ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 12, 2019
3:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Lora Reinbold
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Mike Shower, Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Lieutenant Governor Successor
Dr. Michael A. Johnson - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
SENATE BILL NO. 34
"An Act relating to probation; relating to a program allowing
probationers to earn credits for complying with the conditions
of probation; relating to early termination of probation;
relating to parole; relating to a program allowing parolees to
earn credits for complying with the conditions of parole;
relating to early termination of parole; relating to eligibility
for discretionary parole; relating to good time; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 34
SHORT TITLE: PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/23/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/19 (S) STA, FIN
02/07/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/07/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/07/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/19 (S) JUD REFERRAL ADDED AFTER STA
02/12/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. MICHAEL JOHNSON, PhD., nominee
Lieutenant Governor Successor and
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the nominee for Lieutenant
Governor Successor.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 34.
JEN WINKELMAN Director
Division of Probation and Parole
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 34.
JEFF EDWARDS, Executive Director
Division of Probation and Parole
Department of Corrections
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 34.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:34:26 PM
VICE CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:34 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kawasaki, Micciche, and Vice Chair Coghill.
Senator Reinbold arrived soon thereafter.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Lieutenant Governor Successor
3:36:06 PM
VICE CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business
would be consideration of the governor's appointment of Michael
Johnson as Lieutenant Governor Successor under AS 39.05.080.
3:36:41 PM
DR. MICHAEL JOHNSON, PhD., nominee, Lieutenant Governor
Successor, and commissioner for the Department of Education and
Early Development said it is a privilege to be selected as the
lieutenant governor successor, but he hopes to never serve in
that role. He related that he came to Alaska one summer and fell
in love with the kids. This led to a job with the Copper River
School District as a teacher's aide, then an elementary teacher,
and finally as the superintendent. In 2016 he was selected to be
the commissioner of education and he is continuing in that role
under the current administration.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL thanked Dr. Johnson for stepping forward and
for the work he has done to address the opportunities and
challenges of education in Alaska.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked Dr. Johnson to comment on his view of
the statutory responsibilities of the lieutenant governor and
what he would bring to that office.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON offered his understanding that in addition
to upholding the oath of office, the lieutenant governor is
primarily responsible for elections; public notaries; the state
seal; and the signing, publishing, and filing of regulations.
What he would bring to the position is his experience leading a
multi-division state department, a complex school district, and
the confidence of the governor.
3:39:58 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD joined the committee.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked if he had looked at the limitations and
flexibilities of the regulations, this governor's perspective of
them, and how he would approach them as lieutenant governor.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied he had not looked at the
limitations or flexibilities, but he would follow the law and
the constitution.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL commented that he has found the Department of
Law to be a good counselor, but their guidelines are often very
narrow and could be challenged.
3:41:35 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI, noting that he brought up following the law,
highlighted that the governor introduced SB 39 in the
supplemental budget to remove $20 million from the base student
allocation. He asked Dr. Johnson if he believes the law the 30th
Legislature passed last year will be enforced and when that
money will be allocated to the school districts.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL said that while the hearing is primarily
about the lieutenant governor successor, the question was
appropriate based on Dr. Johnson's statement about following the
law.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON agreed that the question was appropriate.
He offered his understanding that it would be up to the
legislature to decide whether or not to pass [SB 39] which would
change the law the legislature passed last year. Responding to
the second part of the question, he added, "I heard the OMB
director speak and as soon as the legislature makes a decision,
then the money would go out to the school districts."
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked when the money would go out to school
districts if this legislature does not pass the governor's
proposal.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL cautioned against turning this into a budget
hearing.
3:45:19 PM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said the process to disburse the funds will
start immediately if the legislature votes down the supplemental
budget.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the money would not be appropriated to
the school districts if the legislature fails to pass the bill.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL, responding to a further question from
Senator Kawasaki, clarified that the money was already
appropriated so it is a distribution question.
3:46:57 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said this hearing is about Dr. Johnson's
nomination as lieutenant governor successor and while he shares
some of the concerns that have been voiced, he would like to ask
questions about the position.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL responded that the question relates to
following the law.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said he would work with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on the terms for disbursing the
money.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL explained why he has allowed the breadth of
the questioning.
3:48:56 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI expressed appreciation for the latitude. He
said he would not have thought this is such an important
appointment but over the last decade someone has had to step
into the position. The point is that this is an appointed
position and there is a chance that this appointee could become
governor without going through the rigors of a campaign. He said
the legislature is the only vetting process and he wants
assurance that the laws will be followed.
SENATOR MICCICHE agreed the questions were fair. With regard to
the appointment, he offered his perspective that departments
push the limit on legislative intent when writing regulations
and the last few lieutenant governors have rubber-stamped them.
This has resulted in unacceptable mission creep that the
legislature has had to correct with clarifying statutes. He
asked Dr. Johnson to talk about the process he would use to
better match regulations to the intent of the statutes that the
legislature passed.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said he fundamentally believes that there
should be very clear lines between the three branches of
government. In the event that he becomes lieutenant governor, he
would like to send a clear message that the executive branch
knows its role is to execute the law, not make it.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL noted that election integrity is and will
continue to be a topic that receives much scrutiny. He asked if
he had talked to the lieutenant governor and was keeping an eye
on that office so that he could transition to the position
seamlessly, should that become necessary.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said he has not had a specific conversation
about elections, but he has read the relevant part of the state
constitution and the mission statement for the Division of
Elections. The mission is well stated, and it means that every
Alaskan matters so their vote matters. Should he need to step
into that role, he said it would be a large priority of his time
and office.
3:54:08 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD, noting that regulations are administrative
law, ask his overall view of regulations.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said his overall view would be in keeping
with what he said to Senator Micciche earlier, which is that the
executive branch role is to implement laws. Thus his view of
regulations is the effective implementation of the laws the
legislature passes.
SENATOR REINBOLD spoke of her frustration in years past with the
Board of Education failing to write and implement regulations to
ensure the law was followed. She asked his view of the
legislature's role in ensuring regulations are written for laws
that passed.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON deferred to the Department of Law to say
what mechanisms the legislature may have to force regulations to
be written. He also suggested the legislature look carefully at
the wording in the laws it passes to ensure they accomplish what
is intended. Doing so provides an easy path to writing the
regulations, he said.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL commented that the compromise and consensus
process of lawmaking can potentially result in ambiguity.
3:59:32 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked what he believes the legislature's role
is regarding regulation oversight.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied, "To pass good laws. And then
through your balance of powers, make sure those laws are
effectively implemented."
SENATOR REINBOLD clarified that she was talking about
regulations to implement the law.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said his responsibility in overseeing
regulations would be in keeping with the guiding principle that
the legislature makes the laws and the executive branch
implements those laws. If a law needs regulations to be
implemented effectively, he would work with the departments to
ensure that happens. He would also work with the departments to
ensure that ineffective regulations were not implemented.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL noted that the legislature has the ability to
remedy an ineffective regulation.
SENATOR REINBOLD shared that she is a proponent of allowing
regulations to be written to explain the legislative intent. She
added that if he because lieutenant governor, she would work
with him on the issue.
4:03:29 PM
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked if he is well aligned with the current
governor.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said yes; it would be his responsibility to
work in alignment with the governor who was elected by the
people.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked if he'd thought about how he might use
his much larger voice as lieutenant governor for the wellbeing
of Alaska.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied his character and values would not
change. He would serve with humility, character, and integrity
and enjoy every Alaskan he would have the opportunity to serve.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL commented that the people of Alaska need the
most noble of leaders and he would expect that of Dr. Johnson.
4:06:22 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE offered his view of the definition of hypocrisy
which is "the lack of willingness to defend the rights of free
speech of those with whom we most vehemently disagree." He asked
if he would spend the same effort approving or disapproving an
initiative on constitutional grounds whether it was an abortion
issue on the right or an extreme environmental issue on the
left.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied his responsibility would be to
follow the laws that guide the process that respectfully
protects the voice of all Alaskans. "I would not apply the law
differently based on my own political preferences or opinions
about a particular initiative," he said.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked his view on changing parts of law that
might have passed by initiative but didn't. He cited House Bill
44 that passed the legislature last year dealing with many
things including conflicts of interest, lobbyists, and lobbyist
reforms. The bill mirrored an initiative that was removed from
the ballot when the bill passed. Now it appears that the law
needs to be changed somewhat but those changes did not appear in
the initiative.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL offered Dr. Johnson the opportunity to
decline to answer because it was highly speculative.
4:09:09 PM
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said he was not very familiar with the
issue but would be happy to meet and learn more about the
question and why it would be important to understand should he
become lieutenant governor.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL said the question is legitimate to the extent
that the lieutenant governor works in the political arena.
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted the administration's intention to clean
up the voter registration lists by purging the names of people
who had not voted in the last two general elections. He
questioned whether there might be a way to do that without
disenfranchising voters.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said he has not looked into that situation,
but he believes that every Alaskan and their vote matters. He
would go through whatever process or procedure is necessary to
ensure all eligible Alaskans have the opportunity to vote.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL suggested he contemplate these and similar
questions as he fulfills his duties as commissioner.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if he were lieutenant governor and
Governor Dunleavy ran for a second term, if he would run as
lieutenant governor.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON replied he had no intention of running for
lieutenant governor, whether he becomes lieutenant governor or
not.
SENATOR MICCICHE cautioned him against saying he would never run
for office because the future is an unknown.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON thanked him for the counsel and reiterated
that running for statewide office was not his intention.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that's fair.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked if he had any closing comments.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON said he was honored to serve in this
contingency role and would be ready to step in if the need
arises, but he hopes that won't happen. He appreciates the
questions and the advice that comes with them.
4:15:24 PM
VICE CHAIR COGHILL stated that in accordance with AS 39.05.080,
the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee reviewed the
following and recommends the appointments be forwarded to a
joint session for consideration:
Lieutenant Governor Successor
Dr. Michael A. Johnson - Juneau
Signing the reports regarding appointments to boards and
commissions in no way reflects individual members' approval or
disapproval of the appointees; the nominations are merely
forwarded to the full legislature for confirmation or rejection.
4:16:00 PM
At ease
SB 34-PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS
4:18:18 PM
VICE CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and announced that the
final order of business would be consideration of SENATE BILL
NO. 34 "An Act relating to probation; relating to a program
allowing probationers to earn credits for complying with the
conditions of probation; relating to early termination of
probation; relating to parole; relating to a program allowing
parolees to earn credits for complying with the conditions of
parole; relating to early termination of parole; relating to
eligibility for discretionary parole; relating to good time; and
providing for an effective date."
He asked Mr. Skidmore if he agrees that the repealers deal with
administrative sanctions.
4:21:03 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law,
Anchorage, advised that the primary categories the repealers
address are administrative sanctions and the caps placed on
technical violations.
Responding to a question from the chair, he explained that
administrative sanctions are things a probation or parole
officer within DOC can do without intervention from the court or
the parole board. An officer would need to file a petition for
things like returning a probationer or parolee to jail or adding
conditions.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL recalled that the administrative sanctions
were intended to ensure swift action without the need to go
before the court. His understanding from previous testimony is
that those administrative sanctions were never implemented.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that when he testified during the last
hearing, he said the swiftness for the petitions did not occur.
Whether swiftness was achieved for the sanctions is a question
for the Department of Corrections. He did say that regulations
were not adopted.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked him to walk through what has come to be
and what has not been put in place.
4:25:28 PM
JEN WINKELMAN Director, Division of Probation and Parole,
Department of Corrections (DOC), Juneau, explained that when the
administrative sanctions and incentives became law, DOC
developed a policy to categorize the behavior and determine the
sanction based on a grid. The administrative sanctions and
incentives were developed based on an internal policy, not
through regulations.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked why regulations weren't written, as
directed by the law.
MS. WINKELMAN said she didn't know; she wasn't in this position
at that time.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL recalled that the administrative sanctions
were intended to be a tool to accomplish the swift and certain
action. He asked what was done administratively that was
different than what had to happen before the court.
MR. SKIDMORE said there are two levels. The first is the
administrative sanctions and the second level is if a petition
was filed then it was capped at 3, 5 and 10 days. Those 3, 5,
and 10 day caps were intended to be swift. The December 2015
Justice Reinvestment Report specifically talks about the concept
of making the sanction swift. The failure in the way that Senate
Bill 91 presented this and the way it was implemented is there
was no legislative expression of how swift it needed to be. He
recalled that the Court System expressed concerns about being
able to do adjudications that quickly in every single case. It
was possible to do in some cases - those cases where offenders
had opted in the program, but for all the others it was not
possible to do it that quickly. They would try but it still has
not happened very quickly, which is one of the key components to
all the research that said this would be an effective tool, he
said. Without that component it is not an effective tool.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked for the information to be laid out to
show where the failure occurred. He said he continues to think
that swift action is a worthy goal. The principle is good, but
implementation failed as infractions and petitions mounted up.
"There was no certainty because the swiftness didn't happen," he
said.
MR. SKIDMORE said he would be happy to talk more about
maintaining the caps, but he was not involved with the
administrative sanctions. He said it sounds as though you're
interested in maintaining the administrative sanctions and that
discussion should be with the Department of Corrections.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Winkelman, as the policy was
implemented, what was successful and what needed more work.
4:32:30 PM
MS. WINKELMAN opined that implementation of the administrative
sanctions has been swift. She described the process when an
offender is in front of the probation officer due to some sort
of behavior. The officer looks at a grid to determine where the
behavior falls and the appropriate response. She posited that
the lack of swiftness referenced here relates to when the
behavior elicits a court petition. The sanctions and incentives
over which probation and parole officers have purview are
administered swiftly and based on the grid previously described.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked if the administrative sanctions have
increased the workload for probation and parole officers.
MS. WINKELMAN said she did not have supporting data, but she
believes that the grid has trained probation and parole officers
on the options available when responding to violations. What has
increased the workload is trying to apply the grid's structured
responses to individuals who have very different backgrounds and
behaviors. It removes the human element, she said.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL recalled that the administrative sanctions
program intended to focus effort on the most dangerous behavior.
Individuals with less dangerous behavior would receive less
attention. He asked if that has worked.
MS. WINKELMAN said she believes that the individuals that
exhibited the most dangerous behavior, based on the sanction
grid, generally had a petition filed and they became subject to
the 3, 5, and 10-day caps.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL opined that the petition created the
revolving door problem. He asked Mr. Skidmore if that is what he
was describing.
4:37:05 PM
MR. SKIDMORE said the rationale for implementing the caps was
that people didn't think the 0-30 days on a first offense was
appropriate for the wide variety of technical violations. The
decision was to reduce that but, in the process, discretion was
eliminated, and a range was established. The range considers the
underlying offense and the type of violation that has occurred
but setting the caps where they are does not consider the
layering of allegations. Thus it does not allow the system to
appropriately respond to a particular circumstance in a
particular case.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked where he could find data for the last
year about the number of petitions filed, the number of
violations that involved multiple allegations, and whether they
were misdemeanor or felony level infractions. "How would I find
that information to find out how close we hit the mark and how
far we missed the mark?" he asked.
MR. SKIDMORE said it would not be difficult to find how many
petitions were filed, but it would be problematic to get
information on the number of allegations in a petition, the
substance of the allegations, and information on the underlying
crime. The reports he has seen failed to look at those concepts.
What the reports have indicated is that the number of petitions
filed has decreased. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean much when
there has been no substantive analysis. That would require going
through every case file looking for particular criteria, which
would be very labor intensive. What he's heard uniformly from
his employees statewide who prosecute these cases is that this
is a problem.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL said he understands the provision will be
removed from the statutes, but there was some benefit and he was
looking for a better way to do it.
4:42:19 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked Ms. Winkelman if she was the head of
pretrial, probation, and parole.
MS. WINKELMAN said yes. Responding to another question, she
explained that she had been with the department since 2001 and
in this role since the new administration came into office.
SENATOR REINBOLD described the pretrial risk assessment tool as
"unbelievable." She added, "It's one of those tools that I just
couldn't even imagine that being applied to people in Alaska."
VICE CHAIR COGHILL requested she maintain focus on SB 34,
probation, parole and sentencing. The pretrial matter is
addressed in SB 33.
4:43:57 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD highlighted the wave of crime that Alaskans are
experiencing. She asked Ms. Winkelman if she defines parole as
"the temporary release before the completion of a sentence for
good behavior."
MS. WINKELMAN said yes.
SENATOR REINBOLD defined probation as "the release under
supervision before the completion."
MS. WINKELMAN clarified that probation is defined as a term over
which a probation officer supervises an individual based on
their court sentence. For example, a person who is sentenced to
five years with two years suspended and five-years supervised
probation would have the two years suspended term hanging over
his/her head during the five years of probation as a response to
a violations.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if her understanding was correct that
under the prior law a person with one or multiple felony
convictions was not eligible for parole, whereas under the
current law they are eligible for parole.
MS. WINKELMAN deferred questions about the change in parole
eligibility to Mr. Edwards.
4:46:09 PM
JEFF EDWARDS, Executive Director, Alaska Board of Parole,
Department of Corrections, Anchorage, explained that Senate Bill
91 provided a discretionary system whereby multiple felons
became eligible for early release on discretionary parole.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if that is for class A, class B, and
class C felonies.
MR. EDWARDS confirmed that is what existing law provides.
Responding to a subsequent question, he said that includes prior
convictions.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked what the requirements are to qualify
for parole.
MR. EDWARDS said the presumption of release statute mandates the
parole board release those individuals on discretionary parole
if they meet requirements such as complying with their case
plan, receiving no write-ups while in prison, and following the
rules. There are provisions for circumventing the presumption of
release statute if the board feels the individual represents an
extreme danger to the public. SB 34 removes that section of law.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL said Mr. Skidmore explained the difference
between the directive presumption to release and the
discretionary ability to release based on conditions. He
recalled that the presumption in current law came about to
incentivize the best behavior out of someone on probation and
parole.
4:50:39 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for an explanation of mandatory minimums.
Her understanding is that for class A, class B, and class C
felonies the mandatory minimum is one-quarter of the sentence.
MR. SKIDMORE asked for clarification that she was talking about
the time served to be eligible for discretional parole.
SENATOR REINBOLD said yes.
4:51:30 PM
MR. EDWARDS explained that unclassified felonies have a
mandatory minimum attached to the sentence that must be served.
Under current law, individuals convicted of class A, class B,
and class C felonies would become eligible after serving one-
quarter of their sentence.
SENATOR REINBOLD called that astonishing.
4:52:14 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI said the fiscal notes are indeterminate and
said he needed to see the number of people who were eligible but
would not be eligible in the future and how that number has
changed over the last couple of years.
He referenced Section 10 relating to the parole board
considering applications. He asked how the process works now and
why a change is necessary.
4:53:18 PM
At ease
4:53:29 PM
VICE CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting.
MR. SKIDMORE said Section 10 returns the language to what was in
statute prior to Senate Bill 91. The parole board had the
discretion to evaluate whether or not a person was a good
candidate for discretionary parole immediately or sometime in
the future, whereas current law requires the board to hear those
cases within a year. The latter increases the number of hearings
when someone applies repeatedly when the outcome may already be
known. He described it as a resource issue. He deferred
questions about the operation to Mr. Edwards.
4:56:55 PM
MR. EDWARDS said he agrees with Mr. Skidmore. The bill gives the
board discretion to continue or deny a hearing indefinitely for
those offenders that it has no intention of releasing. The
current internal policy is to review those cases in 10 years at
maximum.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked for an example where there has been an
excess of requests.
MR. EDWARDS replied he wouldn't say there have been excessive
applications; it's more about the board controlling when they
would hear a case in the future. The individual may not be a
good candidate now, but they may be after completing some
programs.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if he agrees that a person may "have a
better shot" with a different parole board.
MR. EDWARD agreed that the board can change because one member
comes up for reappointment every year and they may or may not
apply. They are appointed by the governor and as that position
changes the board may as well.
SENATOR KAWASAKI commented that a person who is incarcerated
would be denied asking for parole if a board says no today and
the board switches the next year.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she would post on Facebook the different
felony crimes under discussion today that are eligible for
discretionary parole after the offender has served one-quarter
of their sentence.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked for a follow-up discussion on the
change made on good time to see where that failed or could be
made more successful.
MR. SKIDMORE asked for clarification he was referring to earned
compliance credit.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL said that's correct. He noted that no one
signed up to testify on SB 34 today, but he would leave it open
and hopefully take public testimony on both SB 33 and SB 34 on
Thursday.
5:04:57 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said the public was not aware of the public
testimony today and he would like to get the word out to his
constituents if public testimony will in fact be open for both
bills on Thursday.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL replied his intention was to start taking
public testimony but for it to be meaningful, he wanted to hear
the sectional analysis on SB 33.
MR. SKIDMORE estimated that the sectional analysis for SB 33
would take about 45 minutes.
5:06:19 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI expressed concern about taking public testimony
before the bill is fully vetted and understood. Without all the
facts there may be testimony on things that are not in the bill,
he said.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL replied he was following the chair's
directions.
5:08:17 PM
VICE CHAIR COGHILL held SB 34 in committee.
5:08:21 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Vice Chair Coghill adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 5:08 pm.