SB 88-OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS  3:34:17 PM CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting and announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 88, "An Act relating to the office of administrative hearings; relating to the types of proceedings handled by the office of administrative hearings; relating to the entities that may use the services of the office of administrative hearings; relating to the duties of the chief administrative law judge, including the power to hire professional staff; relating to the qualifications and powers of administrative law judges, including subpoena power; relating to the compensation of the chief administrative law judge; relating to complaints against administrative law judges and hearing officers; relating to reimbursement for costs incurred by the office of administrative hearings; relating to procedures for requesting and conducting proceedings of the office of administrative hearings; and providing for an effective date." 3:34:52 PM MICHAEL WILLIS, Intern, Senator Peter Micciche, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the sponsor, introduced SB 88, speaking to the following sponsor statement: Senate Bill 88 is a "good government" bill to improve the process for hearing administrative appeals in Alaska. This bill updates the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) statutes to address due process concerns, procedural confusion, and inefficiencies, all with an eye towards improving OAH's ability to provide timely, cost-effective, and high-quality administrative adjudication services. In 2004, under the leadership of Governor Murkowski and Senator Therriault, the legislature created the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to centralize the state administrative adjudication process. The new system has worked well to reduce cost, improve public confidence, and provide a speedier process to resolve disputes. However, the statutory framework needs an update to correct drafting anomalies and take advantage of the lessons learned from 14 years of "test driving" the original innovative legislation. Some of the corrections and improvements included in SB 88: • Reduce procedural confusion over OAH's subpoena authority by replacing a patchwork system with a uniform provision. It eliminates gaps that made it impossible, for example, for a parent accused of child abuse to subpoena a key witness to the alleged event. • Rationalize the system of deadlines that was created to speed the process. For example, one final decision deadline applicable to agency heads, though wise in concept, has been counted from the wrong event, sometimes leaving commissioners with virtually no time to consider far-reaching decisions. At the same time, these final decisionmakers have had no deadline at all to act on revised proposed decisions after a remand, which can lead to long delays that frustrate the parties. • Make it possible for parties to respond to one another's objections to a proposed decision, in appropriate cases. The lack of a way to allow for responses has led to due process concerns and delays. The bill also permits the administrative law judge (ALJ) to revise a proposed decision based on errors pointed out by the parties, again cutting down on inefficiency and delay. • Permit the Chief Administrative Law Judge to employ low-cost junior professionals for some work, correcting an inadvertent omission in the original legislation. This will create opportunities for savings. • Allow OAH to count experience gained in other jurisdictions toward the minimums needed to serve as a tax qualified ALJ. This is critical in the tax docket, where OAH has had serious recruitment problems and needs to broaden the pool of skilled practitioners it can recruit from. • Give OAH a means of reopening decisions that were entered in error, such as when a party failed to appear but the failure later turns out to be because the party was incapacitated, or because the agency sent the notice to the wrong person. SB 88 corrects this omission in the original legislation. The public will be better served by the corrections and streamlining in the process for administrative adjudication as provided by SB 88. I respectfully request support for this bill. 3:36:38 PM ANDREW HEMENWAY, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, read the following prepared remarks: Good afternoon. My name is Andy Hemenway. I was employed by the Office of Administrative Hearings as an administrative law judge from the time it was created in 2004 until 2015. I retired from state service in 2016, and I am appearing before you in a personal capacity. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to provide the members of the committee with some background information regarding the Office of Administrative Hearings, in order to put into perspective what the agency does and why this legislation is needed. The Office of Administrative Hearings is, in effect, the executive branch's judicial branch. The agency (OAH) conducts adjudicative hearings for executive branch agencies. These hearings provide due process of law for a member of the public who has the right to appeal from an agency decision regarding that person's state benefit, obligation, program or license. 3:37:32 PM Before OAH was established, each individual agency conducted these kinds of adjudicative hearings, using a hearing officer employed by the agency whose decision was being appealed. Understandably, this system resulted in a perception among many people who appealed that the proceeding was stacked against them, because the agency controlled the adjudicative process and employed the hearing officer. In 2004, the Alaska Legislature created the Office of Administrative Hearings as an independent agency. The purpose of the legislation was to eliminate the perception of unfairness in the adjudicative process and to separate the adjudicatory functions of executive branch agencies from those agencies' investigative, prosecutorial, and policy-making functions. OAH's jurisdiction is set out in AS 44.64.030. Since OAH was established, the legislature has added additional case categories to the list of agencies, boards and commissions whose cases must be heard by OAH. In addition, a number of executive branch agencies and other public entities, such as municipalities and school districts, whose cases are not listed in AS 44.64.030, have decided to refer their cases to OAH in order to take advantage of what has come to be seen as a professional, experienced, fair and cost-effective method of resolving contested cases. Today, OAH handles cases from approximately 80 different areas of law. Administrative law judges at OAH have dealt with matters involving as little as $40 to as much as $800 million, as well as cases where money is not the issue, such as professional licensing, ethics, and procurement. Some cases involve teams of attorneys on both sides, while others involve a non-attorney agency representative and a self-represented litigant. 3:39:29 PM In order to provide some context for the specifics of SB 88, I'll briefly describe the adjudicative process as it occurs in the Office of Administrative Hearings Let's say a person disagrees with an agency decision regarding a matter such as child support, PFD eligibility, revocation or denial of a professional license, or entitlement to a welfare benefit. Under our constitution, that person is entitled to an adjudicative hearing to contest the agency's decision. The person files an appeal with the agency, which is required to forward the appeal to OAH within ten days. From then on, OAH has control of the hearing process. The chief administrative law judge assigns the case to an administrative law judge, who is charged with issuing a proposed decision within 120 days. The assigned judge will review the case file, and either schedule a hearing or, in more complex cases, schedule a prehearing conference. There may be some preliminary issues to deal with, in which case the parties will be given an opportunity to file prehearing motions. In many cases, the administrative law judge will conclude that the issues that have been raised may be capable of resolution without a hearing, through alternative dispute resolution. In those cases, the chief administrative law judge will assign a different judge to contact the parties and to conduct mediation, which is an informal, voluntary process in which the judge attempts to find a workable solution to the issues raised that satisfies both the individual and the agency. This has been a particularly beneficial part of the OAH docket, which has saved agencies money by reducing the cost of administrative litigation, while at the same time providing a fair outcome for all concerned. Assuming that the case is not resolved through alternative dispute resolution, or otherwise, the administrative law judge presides over the hearing, at which, just as in a court case, witnesses testify under oath and are cross-examined, and documents are submitted into evidence. After the hearing, the administrative law judge issues a written proposed decision, and the parties are given an opportunity to request changes by filing a proposal for action. The administrative law judge's decision is generally not the final decision, although in some instances, such as in tax appeals, it is. Assuming the administrative law judge's decision is not given effect as the final decision, the administrative law judge's decision and any proposals for action are sent to the final decision maker, which in most cases is the commissioner of whatever department the agency is in, or, in cases involving professional licensing or other boards or commissions, the board or commission involved. The final decision maker can either adopt the administrative law judge's decision, modify it, or send it back to the administrative law judge for additional proceedings. In most cases, the final decision maker adopts the administrative law judge's decision in the form it was issued. In any event, once the final decision is issued, the parties to the case may appeal that decision to the superior court. That, in a nutshell, is how cases generally proceed in OAH. Over the course of years since the agency was created, however, it has identified a few provisions of its enabling statute that could be improved in order to streamline the adjudicative process and to clarify the agency's powers. SB 88 was drafted with the direct and close involvement of OAH and the Department of Law. Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing me with an opportunity to testify in support of SB 88. Administrative Law Judge Chris Kennedy, who was the primary OAH contact in the bill drafting process, will take the committee through the bill's provisions in detail, but in the meantime if there are any questions for me, I am happy to address them. 3:43:03 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if a person who appears before OAH typically will have counsel. MR. HEMENWAY answered that defendants typically do not have counsel for cases involving child support, the permanent fund dividend, and welfare benefits. However, if enough is at stake in dollars or in principle, the person typically will have counsel. Counsel may also appear if the principle will apply to a lot of Alaskans, even if the dollar amount is not very significant, so it varies based on the type of case. 3:44:24 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how many OAH cases are settled and how many are appealed to superior court. MR. HEMENWAY said he did not have the information on hand, but it is in the annual report. He deferred to Administrative Law Judge Kennedy to respond further. 3:45:19 PM CHRIS KENNEDY, Administrative Law Judge (Tax), Office of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, State of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, in response to Senator Kawasaki, stated that less than one percent of cases are appealed to superior court. He offered to follow up with the specific number. CHAIR REVAK said the committee would appreciate the figure. MR. KENNEDY said he has worked for the agency since 2005. He served as the deputy chief until 2016. He presented the sectional analysis for SB 88: Sec. 1: Amends AS 18.80.120(b) and is a conforming change to remove the statutory reference that is being repealed in section 20 (AS 44.64.055). (Page 1, line 12 Page 2, line 6) Sec. 2: Amends AS 39.25.120(c)(20) and is a conforming change to align with the proposed change in section 4. It adds "professional staff" to the partially exempt service in the Office of Administrative Hearings. (Page 2, lines 7-9) He explained that Section 2 is one of a pair of sections that address an inadvertent problem created by the original statute. The statute did not authorize hiring a professional staff, such as a staff attorney. Other panels in other states have been able to increase productivity by having junior attorneys do some of the more repetitive tasks. If done right this can be a means to reduce overall cost. Sec. 3: Amends AS 44.64.010(d) to correct two anomalies in the chief administrative law judge's salary. The chief administrative law judge would be paid at step 27 according to the personnel rules and the duty station where he or she works. (Page 2, lines 10-14) He said because of the applicability clause, this provision would not apply to the current chief. The chief currently is paid on the Juneau salary schedule, but she is located in Anchorage. This provision would correct that anomaly. Also, the position is capped at step F, which has effectively prevented governors from recruiting from senior attorneys at the Department of Law when selecting a Chief Administrative Law Judge because those individuals would lose too many steps by transferring to OAH. Sec. 4: Amends AS 44.64.020 to provide more flexibility in staffing structure of the Office of Administrative Hearings and includes language clean- up. (Page 2, line 15 Page 4, line 12) 3:48:00 PM MR. KENNEDY said Section 4 is the other part of the change he mentioned in Section 2 to use professional staff. It also adds language regarding alternative dispute resolution, which as Mr. Hemenway mentioned has become one of the core duties of OAH. It was not fully foreseen in 2004, but the agency has found that greatly expanding its mediation capabilities has been a tremendous cost-saving tool for OAH. It has twice permitted OAH to downsize. This section updates the core duties and has some technical cleanup language that Legislative Legal Services recommended. Sec. 5: Amends AS 44.64.030(b) to correct an anomaly in statute, whereby municipalities and school districts are expressly permitted to contract with the Office of Administrative Hearings for services under AS 44.64.055, but are omitted from the provision for referral of cases. This section streamlines the statute and permits the repeal of AS 44.64.055 in section 20. (Page 4, lines 13-23) Amends AS 44.64.030(b) to clarify that agencies, municipalities, and school districts referring cases to the Office of Administrative Hearings may agree with the office that certain procedures will apply. (Page 4, lines 20-21) He explained that the original statute did not include municipalities and school districts in the authorization to accept case referrals. The OAH has accepted those referrals which has been a significant win-win for cost savings, but OAH would like to put it on a solid statutory footing. Sec. 6: Amends AS 44.64.030(c) to add the word "entity," which makes it explicit that a municipality or school district may choose to delegate final decision authority to OAH. (Page 4, lines 24-29) Sec. 7: Amends AS 44.64.040(a) to require the minimum experience for all classes of administrative law judges be four years, but in the case of tax qualified ALJs it would remove the requirement that the experience be in Alaska. (Page 4, line 29 Page 5, line 11) 3:49:37 PM MR. KENNEDY said Section 7 is surprisingly important because some of the most important work OAH does is to act as the state's tax court. The way the statute is currently worded, OAH cannot hire tax judges unless they have been practicing law in Alaska for two years even though Alaska experience is not necessary for tax work. He offered his view that it is almost impossible to find a good tax attorney in Alaska who is not making a lot more money than the state can pay. Advertised positions have gone unfilled for over a year at a time. He said he is the last employed tax judge at OAH, and he is transitioning into retirement so the organization would like the option to recruit outside Alaska, if necessary. Sec. 8: Amends AS 44.64.040(b) to clarify that delegation of a referring agency's or entities' procedural powers applies to any proceeding the agency or entity has referred. By adding the term "entity," this includes cases accepted from municipalities and school districts. (Page 5, lines 12-27) He said Section 8 corrects imprecise drafting in the 2004 bill. This makes it clear that OAH would have the agency or entity's power for cases referred to it. Sec. 9: Amends AS 44.64.040(c) to make a technical change regarding judges that serve part-time in a position that is authorized as full-time. (Page 5, line 28 Page 6, line 2) 3:50:55 PM MR. KENNEDY said the current language seems to require even part-time judges to devote full-time to the office if they are serving in a position that is authorized as a full-time position. As a cost-savings measure, OAH needs to be able to do partial fills of full-time positions when case demand is down. This change will make it clear that OAH can do so. Sec. 10: Amends AS 44.64.050(c) to put a statute of limitations on complaints for code of conduct violations. The section creates a dual limitations period. First, any person can bring a complaint about conduct that occurred less than three years ago. Second, any person can bring a complaint about conduct that occurred during a proceeding that ended less than two years ago (even if the conduct itself was more than three years ago). (Page 6, lines 3-20) He explained that Section 10 relates to the Chief Administrative Law Judge's duty to review code of conduct complaints against hearing officers throughout the state system. He said most of the code of conduct complaints that OAH reviews come from other tribunals, not OAH. Currently, there is no statute of limitations on those complaints and disgruntled people can come in and complain about things that happened many years in the past. This provision would limit the look-back period to three years, except for long running proceedings, in which it would allow for complaints two years after the proceeding ends to file a complaint. He said stale complaints have been a problem. Sec. 11: Amends AS 44.64.060(a) to clarify that if a municipality sends a case to the Office of Administrative Hearings, its ordinances apply. Aligns this section with AS 44.64.030(b) by making it explicit that preemption by OAH regulations does not apply to voluntarily referred cases. (Page 6, line 21 Page 7, line 2) MR. KENNEDY said the current preemption provision is a little too strong. It could be read to mean that when a municipality voluntarily refers a case to OAH, the OAH's regulations will preempt the municipality's ordinances. This makes the language more precise and ensures that municipalities can refer cases and not cause an override of their own rules. Sec. 12: Amends AS 44.64.060(b) to require basic information be submitted when a case is referred to the OAH. In addition, this section changes the appeal process of a denial of referral from the Superior Court to the OAH. Also, in this section, the timeline for compiling a full agency record is modified. (Page 7, lines 3-19) 3:52:52 PM MR. KENNEDY explained that Section 12 gives agencies a few more days to assemble the full agency record. This change is based on practical experience of what is possible and not possible at the beginning of a case. It would also provide that if an agency denies a hearing and refuses to refer a case to OAH, the person requesting the hearing can appeal that issue to OAH rather than going to superior court. This approach is used through regulations in half of the OAH hearing dockets. It has been a quick and efficient way to resolve front-end disputes, such as whether the hearing request was timely. Sec. 13: Amends AS 44.64.060(d) to adjust the deadline for stayed cases, allowing the 120-day deadline for a proposed decision to be suspended while a parallel case is moving forward. (Page 7, lines 20-29) He offered his view that the timeline has been a tremendous tool in keeping OAH as a faster, better, cheaper way to resolve many cases, but there are times when it is necessary to stop the clock completely to allow a parallel criminal case or other court litigation to go first. Currently, both parties must concur, and it can be cumbersome to get that agreement, he said. Sec. 14: Amends AS 44.64.060(e) to make changes to the decision-making process in the majority of OAH cases. Page 7, line 31: This change brings the language into line with current drafting standards, without changing meaning. Page 8, lines 5-6: Permits extension of the period for parties to comment on a proposed decision if all parties agree. Page 8, line 8: Ensures that proposals for action are filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings for forwarding to the final decision-maker. Page 8, lines 9-14: Permits the administrative law judge to allow parties to reply to one another's proposals for action, establishes a time limit for transmittal of the proposed decision and the parties' briefs, and permits the administrative law judge to return a proposed decision to make revisions in response to a proposal for action. Page 8, lines 15-19: Changes the date from which the final decision-maker's action deadline is calculated to the date on which the final-decision-maker receives the proposed decision. Page 8, lines 26-27: Permits a final decision-maker to set the length of time in which a remanded case must be processed. MR. KENNEDY said Section 14 is the most complicated section. As Mr. Hemenway stated, OAH has a proposal for action process after the proposed decision is circulated, and the current statute sets a hard 30-day timeline on these objections that OAH cannot extend it even if both sides agree. This provision will allow OAH to manage the deadline like any other litigation deadline. There is also a problem with the proposal for action structure being a little too rigid. Often one of the best features of the process is that when parties read the proposed decision, they finally realize the key issues of the case and tend to make their best arguments in the proposal for action. However, in order to consider those arguments and still give due process, OAH must be able to let the other party respond. This provision allows OAH to do so. It also allows OAH to revise a proposed decision to correct any errors before the decision is sent to the final decision maker. He said both changes will allow OAH to transmit a case to the final decision maker that is truly ready for final action, rather than to ask that person to remand the case to OAH for more work. 3:55:46 PM MR. KENNEDY said Section 14 also addresses a major frustration that commissioners have expressed to the OAH, which is that the deadline for final decision makers to act is tied to the wrong trigger. Currently it is counted 45 days from the day OAH mails the decision to the parties and not when it is sent to the final decision maker. When parties take the full time to execute their proposals for action, the commissioners are often left with only a few days to act. This is problematic in complex cases because when the deadline for action is missed, it can usurp the commissioner's decision. This provision would more appropriately start the 45 days on the date the commissioner receives the case, consistent with how other deadlines are counted. 3:56:57 PM Sec. 15: Amends AS 44.64.060(f) to conform with language in section 14. (Page 9, lines 8-12) MR. KENNEDY said Section 15 recognizes that what the final decision maker may be receiving is the revised proposed decision. Sec. 16: Amends AS 44.64.060 to add new subsections (g-h). Subsection (g) creates uniform authority for the issuance of subpoenas in some cases. Subsection (h) allows for the final decision maker in a case to reopen the proceeding for a reason provided in Rule 60(b) Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure. (Page 9, lines 13- 21) He said Section 16 solves several practical problems in case administration. First, OAH currently has subpoena authority in most of its cases. However, this authority comes from dozens of sources with quirky variations. This provision would provide ordinary subpoena authority across the board. The main areas in which it has been lacking have been in PERS [Public Employees' Retirement System] and TRS [Teachers' Retirement System], where hundreds of thousands of dollars can be at issue. He explained that a drafting error in the enabling legislation inadvertently omitted subpoena authority for those types of cases. It also affects substantiation of child abuse where litigants need to have the ability to compel testimony in order to get due process. MR. KENNEDY outlined a second issue, which has been the inability of commissioners or boards and commissions to reopen a decision that has been issued in error. For example, when a decision has been entered by default because a party failed to appear, and later OAH discovers that the party did not receive notice due to an address error. The current remedy is through superior court, and this provision would create a standard system for reopening cases parallel to the one used in the court system. Sec. 17: Amends AS 44.64.080(c) to clarify what agency staff can do and what the agency head can do, but does not change how this section has been interpreted historically. (Page 9, lines 22-28) Sec. 18: Amends AS 44.64.200(1) to correct a drafting oversight in the original legislation. (Page 9, line 29 Page 10, line 2) Sec. 19: Amends AS 44.64.200 to add three new paragraphs to the definition section (to define "entity," "other proceeding," and "school district." (Page 9, lines 3-9) Sec. 20: Repealer due to the function of AS 44.64.055 being moved into AS 44.64.030 in section 6. (Page 9, line 10) He explained that Section 20 repealed the existing statute on municipal and school district referrals because the provision is folded into other sections of the bill. Sec. 21: Applicability clause. Makes changes to compensation or prior bar membership requirements applicable to new hires only. Makes the statute of limitations in section 10 applicable only to complaints filed after section 10 is effective. (Page 9, lines 11-25) Sec. 22: Delays by one year the effective date of the statute of limitations in section 10. (Page 9, line 26) MR. KENNEDY said the language in Section 22 ensures that the statute of limitations is constitutional, such that people would have notice that a statute of limitations was coming into effect. 4:00:42 PM CHAIR REVAK asked for his perspective on the requirement for administrative law judges to be licensed in the state for four years instead of two years. MR. KENNEDY acknowledged that he did not touch on that issue. The OAH found that it is important for people to have experience before becoming an administrative law judge. In fact, ten years would be good, so two years seemed insufficient. That provision was meant to be a noncontroversial recognition of the basic experience necessary to preside over the types of cases the OAH encounters. 4:01:48 PM SENATOR COGHILL asked if OAH has struggled with payments from municipalities or just with the docket MR. KENNEDY answered that the 2004 enabling legislation did not address that area sufficiently. In the last few years, in practice it has worked very well. He offered his view that smaller municipalities have found tremendous cost savings by sending procurement or tax cases to OAH since the cases are heard quickly and efficiently. He said OAH has not encountered any difficulties in payments. SENATOR COGHILL asked him to elaborate on potential school district cases and if the cases would focus on retirement issues. MR. KENNEDY replied OAH has been receiving some retirement and teacher discipline cases in the last year, but they also handle special education cases from school districts. He stated that a variety of cases come from small school districts and using OAH provides them an economy of scale. SENATOR COGHILL asked about the language change from "alternate" dispute resolution to "alternative" dispute resolution. 4:04:53 PM MR. KENNEDY related that the grammarians said "alternate" means switching back and forth and "alternative" provides a different choice. He explained two ways that alternative dispute resolution occurs. In complex cases, parties may ask OAH to appoint a mediator, who is not the administrative law judge hearing the case. This administrative law judge will act as a neutral mediator who meets with the parties and tries to achieve a solution. Since OAH is a central panel, its administrative law judges have a multi-disciplinary knowledge base to achieve complicated solutions acceptable to the parties. This also results in cost savings by avoiding costly litigation for the parties. Second, in the public benefits area, OAH uses a technique that North Carolina uses, which is that a professional mediator conducts a one-hour mediation before a hearing. Parties are put on a mediation track, and mediation is held from 10 days to two weeks after an appeal is filed. The OAH has found the settlement rate is 85 percent, which dramatically reduced the public benefits caseload. In fact, OAH laid off an employee, which saved costs for OAH and Medicaid. He commented that the feedback has been positive, in part, because the mediator helps the parties understand how the process works, so they understand the outcome, even if it is not the result the parties hoped to achieve. 4:08:21 PM SENATOR COGHILL asked if he could review what is new in the subpoena authority in Section 16. MR. KENNEDY responded that the enabling legislation gave OAH the subpoena powers of the referring agency. He said most state agencies have some subpoena authority. For example, the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development's authority in the professional licensing area fall under the Administrative Procedures Act, which provides full subpoena authority. However, some of the authority is phrased in strange ways in the agencies, which could lead to litigation, such that an argument could be made about the transfer of subpoena authority to OAH. He said the most troublesome one is in the PERS/TRS area. The OAH was supposed to inherit the subpoena authority from the PERS/TRS board, but the provision was not transferred when the 2004 enabling legislation was drafted and it has not been fixed. OAH also hears a significant number of Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) child abuse and neglect hearings. The subpoena authority is necessary since those accused of those types of crimes need to be able to compel witnesses to testify on their behalf. However, the DHSS statutes do not give OAH the authority to do so. This provision would give OAH clear subpoena authority. SENATOR COGHILL said he thought OAH already had the authority, so he appreciated the explanation. 4:12:07 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI referred to pages 4 and 5 of the annual report that provides a list of OAH's mandatory jurisdiction. He asked if every case category would be included in the final decision- making authority. MR. KENNEDY said this bill does not address that issue. Although Chief Administrative Law Judge Fredrick advocated in the annual report for expanding its authority, this bill does not expand OAH's final decision-making authority. In some cases, it would mean that OAH's decisions would not go to commissioners or boards and commissions to make the final decision. 4:13:52 PM CHAIR REVAK opened public testimony on SB 88. He found none and held public testimony open on SB 88. He asked members to submit any amendments to his office prior to March 16, 2020. 4:14:30 PM CHAIR REVAK held SB 88 in committee.