question.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said understanding how this section works
with the other section may satisfy that concern, but the public
might still find the disclosed information upsetting.
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and announced he would hold
SB 20 until Wednesday. He noted that he would prepare an
amendment to page 2, lines 3 and 4 and Senator Therriault might
offer one as well.
At ease from 2:13:44 PM to 2:16:47 PM
SB 13-BAN CONSULTING CONTRACTS WITH LEGISLATORS
2:16:55 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH announced SB 13 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, Sponsor, described SB 13 as a simple
straightforward bill. It prohibits legislators from providing
consulting services to anyone in the private sector or accepting
consulting fees from anyone in the private sector.
Noting the newspaper accounts of legislators who may have been
consultants and may discredit the Legislature, he said his goal
is to protect the image of an institution that is approaching
th
its 50 year. To accomplish that there must be a bond of trust
with the public.
SENATOR STEVENS related that it has been difficult to establish
a definition for "consultant" and although he was very clear
about what he wanted to accomplish when he began writing the
bill, he was unsure whether he had achieved his goal.
Nonetheless, the conversation is worthwhile and hopefully the
committee will flesh the idea out in either this bill or
another. Now is the time to confront the issue of ethics and get
some meaningful legislation on the books.
SENATOR STEVENS said he took no particular ownership in the bill
and the suggestion for an omnibus bill may or may not work. In
conclusion he said the bill is simply: "An Act prohibiting a
legislator from providing consulting services to a person in the
private sector or agreeing to accept consulting fees from a
person in the private sector." That's all it does, he said.
2:20:21 PM
CHAIR FRENCH noted his earlier conversation with the sponsor
regarding a definition for consultant and said two synonyms that
come to mind are "advisor" and "analyst". If this bill were to
pass, he could imagine that APOC filings would begin to reflect
those services. Parenthetically he agreed with the thrust of the
bill because legislators should not trade on their office.
Expertise, special knowledge, or business acumen may be
exercised outside the capitol building, but how would you handle
those synonyms, he questioned.
SENATOR STEVENS responded he worked with the bill drafter to
come up with a definition of what is and isn't included and he
has been unable to find a workable definition in state
regulation. Nonetheless, he asked the committee not to water it
down or create loopholes by saying an analyst or advisor is okay
because that would weaken the bill. The reality is that the
activity is either allowed or it isn't. When a person is
considering whether or not to run for a legislative office, then
they ought to decide whether they want to so one job or the
other.
As long as the state has citizen law makers there will be fewer
people who are available to serve because of the financial
struggle. It's not his goal to change the system, but the rules
about crossing the line to become an advisor must be very clear.
2:23:22 PM
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT asked if he had discussed with
legislative legal the notion of prohibiting any business that
would entail providing services that are outside the person's
specific training or professional expertise. He suggested there
ought to be a way to cast the net broadly and still let people
conduct private business.
2:25:10 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said he had no objection to expanding the bill,
but the test question ought to be whether the legislator would
have gotten the job if he or she was not a member of the
Legislature. The problem is how to write that into the law.
SENATOR THERRIAULT responded an economist who is also a
legislator is required to disclose to APOC payments in excess of
$1,000 and the time spent for that remuneration. The public will
be able to determine whether the pay is commensurate with the
profession. It's the terms "consultant" and "advisor" that are
murky. The remuneration for that work can be astronomical and
cause the general public concern.
2:27:07 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said he couldn't agree more, but the problem is
in the details. He questioned how you tell when an economist
legislator is hired for his or her professional expertise and
not for their legislative experience.
2:27:25 PM
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS asked what a legislator's status would
be if he or she was a consultant before becoming a legislator if
SB 13 were to pass.
SENATOR STEVENS replied the individual would need to make a
choice between being a legislator and being a consultant.
SENATOR HUGGINS remarked that the committee would ultimately
need to determine whether or not it's legal to ban someone from
pursuing his or her profession while serving as a legislator.
SENATOR STEVENS replied he, as a retired university professor,
cannot teach for remuneration while he is serving as a
legislator.
SENATOR HUGGINS commented on a conversation he had regarding
professional licensing and business conduct. It's what the
person does with the license and the compensation that makes the
difference.
2:30:26 PM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI said he can see two issues regarding
consulting services. The first is legislators receiving
exorbitant fees for providing services that they may or may not
be qualified to do. The second is legislators helping others
with the legislative process. He questioned what other states
are doing.
2:31:28 PM
SENATOR STEVENS questioned whether it makes any difference if
the fees received are exorbitant if the activity is wrong. As
far as legislators helping others with the legislative process,
they already do that as part of the job.
2:32:21 PM
SENATOR LESIL McGUIRE advised that California decided to have
professional law makers address these same ethical issues.
Although the tradeoff is huge for some individuals, the decision
is that if you want to be a public servant then other economic
opportunities are on hold.
Two hypothetical examples come to mind, she said. First, suppose
a legislator has a professional license as a real estate agent
and he or she works for a politically active company. Even
though the licensee isn't performing the day to day work as a
realtor, she questioned what might happen or what the perception
might be if a piece of legislation were introduced that would
have a tremendous financial impact on that realty company.
The second example involves a company vice-president, which is a
position that can be a catchall and include many or few
different duties and titles. There certainly could be an
instance where someone is promoted to vice-president of Company
A with full knowledge that he or she will be in Juneau for most
of the year. That might be very acceptable from the company's
standpoint and the business might function very well without the
vice-president doing any day to day work.
She assured members she isn't casting aspersions and she doesn't
disagree with the thrust of the bill, but the deeper question is
whether or not you want citizen law makers. If the answer is yes
then how do you handle the real conflicts that aren't always
apparent.
There's always a tradeoff and the public understands that, but
whatever your title there's always someone who can do the job as
well or better simply because they're at work and doing the job
rather than also serving as a legislator. We have to decide
where to draw the line, but it's bigger than just consulting,
she said.
2:37:09 PM
SENATOR STEVENS agreed that many people consult, advise, and
analyze in their daily job so it's difficult to parse what they
may be doing as part of the job and what they may be doing as a
legislator. Although it seemed simple at the onset, there really
is no simple solution. Adding exceptions creates loopholes and
the law would lose its teeth. But changing to professional law
makers as California has done, wouldn't necessarily guarantee
ethical behavior either.
2:38:14 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT remarked those concerns support the
suggestion that this issue could be dealt with under an
umbrella. The language in SB 20 would address the example of the
real estate agent. If the person really did the work of an
active realtor, then the time spent and the monetary gain would
be disclosed under the language proposed in SB 20.
SENATOR McGUIRE pointed out that she used the example of the
real estate agent because there is an exception for state or
federal professional licenses.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said perhaps that language ought to be added
to the statute.
CHAIR FRENCH advised that the committee would revisit SB 20 on
Wednesday.
SENATOR STEVENS commented that adding to the reporting
requirements is an option and it ought to be very clear what the
requirements are, but something is very wrong if we get caught
up in nit-picking and we miss the big picture.
2:41:00 PM
CHAIR FRENCH found no further questions or testimony and closed
public testimony.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that he had an email to distribute to
the committee. It was from Mr. Metcalfe and was related to the
topic of ethics.
2:42:06 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 13 in committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 2:42:21 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|