03/24/2010 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB277 | |
| HB319 | |
| SB46 | |
| SB63 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 277 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 319 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 24, 2010
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Dennis Egan
Senator Lesil McGuire
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator John Coghill
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 277
"An Act exempting from regulation by the Regulatory Commission
of Alaska and by municipalities generators of electricity from
renewable energy resources that sell electricity to regulated
utilities."
- MOVED CSSB 277(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 319(FIN)
"An Act relating to firearms; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 46
"An Act relating to child support awards made by a court; and
repealing Rule 90.3, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 63
"An Act relating to transfer restrictions on trust interests."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 277
SHORT TITLE: PUB. UTILITY EXEMPTION: RENEWABLE ENERGY
SPONSOR(s): ENERGY
02/12/10 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/10 (S) RES, JUD
02/22/10 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/22/10 (S) Heard & Held
02/22/10 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/25/10 (S) RES AT 4:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/25/10 (S) Moved CSSB 277(RES) Out of Committee
02/25/10 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/02/10 (S) RES RPT CS 1DP 3NR NEW TITLE
03/02/10 (S) DP: MCGUIRE
03/02/10 (S) NR: WIELECHOWSKI, STEVENS, FRENCH
03/19/10 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/19/10 (S) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
03/22/10 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/22/10 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/10 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
BILL: HB 319
SHORT TITLE: FIREARMS
SPONSOR(s): HAWKER
01/29/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/29/10 (H) JUD, FIN
02/10/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/10/10 (H) Moved CSHB 319(JUD) Out of Committee
02/10/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/12/10 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 4DP 2NR
02/12/10 (H) DP: LYNN, DAHLSTROM, GATTO, RAMRAS
02/12/10 (H) NR: GRUENBERG, HERRON
02/16/10 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/16/10 (H) Moved CSHB 319(FIN) Out of Committee
02/16/10 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/19/10 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 7DP
02/19/10 (H) DP: KELLY, THOMAS, DOOGAN, AUSTERMAN,
FAIRCLOUGH, STOLTZE, HAWKER
02/24/10 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
02/24/10 (H) VERSION: CSHB 319(FIN)
02/26/10 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/26/10 (S) JUD, FIN
03/22/10 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/22/10 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/10 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/24/10 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 46
SHORT TITLE: CHILD SUPPORT AWARDS
SPONSOR(s): KOOKESH
01/21/09 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/21/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/09 (S) HSS, JUD, FIN
03/01/10 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/10 (S) Heard & Held
03/01/10 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/10/10 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/10/10 (S) Moved CSSB 46(HSS) Out of Committee
03/10/10 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/12/10 (S) HSS RPT CS 5DP NEW TITLE
03/12/10 (S) DP: DAVIS, THOMAS, ELLIS, PASKVAN,
DYSON
03/24/10 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 63
SHORT TITLE: TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS ON TRUSTS
SPONSOR(s): MCGUIRE
01/21/09 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/16/09
01/21/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/09 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
02/04/10 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/04/10 (S) Heard & Held
02/04/10 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/11/10 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/11/10 (S) Moved CSSB 63(STA) Out of Committee
03/11/10 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/12/10 (S) STA RPT CS 2DP 3NR SAME TITLE
03/12/10 (S) DP: MENARD, MEYER
03/12/10 (S) NR: FRENCH, PASKVAN, KOOKESH
03/24/10 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff
to Senator McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to SB 277 on
behalf of the sponsor.
JULI LUCKY, Staff
to Representative Mike Hawker
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions on HB 319 on behalf
of the sponsor.
DOROTHY SHOCKLEY, Staff
to Senator Albert Kookesh
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 46 on behalf of the sponsor.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Alaska Court System
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to SB 46.
JOHN MALLONEE, Director
Child Support Systems
Department of Revenue (DOR)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to SB 46.
STACY STEINBERG, Section Chief
Civil Division
Collections and Support Section
Department of Law
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to SB 46.
ESTER CHA, Staff
to Senator Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 63 on behalf of the sponsor.
JONATHAN BLATTMACHR, representing himself
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
RICHARD HOMPESCH, representing himself
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
DAVID G. SHAFTEL, representing himself
Shaftel Law Offices
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63.
JANET TEMPEL, Senior Trust Officer
Alaska USA Trust
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 63
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:10 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Senators Egan,
Wielechowski, McGuire, and French were present at the call to
order.
SB 277-PUB. UTILITY EXEMPTION: RENEWABLE ENERGY
1:33:41 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 277 and asked the
sponsor if she or her staff wanted to amplify or clarify
anything that was said at the previous hearing. [CSSB 277(RES)
was before the committee.]
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Senator McGuire, said that as the
RCA has recognized, this is a policy call about competition and
access to the electricity market. He noted that Mr. Foster's
testimony during the previous hearing brought particular clarity
and insight to the issue.
1:34:22 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE thanked Chair French for bringing Mr. Foster
into the conversation and for indulging a broader hearing in
terms of looking at how to deal with independent power producers
and renewable energy as a whole.
CHAIR FRENCH said it's an interesting issue and he likes the
bill. He views it as a matter of two sophisticated business
entities dealing with one another in an arm's length transaction
without being forced to strike a deal. That sort of market
mechanism should protect consumers in the Railbelt as well as
anything, he said.
1:35:27 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he shares those sentiments. IPPs
shouldn't be in a position to dominate the market, but the 65
megawatt limitation and the sunset provides protection for
consumers.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report SB 277 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). There
being no objection, CSSB 277(RES) moved from the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee.
At ease from 1:36 p.m. to 1:37 p.m.
HB 319-FIREARMS
1:37:20 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of CS for HB 319 [CSHB
319(FIN)]. Public testimony was taken at the previous hearing.
He asked Ms. Lucky to discuss how the command to execute federal
firearms forms in Section 5 will work in practice.
JULI LUCKY, Staff to Representative Mike Hawker, said this puts
a duty on the chief law enforcement officer of a jurisdiction to
execute a form, but the bill doesn't specify a remedy if that's
not done.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the failure to execute the form might be
the basis of an ethics complaint against a chief law enforcement
officer or chief administrative officer.
MS. LUCKY said she could do additional research on that, but
since there isn't a remedy in statute it's unclear what the
remedy might be for a violation of this section.
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold HB 319 in committee to
allow time to look at the options. I don't want to create an
expectation that can't be enforced or put municipal police
departments across the state in a bind, he said.
SB 46-CHILD SUPPORT AWARDS
1:40:19 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 46. [CSSB 46(HSS)
was before the committee.
DOROTHY SHOCKLEY, Staff to Senator Albert Kookesh, said CS for
SB 46 puts the Child Support Civil Rule 90.3 Guidelines into
statute. When the Alaska Supreme Court enacted the rule in 1987,
they admitted that it was substantive law that the Legislature
could replace at any time. SB 46 proposes to do that.
MS. SHOCKLEY explained that when a child support guideline is
set by court rule, the people who are affected don't have a
chance to speak to the individuals who have the power to make
changes. This has been a problem. The feedback that the sponsor
has received is that people don't mind paying child support, but
they don't agree with the formula the court has set. She related
that she encouraged constituents to write to the review
committee, but it made a disappointingly small difference. Just
one statewide-call-in hearing was held and people in rural
Alaska in particular weren't able to talk about their unique
situation to anyone who could make changes. Putting the rule
into statute is perhaps the only solution, she said.
1:44:00 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Wooliver to explain how it came to be
that child support orders are done through a court rule rather
than statute.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System,
informed the committee that the state's child support guidelines
were adopted by the court shortly after the federal law passed
requiring states to have guidelines. Then Governor Cowper asked
the administrative director of the court if the court would be
willing to establish the child support guidelines because
neither the Legislature nor the governor wanted to do so.
Although it's not a typical role for the court, they did agree
and they've been doing it for the past 23 years.
MR. WOOLIVER explained that federal law requires a review of the
guidelines every four years. About two years prior to enacting
any changes, a committee is appointed and the court sends out a
letter asking for public comment on the guidelines. Posters are
put in all the court locations, notices are posted in 32
newspapers in the state, and the information is on the court's
website. Notices of the contemplated changes go out to all
attorneys in a number of venues and to child support services to
include in their mailings. The notice tells people who are
making and receiving child support payments that a change is
coming and it asks for input. This last year the court sent
34,000 notices to child support services to include in their
mailings.
After this process the comments are summarized and organized by
subject and distributed to the committee members who develop a
draft proposal. The draft proposal again goes out for comment
and a memo summarizing the rule goes out to many of the same
venues as before, including to legislators. Last time the court
received 80 comments from members of the public through that
process. He said there is one statewide teleconference, but it
hasn't been a successful venue. Last time just six people
participated.
The committee takes the comments into account and forwards a
recommendation to the five supreme court justices who have the
ultimate authority to form the rule.
1:48:18 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how similar the current Rule 90.3 is
to the federal guidelines on child support.
MR. WOOLIVER offered to find the answer.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if other states have their child
support rules in statute.
MR. WOOLIVER offered to find the answer.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he had a feeling for how much of the
court's time is absorbed in child support matters because he
recalls that they are extremely time intensive.
1:49:58 PM
MR. WOOLIVER replied these matters take a great deal of the
court's time. He reminded the committee that several weeks ago
when he asked the Legislature for another superior court judge
in Anchorage, one reason he cited was unrepresented litigants in
family law cases. That category is child support. He said one
reason he asked for just one more judge is because the court
wants to add staff, part of whose job will be to help the judges
calculate child support payments. The judges do that now.
1:50:59 PM
JOHN MALLONEE, Director Child Support Services Division,
Department of Revenue (DOR) said he was available to answer
questions.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he participates in the process that
results in modifications to Civil Rule 90.3 Child Support
Guidelines.
MR. MALLONEE replied the Child Support Services Division (CSSD)
works through Assistant Attorney General Stacy Steinberg when it
wants changes. She currently represents CSSD and has been a
member of the committee Mr. Wooliver described.
Responding to an earlier question about the federal law, he
explained that 45 CFR 302.56 basically states what the general
guidelines must consider. It's fairly open for interpretation by
the states other than that a review is required every four
years.
1:52:52 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Steinberg her perspective on the
administration's ability to get changes made in child support
guidelines.
STACY STEINBERG, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Section
Supervisor, Collections and Support Section, Civil Division,
Department of Law (DOL), explained that the attorneys in this
section represent CSSD whenever they have legal issues or when a
matter goes to court.
MS. STEINBERG said she served on the most recent committee that
reviewed child support guidelines and at the time she brought
CSSD concerns to the committee's attention. The committee is
comprised of private attorneys and a judge who sits as chair and
the process the committee undertakes is extensive and time
consuming. During the last review CSSD didn't ask for any
specific changes but they did work with the committee to make
the court form more efficient for collecting child support.
1:55:01 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the administration had taken a position on
the bill.
MS. STEINBERG deferred to Mr. Mallonee.
MR. MALLONEE replied, "We have no objection to the bill." They
simply use the guidelines to do the calculations to establish
child support orders and it wouldn't matter if it was in statute
or court rule.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if CSSD gets involved in every four-
year review.
MR. MALLONEE said their only real involvement is through the DOL
section chief that represents CSSD.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he believes that the formula and
other calculations in the bill are fair.
MR. MALLONEE replied it would take an economic study to
determine whether or not the percentages are fair and equitable.
The last one was done when the rule was established originally.
MS. SHOCKLEY added that the idea was to adopt the same numbers
as Civil Rule 90.3 then after they're in statute the sponsor
would look at perhaps making changes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he appreciates knowing that.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Steinberg if the new - and as yet not
adopted - CS addresses the concerns she outlined in a letter to
the sponsor.
MS. STEINBERG replied she understands that that a new CS was
drafted, but she hasn't seen it; she's still working from
version 26-LS0279\P.
CHAIR FRENCH said he'd wait until a subsequent hearing to adopt
the new CS to make sure that everyone was working from the same
document. Noting that one concern she spoke to was how medical
costs are to be divided, he asked if the problem doesn't exist
now if the numbers in the bill were simply lifted from the court
rule.
MS. STEINBERG said the bill initially mimicked Civil Rule 90.3
and the few legal changes that were needed were resolved. The
problem came about because of 2008 federal regulations that
required the addition of cash medical support and provisions to
define reasonableness and accessibility of health insurance.
Those aspects were added to version P but because they aren't in
rule 90.3 it wasn't clear how some of the uncovered medical
expenses would be handled and who would pay. She said the main
point of the letter was to ensure that the additions of cash
medical support will legally work in this new statute.
2:03:23 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned how the judicial branch was able
to adopt substantive law if Civil Rule 90.3 is in fact
substantive.
MS. STEINBERG replied it is substantive in that it sets how
child support is established in each court case, but it is a
court rule that only applies to court. The constitutionality of
the rule has been challenged and the supreme court found it to
be constitutional. CSSD has a separate regulation that
specifically says it will follow Civil Rule 90.3.
2:04:42 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked the drafting attorney why the
nonapplicability of two-thirds vote requirement is included in
the bill and how she came to that conclusion.
JEAN MISCHEL, Drafting Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that her office
has construed this to be a substantive rule. Since the bill
isn't affecting judicial procedure, a two-thirds vote isn't
required.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned how the Legislature can change a
court rule without a two-thirds vote.
MR. WOOLIVER explained that the supreme court adopts rules under
two provisions of the constitution. Article 4, Section 15, is
the rules of practice and procedure and Article 4, Section 1 is
the inherent authority of the court. Rule 90.3 says it is
adopted pursuant to the authority under Article 4, Section 1 and
is not subject to the super majority requirements that the rules
of practice and procedure would be subject to with respect to
legislative change. The rule itself says it is a substantive
rule and the Legislature can change it by a simple majority
vote.
CHAIR FRENCH mused about the separation of powers and the 2/3
vote requirement.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented that it's an interesting question
and the logic is somewhat circular.
2:07:27 PM
MS. MISCHEL clarified that the court adopts both procedural and
substantive rules and the substantive rules are within the
purview of both the judicial and legislative branches. As Mr.
Wooliver pointed out, the court told the Legislature it could
amend or adopt this rule without a 2/3 vote. "We're all in
agreement that this is not a procedural rule that the court
would have more control over," she said.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if there are other instances of the court
adopting substantive rules.
MS. MISCHEL said yes, but it would take time to point them out.
CHAIR FRENCH said he wouldn't move the bill before he heard from
the family law section and Mr. Kirk who has been supportive of
the bill.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that because this is a fairly significant
change, he would hold SB 46 for a future hearing.
SB 63-TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS ON TRUSTS
2:09:35 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 63. [CSSB 63(STA)
was before the committee.]
ESTER CHA, Staff to Senator Lesil McGuire, introduced SB 63
reading from the following sponsor statement:
The climate for trust and estate planning is highly
competitive, and the trust business is a multi-billion
dollar sector that often crosses state lines in order
to take advantage of more attractive state trust laws.
In 1997, Alaska became the first state to establish a
law that allows a person to form an irrevocable trust,
be a discretionary beneficiary of the trust and, if
the trust has a spendthrift clause, protect the trust
assets from the settlor's creditors.
To give a little background, I'll summarize the aspect
of trusts to which this bill refers. In trusts, there
are three parties: a settlor also known as a trust-
maker, grantor, or testator; the trustee, which can be
an individual or an institution; and beneficiaries.
The settlor designates whether or not a beneficiary is
discretionary, which means that payment of
distributions is determined based on the discretion of
the trustee instead of the settlor stating how much
and how often payments will be distributed. With
discretionary beneficiaries, trustees may be given
standards by which to exercise discretion e.g. the
HEMS or Health, Education, Management, and Support
standard. If the trust has a spendthrift provision, a
creditor cannot force the trustee to pay money
directly to the creditor. Instead, the creditor must
wait until the trustee pays out the distribution to a
beneficiary, at which time the creditor can seize the
assets.
Alaska established in 1997 that assets in a trust
would be protected from a settlor's creditors if he
designates himself as a discretionary beneficiary,
provided that he has no current claims pending. Since
Alaska enacted this statute, numerous other states
have enacted similar statutes. At present, twelve
states allow this type of trust. SB 63 upgrades
Alaska's trust statute by adopting provisions that
have been adopted by other states. Therefore, without
changes in legislation, Alaska would not be able to
maintain its position at the forefront.
This bill provides the following amendments:
· It clarifies the burden of proof which a creditor
must meet to establish that a transfer in trust
was done with the intent to defraud a creditor
· Clarifies that a spendthrift provision will apply
to a trust if distributions are made under the
exercise of discretion by a trustee who is not
the settler, whether or not the exercise of the
discretion is governed by the standard
· Provides that the spendthrift provision in a
trust will apply even though the trustee may
distribute income or principal to the settlor to
pay income taxes
· Clarifies that a beneficiary's interest in a
trust, whether or not vested, is not considered a
factor or economic circumstance in the division
of property subject to divorce
These changes in SB 63 were brought to our office's
attention by experts in the probate and trust field.
SB 63 is part of an ongoing effort to modernize our
trust laws and by doing so (1) to create jobs and
revenue, (2) to diversify our economy, and (3) to
continue making Alaska attractive to trust business
and investment.
2:14:02 PM
JONATHAN BLATTMACHR, Principal, ILS Management, characterized SB
63 as a catch-up bill for trusts that will ensure that Alaska
trust laws are at least as good as any other state's and better
in some respects. He noted that in Private Letter Ruling 2009
44002, the IRS held that an individual could create an Alaska
trust of which he or she is a discretionary beneficiary and
those assets wouldn't be included in that person's estate upon
their death. He opined that the only other state that might
possibly fall under that favorable ruling is Nevada. He urged
the committee to pass the bill.
2:16:58 PM
RICHARD HOMPESCH, II, Attorney, Hompesch and Evans LLC,
Fairbanks, said he agrees with Mr. Blattmachr's comments and
believes that Alaska is nationally recognized for its trust
laws. This has made a difference in his practice and has had an
impact on the estate planning his company does for clients in
Fairbanks. He urged the committee to pass SB 63.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if out-of-state individuals enlist his
services to establish trusts under Alaska law because the
statutes in this state are more favorable.
MR. HOMPESCH said yes and cited examples.
2:19:03 PM
DAVID G. SHAFTEL, Shaftel Law Offices, said he is a private
attorney and a member of the informal group of attorneys and
trust officers who have been working with the Legislature since
the late 1990's on trust legislation. He related that he has had
a similar experience as Mr. Hompesch; many Alaska clients as
well as individuals from other states have wanted to take
advantage of Alaska's superior trust laws. The provisions in SB
63 will further strengthen the law with respect to this type of
trust. He urged the committee to approve the bill.
2:20:04 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the increased out-of-state
business will create additional work for the court system.
MR. SHAFTEL said he doesn't believe so; if non-residents with
trusts here were to litigate these matters, they would likely do
it in bankruptcy court or the state court where the settlor is a
resident rather than in Alaska.
2:21:15 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion to adopt the committee
substitute (CS).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt work draft CS for SB 63,
labeled 26-LS0317\P, as the working document. There being no
objection, version P was before the committee.
2:21:47 PM
JANET TEMPEL, Senior Trust Officer, Alaska USA Trust Company,
said her company is the trustee for residents and non-residents
on a number of trusts that have been set up under the Alaska
Trust Act. She said she completely agrees with the previous
testimony that it is important to keep Alaska's trust laws
updated. We completely support SB 63, she said.
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and held SB 63 to a future
hearing.
2:22:45 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 2:22 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|