Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120

04/10/2010 10:00 AM JUDICIARY


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
10:12:16 AM Start
10:12:39 AM SB284
11:25:42 AM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Recessed to 9:00 am on 4/11/10 --
+= SB 284 CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ SB 244 GOVERNOR'S DUTY STATION/TRAVEL ALLOWANCES TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
                 SB 284 - CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
10:12:39 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
CS  FOR SENATE  BILL  NO.  284(FIN), "An  Act  relating to  state                                                               
election  campaigns,  the duties  of  the  Alaska Public  Offices                                                               
Commission,  the reporting  and  disclosure  of expenditures  and                                                               
independent  expenditures,   the  filing  of  reports,   and  the                                                               
identification  of  certain   communications  in  state  election                                                               
campaigns; prohibiting expenditures  and contributions by foreign                                                               
nationals  in state  elections;  and providing  for an  effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
10:14:37 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
LORNA  SHAW, Executive  Director,  Council  of Alaska  Producers,                                                               
pointed out that  in Alaska, the mining  industry spends hundreds                                                               
of millions  of dollars  in Alaska  for general  operations every                                                               
year, employs  thousands of Alaskans, and  pays significant state                                                               
and  local taxes;  and that  most of  the mines  and projects  in                                                               
Alaska  are  owned by  foreign  corporations.   When  the  mining                                                               
industry in  Alaska is attacked  by a ballot initiative,  it must                                                               
have  the  right to  defend  itself.    For example,  the  mining                                                               
industry were targeted  by a ballot initiative in  2008, and it's                                                               
likely  that  that  initiative  would  have  passed  had  foreign                                                               
contributions been  prohibited.  It is  therefore imperative that                                                               
foreign corporations  doing business  in Alaska have  the ability                                                               
to   protect  themselves   by  engaging   in  ballot   initiative                                                               
campaigns, particularly  given that similar initiatives  could be                                                               
brought forth  in the  future.  The  Council of  Alaska Producers                                                               
supports disclosure  and transparency in election  campaigns, and                                                               
does  not  support  limiting  discourse.     In  conclusion,  she                                                               
reiterated that  foreign corporations must retain  the ability to                                                               
participate in campaigns.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS, remarking on some  of the benefits that result from                                                               
foreign  corporations doing  business in  Alaska, indicated  that                                                               
the committee would  be addressing Section 10,  which pertains to                                                               
expenditures and contributions by foreign nationals.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  then relayed  that public testimony  on SB  284 was                                                               
closed.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
10:22:47 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  [made a motion  to adopt] Amendment 1,  labeled 26-                                                               
LS1448\P.19, Bullard, 4/9/10, which read:                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 25, following ";":                                                                                            
          Insert "or"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 28:                                                                                                           
          Delete "; or"                                                                                                         
          Insert "."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 29, through page 6, line 2:                                                                                   
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES objected  for the  purpose of  discussion,                                                               
and  offered  her understanding  that  Amendment  1 would  delete                                                               
proposed AS 15.13.068(b)(5) from Section 10 of the bill.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  concurred.    He  noted,  however,  that  proposed                                                               
AS 15.13.068(c) would remain unchanged.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
10:24:53 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
JOHN PTACIN, Assistant Attorney  General, Labor and State Affairs                                                               
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),  Department of Law (DOL), in                                                               
response to questions,  indicated that even with  the adoption of                                                               
Amendment 1,  proposed AS 15.13.068 would  still prohibit foreign                                                               
nationals   from   making   contributions  or   expenditures   in                                                               
connection with  elections, just  as federal law  currently does;                                                               
and that Section 10 does not address the issue of disclosure.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  said that although  he doesn't have a  problem with                                                               
proposed  AS  15.13.068(b)(1)-(4),  he  feels  that  proposed  AS                                                               
15.13.068(b)(5)  creates  an ambiguity.    In  response to  other                                                               
questions, he offered his  understanding that proposed subsection                                                               
(c) specifies that proposed AS  15.13.068 conform to federal law,                                                               
and  posited that  Amendment 1  provides a  reasonable compromise                                                               
and  addresses  the  concerns  of   those  currently  opposed  to                                                               
Section 10.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
10:28:31 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHARLES  A.  DUNNAGAN,  Attorney  at  Law,  Resource  Development                                                               
Council for Alaska, Inc., in  response to a question, opined that                                                               
proposed paragraph  (5) would present  commerce problems,  and is                                                               
facially  unconstitutional  under  case   law  -  including  that                                                               
resulting  from  the recent  U.S.  Supreme  Court case,  Citizens                                                             
United,  Appellant v.  Federal Election  Commission -  because it                                                             
would  treat  domestic   corporations  differently  depending  on                                                               
whether  they  were  subsidiaries  of a  foreign  national.    He                                                               
expressed support for Amendment 1,  and concurred that Section 10                                                               
would conform  state law to  federal law.   He surmised  that the                                                               
goal  of  Section 10  is  to  prevent  foreign money  from  being                                                               
funneled into Alaska's elections in  order to affect the outcome.                                                               
In  response to  another question,  he offered  his understanding                                                               
that  as currently  written, proposed  paragraph (5),  because it                                                               
doesn't  include  a  reference to  proposed  AS  15.13.068(b)(1),                                                               
would not  apply to a  domestic subsidiary of a  foreign national                                                               
who is an individual.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he was  troubled by that discrepancy as                                                               
well.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES indicated acceptance of Amendment 1.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. SHAW, in  response to a question, indicated  that Amendment 1                                                               
would address her organization's concern as well.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PTACIN, in  response  to comments  and questions,  clarified                                                               
that  Section 10  would amend  state statute  such that  it would                                                               
mirror current federal regulation;  surmised that the question is                                                               
whether  proposed  paragraph  (5)  is really  necessary  or  adds                                                               
anything  of  value, particularly  given  that  the remainder  of                                                               
[Section 10]  already provides sufficient  enforcement authority;                                                               
and  explained that  Section 10  only prohibits  expenditures and                                                               
contributions  by   foreign  nationals  in  connection   with  an                                                               
election.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.   Representatives Holmes, Dahlstrom,                                                               
Herron,  Gatto,  and  Ramras  voted  in  favor  of  Amendment  1.                                                               
Representative  Lynn voted  against it.   Therefore,  Amendment 1                                                               
was adopted by a vote of 5-1.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO  indicated  an interest  in  reviewing  the                                                               
remainder of proposed AS 15.13.068(b) further at a later time.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
10:38:47 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS made  a motion  to adopt  Amendment 2,  labeled 26-                                                               
LS1448\P.18, Bullard, 4/9/10, which read:                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8, line 4, following "transmitted":                                                                                   
          Insert "solely"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8, lines 4 - 5:                                                                                                       
          Delete "and in the communication that includes an                                                                     
     audio component"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  - citing the  expense of  television advertisements                                                               
and remarking  on the large  amount of information that  the bill                                                               
requires to be  disclosed in certain situations  - explained that                                                               
Amendment 2  would alter proposed  AS 15.13.090(d) such  that the                                                               
information  that  must  be  read   aloud  would  only  apply  to                                                               
communications  transmitted  solely  via   audio  such  as  radio                                                               
advertisements.  He  also expressed disfavor with  the concept of                                                               
requiring small  entities/groups to disclose as  much information                                                               
as large entities/groups, due to  the high cost of advertising in                                                               
general.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. PTACIN, in  response to questions, explained  that that which                                                               
must be  read aloud must  be clearly discernable, and  whether it                                                               
ultimately  proves to  be  discernable must  be  determined on  a                                                               
case-by-case basis.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
10:45:32 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, Alaska State  Legislature, as chair of the                                                               
Senate  Judiciary  Standing  Committee,  sponsor of  SB  284,  in                                                               
response to questions, noted that  under proposed AS 15.13.090(d)                                                               
as  currently written,  the disclosure  that must  be read  aloud                                                               
applies  to all  forms of  communications; reiterated  that under                                                               
Amendment  2,  proposed  AS  15.13.090(d)  would  only  apply  to                                                               
communications transmitted  solely via audio; and  explained that                                                               
currently   under   proposed  AS   15.13.090(c)-(d),   television                                                               
advertisements  must include  both written  disclosure and  audio                                                               
disclosure.  On  the latter point, he added  that oftentimes, for                                                               
various    reasons,   people    only    listen   to    television                                                               
advertisements,  and  so  any  written  disclosure  they  contain                                                               
wouldn't  be  seen, and  therefore  his  preference would  be  to                                                               
require both  radio and television  advertisements to  include an                                                               
audio disclosure,  at least  for a couple  of election  cycles in                                                               
order to ensure  that those whom he termed "these  new players in                                                               
Alaska   elections,  unions   and  corporations"   [provide  full                                                               
disclosure].                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO  remarked that  depending  on  the size  of                                                               
one's television  screen, even a written  disclosure could become                                                               
indiscernible.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH acknowledged that point.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS,  in response  to a comment,  again remarked  on the                                                               
expense  of television  advertisements, and  opined that  without                                                               
the adoption of  Amendment 2, only large  entities/groups will be                                                               
able to afford  television advertising if they have  to include a                                                               
lengthy audio disclosure whereas  small entities/groups are going                                                               
to find the current requirements  of proposed AS 15.13.090(d) too                                                               
burdensome financially.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN expressed objection to Amendment 2.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH  mentioned  that according  to  information  he'd                                                               
received  from the  APOC, small  entities/groups typically  don't                                                               
purchase television  advertising in  support of or  in opposition                                                               
to ballot  measures because it's  much too costly to  begin with;                                                               
such entities/groups  tend to spend their  advertizing dollars on                                                               
less expensive forms of communication.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  questioned whether the term  "easily heard"                                                               
as  used  in  proposed  AS  15.13.090(d)  provides  a  sufficient                                                               
standard.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH indicated  that he  was amenable  to leaving  the                                                               
determination of  whether a particular audio  disclosure could be                                                               
"easily heard" up to the APOC.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.   Representatives Dahlstrom, Herron,                                                               
Gatto,   and   Ramras   voted    in   favor   of   Amendment   2.                                                               
Representatives  Holmes and  Lynn voted  against it.   Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
10:55:23 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  [made a motion  to adopt] Amendment 3,  labeled 26-                                                               
LS1448\P.9, Bullard, 4/5/10, which read:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 10:                                                                                                           
          Delete "five"                                                                                                     
          Insert "three"                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH  said he  doesn't have a  strong view  either way,                                                               
but added that  in light of the adoption of  Amendment 2, he also                                                               
doesn't  see the  harm  in requiring  the name  of  the top  five                                                               
contributors to be included in the written disclosures.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. PTACIN, in response to a  question, relayed that the state of                                                               
Washington  requires  communications  to disclose  the  top  five                                                               
contributors, but  ventured that although thus  far there haven't                                                               
been  any  challenges to  that  requirement,  the more  modest  a                                                               
burden  of disclosure  is,  the  better chance  it  has of  being                                                               
considered constitutional.   In  response to a  further question,                                                               
he explained  that in situations  where an entity/group  has more                                                               
than five  top contributors and  all contribute an  equal amount,                                                               
the state  of Washington  allows the  entity/group to  pick which                                                               
five  of its  top contributors  to disclose.   He  indicated that                                                               
forthcoming APOC regulations might address that point further.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS asked  Mr. Ptacin  to suggest  language that  would                                                               
provide the APOC with statutory guidelines on this issue.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. PTACIN indicated  that that might be  difficult, and surmised                                                               
that  that's  why  Washington  chose to  address  the  issue  via                                                               
regulation.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed disfavor with doing so in Alaska.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
11:00:45 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN suggested amending  Amendment 3 such that the                                                               
word, "five", on  page 7, line 10, of the  bill, would be changed                                                           
to the word, "four".                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS said he would object to such an amendment.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 11:01 a.m. to 11:02 a.m.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH,  in response to comments  on the issue of  how to                                                               
determine  which of  several equally-top  contributors should  be                                                               
disclosed in a communication, expressed  a preference for leaving                                                               
it up to the APOC to address that issue via regulation.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed  a preference for providing  the APOC with                                                               
statutory guidelines instead.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PTACIN mentioned  that allowing  the entity/group  to choose                                                               
which of several equally-top contributors  should be disclosed in                                                               
a   communication  would   be  less   burdensome  from   a  legal                                                               
standpoint.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested  that entities/groups could simply                                                               
address it  internally by  returning a portion  of some  of their                                                               
top contributors' contributions.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS   characterized  that  as  cumbersome,   and  again                                                               
expressed disfavor  with leaving  the statutes ambiguous  on this                                                               
point.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
11:07:33 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
ALPHEUS   BULLARD,    Attorney,   Legislative    Legal   Counsel,                                                               
Legislative  Legal  and  Research Services,  Legislative  Affairs                                                               
Agency (LAA),  said he could  draft an amendment to  address that                                                               
point  statutorily,  [one  that  would specify  that  it  is  the                                                               
entity/group itself that gets to  choose which of its equally-top                                                               
contributors to disclose in a communication.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH,   in  response  to  questions,   explained  that                                                               
currently under the bill, audio  communications need only include                                                               
the  names of  the  top five  contributors,  whereas written  and                                                               
video  communications must  include  the names  of  the top  five                                                               
contributors and their addresses.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PTACIN,  in  response  to   questions,  confirmed  that  the                                                               
provision  Amendment 3  is  proposing to  change  applies to  all                                                               
forms of communication.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
11:13:00 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN made a motion  to amend Amendment 3 such that                                                               
the  word, "five",  on page  7, line  10, of  the bill,  would be                                                           
changed to the word, "four".                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS objected.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote  was taken.   Representatives  Lynn, Gruenberg,                                                               
and  Holmes voted  in  favor  of the  amendment  to Amendment  3.                                                               
Representatives  Dahlstrom,  Herron,   Gatto,  and  Ramras  voted                                                               
against it.  Therefore, the amendment  to Amendment 3 failed by a                                                               
vote of 3-4.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote  was taken.    Representatives Herron,  Gatto,                                                               
Dahlstrom,   and  Ramras   voted   in  favor   of  Amendment   3.                                                               
Representatives  Lynn, Gruenberg,  and Holmes  voted against  it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
11:14:45 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN made  a motion to adopt  Amendment 4, labeled                                                               
26-LS1448\P.11, Bullard, 4/6/10, which read:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8, following line 11:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new subsection to read:                                                                                           
          "(e)  The provisions of this subsection apply to                                                                      
     a  person who  makes an  independent expenditure  for a                                                                    
     communication described in (a)  of this section. If the                                                                    
     person paying  for the communication  is not  a natural                                                                    
     person, the  provisions also  apply to  the responsible                                                                    
     officer  or  officers   of  the  corporation,  company,                                                                    
     partnership,  firm,  association,  organization,  labor                                                                    
     organization, business  trust, or society  who approves                                                                    
     the  independent expenditure  for the  communication. A                                                                    
     person who makes a  communication under this subsection                                                                    
     may not,  with actual  malice, include  within or  as a                                                                    
     part  of   the  communication  a  false   statement  of                                                                    
     material fact about a candidate  for election to public                                                                    
     office  that constitutes  defamation of  the candidate.                                                                    
     For   purposes   of   this  subsection,   a   statement                                                                    
     constitutes   defamation  of   the  candidate   if  the                                                                    
     statement                                                                                                                  
               (1)  exposes the candidate to strong                                                                             
     disapproval, contempt, ridicule, or reproach; or                                                                           
               (2)  tends to deprive the candidate of the                                                                       
     benefit of public confidence."                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN indicated  that [Amendment 4 would  add a new                                                               
subsection  (e) to  proposed AS  15.13.090,  and this  subsection                                                               
would prohibit  a person  from, with  actual malice,  including a                                                               
false  statement  of  material  fact   about  a  candidate  in  a                                                               
communication  the  person  pays   for  if  the  false  statement                                                               
constitutes defamation of the candidate].                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG - referring to  Amendment 4's use of the                                                               
phrase, "with actual  malice" - offered his  recollection that in                                                               
the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case  New York Times Company v. L. B.                                                             
Sullivan, the standard used was,  "with actual malice or reckless                                                             
disregard for the truth".                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG   suggested   amending   Amendment   4                                                               
conceptually such that the words,  "or with reckless disregard of                                                               
the truth"  be added after the  phrase "with actual malice".   He                                                               
clarified that  his intent would  be for  the drafter to  use the                                                               
exact wording from Sullivan.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
11:17:43 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BULLARD  explained  that  the  concept  of,  "with  reckless                                                               
disregard of  the truth" was already  one of the elements  of the                                                               
definition of the phrase, "with actual malice".                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  surmised, then,  that Amendment  4 need                                                               
not be amended.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. PTACIN,  in response to  a question, offered his  belief that                                                               
Amendment  4  would   make  defamation  of  a   candidate  via  a                                                               
communication  a  violation  of  APOC  law,  and  noted  that  in                                                               
instances  where  the  violator  is not  a  natural  person,  the                                                               
provision  would apply  to the  entity's  responsible officers  -                                                               
those who approved the expenditure for the communication.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN  added that Amendment  4 would put  those who                                                               
purchase  communications   [and  those   who  approve   of  their                                                               
purchase] on notice  that they need to be careful  with regard to                                                               
what's  included in  the  communications or  they  could be  held                                                               
liable.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. DUNNAGAN,  in response to  a question,  indicated disapproval                                                               
of Amendment 4 -  in terms of it being pertinent  to the goals of                                                               
the  bill -  and mistrust  that  its proposed  language would  be                                                               
inserted into the correct place in statute.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS characterized Amendment 4 as superfluous.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
11:21:05 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH  expressed support  for Amendment 4,  opining that                                                               
it would be a good idea  to put those whom he'd previously termed                                                               
the "new players  in Alaska elections" -  corporations and unions                                                               
- on notice that Alaska's election laws apply to them as well.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that as  a matter of good policy,                                                               
it's important  for the  legislature to  stand firmly  behind the                                                               
principle that one  shouldn't be allowed to  "slander and liable"                                                               
another person.   He  expressed his hope  that any  objections to                                                               
Amendment 4 would be removed.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PTACIN,  in  response  to   questions,  indicated  that  the                                                               
statutes   governing  the   APOC   don't   currently  include   a                                                               
prohibition  against   defamation,  with  actual  malice,   of  a                                                               
candidate; reiterated his understanding  of what Amendment 4 does                                                               
and who it  would apply to; noted that the  idea that a candidate                                                               
can seek  redress from  someone who defames  the candidate  is an                                                               
aspect  of  tort  law;  and  relayed that  he  doesn't  find  the                                                               
language of Amendment 4 to be either wide open or ambiguous.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  pointed  out that  the  same  standard                                                               
contained  in  Amendment  4  is   already  used  when  holding  a                                                               
corporation criminally liable.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS opined that Amendment 4 would invite ambiguity.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES removed  her  objection to  the motion  to                                                               
adopt Amendment 4.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS objected.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
11:25:18 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was taken.    Representatives  Gatto,  Lynn,                                                               
Gruenberg,   and  Holmes   voted   in  favor   of  Amendment   4.                                                               
Representatives Dahlstrom,  Herron, and Ramras voted  against it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 4 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
[CSSB 284(FIN), as amended, was held over.]                                                                                     

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
Proposed amendments 4.10.10.pdf HJUD 4/10/2010 10:00:00 AM
SB284 amendments p.20 and P.21.pdf HJUD 4/10/2010 10:00:00 AM
SB 284
SB284 amendment P.22.pdf HJUD 4/10/2010 10:00:00 AM
SB 284