Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120

03/23/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved CSHB 15(JUD) Out of Committee
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
Scheduled but Not Heard
<Pending Referral>
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
            HB  15-CREDITS FOR TIME SERVED/GOOD TIME                                                                        
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 15, "An Act  relating to credits toward a sentence                                                               
of imprisonment and to good time deductions."                                                                                   
1:04:26 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   KELLER  moved   to   adopt  proposed   Committee                                                               
Substitute  for  HB   15,  Version  29-LS0102\I,  Gardner/Martin,                                                               
3/19/15  as the  working  document.   There  being no  objection,                                                               
Version I was before the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                    
1:04:49 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TAMI WILSON, Alaska  State Legislature, pointed to                                                               
page 2, lines  5-6, and advised the  current committee substitute                                                               
reads  "rehabilitative  activity"  as  opposed  to  the  previous                                                               
version which read "counseling."   She opined that she spoke with                                                               
public defenders who  believe this bill offers more  tools to the                                                               
court in determining assistance  the person in pretrial requires.                                                               
Under  current  law,  she  explained,  the  offender  waiting  in                                                               
pretrial  receives credit  for  sitting in  jail,  and this  bill                                                               
offers electronic  monitoring, of  which a business  is attached.                                                               
During the pretrial hearing the  judge orders what is required of                                                               
the offender while on electronic  monitoring and those orders may                                                               
include,  certain types  of  treatment, employment,  [educational                                                               
training],  and   community  service.    She   pointed  out  that                                                               
treatment is  not available in many  of the jails in  Alaska, and                                                               
especially  not in  pretrial.   The  offender  receives the  same                                                               
credit [on electronic  monitoring] as someone sitting  in jail in                                                               
pretrial if they follow the [judge's  orders and obey the laws of                                                               
the land],  she explained.   She specified  that the  bill solely                                                               
discusses  pretrial  and  that electronic  monitoring  cannot  be                                                               
performed out-of-state.                                                                                                         
1:08:15 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG   referred   to  the   term   "medical                                                               
appointment" on page 2, line 6, which read:                                                                                     
          (3) ...activity or medical appointment.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he  assumed she is  using it  in a                                                               
broad  sense,  in   that  it  could  be   a  nurse  practitioner,                                                               
chiropractor,  naturopath or  physical  therapist,  all of  which                                                               
would be interpreted by the Department of Corrections (DOC).                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON advised the  judge would order exactly what                                                               
[entity] the offender could receive services.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG referred  to  the language  on page  1,                                                               
lines 9-12, which read:                                                                                                         
     (d) ... a  sentence of imprisonment for  time spent [IN                                                                    
     A PRIVATE RESIDENCE OR]  under electronic monitoring if                                                                
     the person  has not committed a  criminal offense while                                                                
     under  electronic  monitoring  and  the  court  imposes                                                                
     substantial restrictions ...                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  advised that he literally  read that to                                                               
include  "electronic monitoring  15 years  ago in  Rhode Island,"                                                               
yet  he understands  the  intent  of the  sponsor  is  to have  a                                                               
narrower focus.   He  stated it  was his hope  to look  into this                                                               
issue further.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON advised  that the  phrase was  included by                                                               
the Department of  Law (DOL) because there was  an incident where                                                               
a  defendant on  electronic monitoring  committed another  crime.                                                               
She  shared  "They didn't  necessarily  say  that, they  felt  it                                                               
needed to  be there."  She  confirmed that she will  have further                                                               
discussions  with DOL  and  reiterated that  the  intent is  that                                                               
during the  time an individual  is on electronic  monitoring they                                                               
must abide by the rules and cannot commit crimes.                                                                               
1:11:08 PM                                                                                                                    
RICK  SNOBODNY,  Deputy   Attorney  General,  Criminal  Division,                                                               
Alaska   Department  of   Law  (DOL),   requested  Representative                                                               
Gruenberg to restate his question.                                                                                              
1:11:44 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  again referred to the  language on page                                                               
1, lines 10-11,  and requested clarification on the  concept of a                                                               
criminal  offense under  electronic  monitoring  that is  somehow                                                               
related to  "this" case, or in  the recent future.   For example,                                                               
he  offered,  "you" couldn't  use  a  1985 situation  from  Rhode                                                               
Island, "that would make them ineligible for life."                                                                             
MR. SVOBODNY  answered that Ms.  Schroeder [DOL] worked  with the                                                               
sponsor on  this language and  he opined  it would be  for "this"                                                               
offense.  He  noted that if the state is  giving credit under the                                                               
present  case   law  pretrial,  and   the  offender  is   in  the                                                               
"functional  equivalent  of   incarceration"  the  offender  will                                                               
receive  credit for  that time  whether a  crime is  committed or                                                               
not.   He offered that the  principle is credit for  time that is                                                               
served   either  in   jail  or   the  functional   equivalent  of                                                               
1:14:00 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG highlighted  his  belief that  contours                                                               
need to be defined down the line.                                                                                               
1:14:42 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN   assessed  that  the  way   the  bill  is                                                               
currently written, a defendant  released on electronic monitoring                                                               
pretrial  would  be treated  the  same  as  a defendant  who  was                                                               
released pretrial to a treatment program.                                                                                       
MR. SVOBODNY replied "Yes, that is my understanding."                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for  confirmation that this bill does                                                               
not get into "good time" credit.                                                                                                
MR. SVOBODNY  said that good  time is  for good behavior  in jail                                                               
and [on electronic monitoring] the  individual is not in jail, so                                                               
it was dropped out of the bill.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN   determined  that  all  parties   in  the                                                               
courtroom  must come  to an  agreement that  is converted  into a                                                               
Pretrial  Release  Order  allowing  electronic  monitoring.    He                                                               
explained  that at  sentencing the  judge determines  whether the                                                               
defendant performed  as ordered and orders  whether the defendant                                                               
will receive credit for time served.                                                                                            
MR.  SVOBODNY agreed  that  Representative  Claman described  the                                                               
scenario  accurately,  but that  there  are  nuances not  in  the                                                               
premise of Representative Claman's comments.                                                                                    
1:17:05 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked Mr. Svobodny to explain.                                                                            
1:17:09 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SVOBODNY  responded that "everybody,  I think, is  not paying                                                               
attention to, or  forgot, or didn't know, the default  is you get                                                               
out  of jail."   He  further responded  that the  default in  the                                                               
statute ... unless  it is an unclassified or class  A felony, the                                                               
person is released on their  "own recognizance."  He opined there                                                               
are individuals released  on their own recognizance  that must go                                                               
to  a treatment  program that  has  the equivalency  of being  in                                                               
jail.   Or, he  noted, the court  could order that  it is  also a                                                               
condition of a monetary bail.   He said he assumed it wouldn't be                                                               
a third party custodian, as a  third party custodian is not going                                                               
to go  to the functional equivalency  of jail pending trial.   He                                                               
disputed  the  statement  that  when  a  defendant  goes  to  the                                                               
[pretrial] hearing that  everyone is on board, as  only the judge                                                               
needs to be on board.                                                                                                           
1:19:00 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SVOBODNY then  presented his testimony that there  is a major                                                               
public policy  question in that  "should we let people  buy their                                                               
way  out of  jail," because  that  is what  this [bill]  is.   He                                                               
questioned what individual facing a  mandatory three days in jail                                                               
for driving while intoxicated (DWI)  wouldn't beg the judge to be                                                               
put on electronic  monitoring.  [The bill]  defeats the principle                                                               
that an individual must serve a  mandatory three days in jail for                                                               
the first  DWI, and twenty days  for the second DWI.   He offered                                                               
concern for the  word "counseling," as it reminds him  of a woman                                                               
in  Juneau who  committed perjury  in a  trial, was  sentenced to                                                               
jail  time, and  claimed that  going to  Weight Watchers  was the                                                               
functional equivalent  of a rehabilitative  program and  that she                                                               
should  get credit  for going  to  Weight Watchers  appointments.                                                               
The judge did not allow that  argument, but the focus was changed                                                               
from rehabilitative program to counseling.                                                                                      
1:21:04 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  LEDOUX noted  that Mr.  Svobodny  testified previously  on                                                               
this  bill  and   asked  whether  he  was   testifying  that  the                                                               
administration  and  DOL are  officially  opposed  to this  bill,                                                               
because it sounded like he was.                                                                                                 
MR.  SVOBODNY responded  that he  testified  previously and  made                                                               
these same  points, but  now the [language]  is down  to specific                                                               
examples.    He  said  he  does not  believe  his  testimony  has                                                               
changed, but that the current  language is a different iteration.                                                               
He expressed  that the  fundamental question  is still  the same,                                                               
"if you  let people pay for  electronic monitoring to get  out of                                                               
jail, what  you've done is  say ... you've  moved us back  to the                                                               
Middle Ages where somebody can do  their jail time ... I can have                                                               
somebody ... I can  pay somebody to do my jail time  for me, or I                                                               
can pay  the king to not  have me go  to jail."  For  example, he                                                               
noted,  will  the  victim  be  at  the  [pretrial  hearing]  when                                                               
electronic  monitoring is  imposed as  they  have a  right to  be                                                               
heard.   "Now, you've kind  of flipped the whole  process around,                                                               
where do that victim show up?  When  either he or she shows up at                                                               
sentencing to  say now this  guy should go  to jail, judge.   And                                                               
the judge is going  to say, 'Oh sorry, we already  did ... we did                                                               
that at the bail hearing.'"                                                                                                     
1:22:58 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN offered  that this  bill would  not change                                                               
the victim's  right to  be present at  every bail  and sentencing                                                               
hearing  to  offer  their view,  recognizing  that  the  ultimate                                                               
decision is left to the judge.                                                                                                  
1:23:35 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SVOBODNY  agreed with Representative Claman  and stated there                                                               
is  a substantial  difference when  the district  attorneys' (DA)                                                               
office  calls the  victim advising  there  is a  bail hearing  or                                                               
sentencing ....                                                                                                                 
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected  that it would be  the responsibility of                                                               
DOL to  give the victim the  information of what will  take place                                                               
at the bail hearing.                                                                                                            
MR. SVOBODY agreed  and said DOL will inform the  victim that the                                                               
defendant will  be living  in his  own home,  will wear  an ankle                                                               
monitor, and  it will count  as though he was  in jail.   He also                                                               
agreed  that they  have a  right to  be at  the bail  hearing and                                                               
judges  often   give  them  the   right  to  speak,   they  don't                                                               
necessarily have the  right to speak at the bail  hearing, but do                                                               
have the right to speak at sentencing.                                                                                          
1:24:46 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to  Mr. Svobodny last statement                                                               
that  a  defendant doesn't  have  a  right  to  speak at  a  bail                                                               
hearing, and questioned that if  the defendant and his lawyer are                                                               
asking for  electronic monitoring,  they must  have the  right to                                                               
speak to make that argument.                                                                                                    
MR. SVOBODNY said he misspoke as he meant to say the victim.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related  that if the victim  has a right                                                               
to be notified  and present at a bail hearing,  doesn't it follow                                                               
that if the  victim or the victim's advocate had  an objection to                                                               
the proposal they would have a right to be heard.                                                                               
MR. SVOBODNY acknowledged  he may be wrong as victims  may have a                                                               
right to speak at bail hearings.   He noted that in Anchorage the                                                               
first bail hearing is set before  the victim is "even" home, they                                                               
are set  by committing  magistrates over the  phone."   He opined                                                               
that is  probably not going  to happen where people  are released                                                               
to these programs at that point,  but there is a hearing the next                                                               
day.   He  further opined  "it's not  like you  can sit  down and                                                               
write out your thoughts, or even be out of the hospital."                                                                       
1:26:45 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said that certainly DOL  can accomplish                                                               
this, or is DOL not capable of executing.                                                                                       
MR. SVOBODNY  expressed that the  issue is whether  the committee                                                               
is willing, as a public policy,  to create the legal fiction that                                                               
[staying home and wearing an ankle  monitor] is the same as being                                                               
in jail.                                                                                                                        
1:27:55 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX read [Sec. 2,  AS 12.55.027(d)], page 1, line 12-14,                                                               
which read:                                                                                                                     
     (d) ... and the  court imposes substantial restrictions                                                                    
     on the person's freedom  of movement and behavior while                                                                    
     under  the  electronic  monitoring  program,  including                                                                    
     requiring  the person  to be  confined  to a  residence                                                                    
     except for a ...                                                                                                           
CHAIR LEDOUX  referred to "including" court  appearances, meeting                                                               
with counsel  during a period  which the person  has to do  X, Y,                                                               
and Z.  She pointed out that  those are just the things that this                                                               
bill says that "you" wouldn't  think about giving a person credit                                                               
if they haven't met those  three requirements, and that the court                                                               
could impose other restrictions.                                                                                                
MR. SVOBODNY said "That is absolutely correct."                                                                                 
CHAIR  LEDOUX  continued that  the  court  has  to find  that  it                                                               
imposes  restrictions  which   are  equivalent  to  substantially                                                               
restricting the movement of the person.                                                                                         
MR. SVOBODNY  agreed, but  stated that  substantially restricting                                                               
the movement  of a person ...  the individual can go  to work, go                                                               
to Weight Watchers ...                                                                                                          
1:29:23 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX argued that if  the court views that Weight Watchers                                                               
as more of a social event, they cannot attend.                                                                                  
MR. SVOBODNY further  agreed with Chair LeDoux and  said that the                                                               
judge can create  situations where living in a  person's own home                                                               
meets  the functional  equivalent  of jail.    He reiterated  the                                                               
issue is that  a person can stay home and  wear an ankle bracelet                                                               
... as  the bill states  "shall give  credit" for that  being the                                                               
same  as jail.    He opined  that  it appears  to  be creating  a                                                               
situation where people  who can pay are allowed to  wear an ankle                                                               
bracelet and take three days off  if a first DWI, twenty days off                                                               
for  the second  DWI,  and not  receive any  jail  time for  that                                                               
offense.    He  said,  "That's within  your  prerogative,  that's                                                               
within a judge's prerogative.  Now  if the judge ratchets it down                                                               
more than  just saying  that it  is ... I  don't know,  curfew at                                                               
night and an ankle monitor."   He described it as a public policy                                                               
question and  expressed there  could be  a potential  increase in                                                               
the delay in  going to trial because a good  defense lawyer would                                                               
drag it out  to the point the individual  meets whatever sentence                                                               
the attorney believes the court is going to give.                                                                               
1:31:59 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   LEDOUX   reiterated   her   question   of   whether   the                                                               
administration and DOL officially oppose this bill.                                                                             
MR. SVOBODNY related  that he has advised what he  sees as issues                                                               
with the bill,  and further related that he does  not believe the                                                               
administration  has   a  position   on  the   bill.     From  the                                                               
prosecutor's  point of  view, he  advised is  that the  committee                                                               
determines whether staying at home  and wearing an ankle bracelet                                                               
is the same as being in jail.                                                                                                   
1:33:05 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  referred to the topic  Mr. Svobodny raised                                                               
having  to  do with  financial  access  to electronic  monitoring                                                               
typically  in  the  private  criminal  defense  client,  and  not                                                               
typically  in  the  public defender  client  has  been  discussed                                                               
previously.  He noted another  issue is geographic in that within                                                               
certain parts of  Alaska the technology doesn't  exist, but could                                                               
be  more  available to  defendants  in  larger communities.    He                                                               
surmised that  DOL's position is  that if the committee  wants to                                                               
allow  it  to  be  more available  in  certain  communities  that                                                               
committee can make that choice.                                                                                                 
MR. SVOBODNY  agreed, and opined  legislators make  decisions all                                                               
the time on where programs are, or are not, available.                                                                          
1:34:28 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  opined that when the  legislature first                                                               
considered ignition  interlocks the financial ability  of someone                                                               
was not  discussed, but  there was  a discussion  of geographical                                                               
issues regarding installation.                                                                                                  
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether that was a question.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  responded  that the  equal  protection                                                               
issues  were discussed  and asked  whether Mr.  Svobodny had  any                                                               
MR. SVOBODNY  offered that  the system  treats people  with money                                                               
better than the people without money,  and noted that a judge can                                                               
weigh  financial circumstances,  determine flight  risk, and  the                                                               
danger to the community when ordering bail.                                                                                     
1:38:09 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  LEDOUX remarked  that currently  a person  receives credit                                                               
for time spent in an overnight rehabilitation program.                                                                          
MR. SVOBODNY  advised he was not  sure whether that was  the only                                                               
requirement whether  they would, as restrictions  must be similar                                                               
to being in jail.                                                                                                               
CHAIR LEDOUX argued  that allowing someone with money  to enter a                                                               
pleasant  treatment facility  could discriminate  against someone                                                               
who  cannot afford  the pleasant  treatment facility.   But,  she                                                               
said, the state still does not  say they do not get credit toward                                                               
their time served.                                                                                                              
MR. SVOBODNY  responded that assuming the  [treatment facilities]                                                               
have  the  equal  equivalencies of  being  incarcerated,  because                                                               
under  present law  the  judge  could fashion  an  order for  the                                                               
"fancy" facilities.   He related there are  exceptions in present                                                               
law  for meetings  with counsel,  [court  appearances, and  court                                                               
ordered  appointments].   He described  a history  of one  of the                                                               
members  of this  body went  to  alcohol treatment  at the  "Maui                                                               
Hilton, right?"                                                                                                                 
1:40:47 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  LEDOUX responded  that  she  was not  aware  of that,  and                                                               
questioned whether, assuming the  "Maui Hilton" has a residential                                                               
treatment program, would that be allowed.                                                                                       
MR. SVOBODNY answered, yes.                                                                                                     
CHAIR  LEDOUX referred  to Mr.  Svobodny's  statement wherein  he                                                               
noted that this wouldn't be fair  in that a person with money can                                                               
receive  electronic monitoring;  a  person  without money  cannot                                                               
receive  electronic  monitoring  and; therefore,  cannot  receive                                                               
credit.  She  expressed that people without money  should be able                                                               
to  participate in  electronic monitoring  and remarked  that the                                                               
problem  could  be  corrected  within DOC  as  there  is  nothing                                                               
inherently wrong with giving credit for electronic monitoring.                                                                  
MR.  SVOBODNY  reiterated that  if  the  legislature concludes  a                                                               
person going to  a treatment program offering  the equivalency of                                                               
incarceration,  is [identical]  to  staying in  the person's  own                                                               
home  and  wearing  an  electronic   monitoring  device,  is  the                                                               
legislature's choice.                                                                                                           
1:43:16 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  responded   that  Legislative  Legal  and                                                               
Research Services worked with Mr.  Svobodny and she was surprised                                                               
to  hear his  testimony.   In  reading the  bill, [the  treatment                                                               
program] must be  as if the person  was in jail and  cannot be on                                                               
electronic monitoring  sitting in  front of the  TV as  there are                                                               
other  [stipulations] to  meet.   She pointed  out that  the bill                                                               
requires receiving that a person  receive treatment, is employed,                                                               
performs community  service, attempts to  get their life  back on                                                               
track,  and  avoids  the  revolving door.    She  explained  that                                                               
currently DOC  can offer electronic  monitoring in  any community                                                               
in Alaska  as the Department  of Health & Social  Services (DHSS)                                                               
places  money  into  [the  program].     What  is  not  currently                                                               
available is the incentive of going  to jail for $158 per day, as                                                               
opposed to  electronic monitoring for approximately  $20 per day,                                                               
she noted.  She posited  that the goal of [electronic monitoring]                                                               
is putting  the person on  the road  to recovery.   She described                                                               
the bill  as exceptional and advised  she has worked with  all of                                                               
the parties involved.                                                                                                           
1:46:29 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX noted concern that  someone charged with a three-day                                                               
mandatory prison sentence  for DWI [is allowed  to use electronic                                                               
monitoring].  She  remarked that part of  that three-day sentence                                                               
is  to cause  people who  may not  normally see  the inside  of a                                                               
jail, actually  see the  inside of  jail.  She  is not  sure that                                                               
spending  three-days  on  an  electronic  monitoring  device  and                                                               
staying home  watching TV,  even though  they are  restricted for                                                               
those three-days, is quite the same as going to jail.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  answered that  the bill is  a tool  in the                                                               
toolbox and not  a requirement as the judge can  order the person                                                               
to  jail.   "As far  as the  three-days goes,  if that  worked, I                                                               
don't think  we'd have  so many people  coming through  the jails                                                               
all the time," she opined.                                                                                                      
1:49:23 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he intends  to propose an amendment on                                                               
page 1,  lines 5 and 9,  which changes the language  from "shall"                                                               
to "may."   He pointed out that  under Title 28, on the first DWI                                                               
the  court  has to  impose  a  sentence of  72-hours  consecutive                                                               
imprisonment.   He  said that  when the  language in  the statute                                                               
reads  "shall," the  judge would  be required  to let  the person                                                               
spend  time at  home on  electronic monitoring.   Whereas,  "may"                                                               
offers the judge discretion to say  "no" to one person, and "yes"                                                               
to everyone else.                                                                                                               
1:51:40 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved Amendment  I.1 to CSHB 15, [Amendment                                                               
1], labeled 29-LS0102\I.1, Gardner/Martin, 3/20/15, which read:                                                                 
     Page 1, line 5:                                                                                                            
          Delete "shall [MAY]"                                                                                              
          Insert "may"                                                                                                          
     Page 1, line 9:                                                                                                            
          Delete "shall [MAY NOT]"                                                                                          
          Insert "may [NOT]"                                                                                                    
There being no objection, Amendment 1.1 passed.                                                                                 
1:53:00 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER moved  to report  proposed CS  for HB  15,                                                               
Version  29-LS0102\I, Gardner/Martin,  3/19/15, as  amended, from                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal  note.    There  being  no  objection,  CSHB  15(JUD)  was                                                               
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                           
1:53:24 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took an at-ease from 1:53 to 1:56 p.m.                                                                            
1:56:21 PM                                                                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
CSHB15 Ver I.pdf HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB123-DCCED-ABC-03-09-15.pdf HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB123 Ver A.pdf HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB 123 Transmittal Letter.pdf HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB 123 Sectional Analysis.pdf HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 123
HB11 Fiscal Note - DOC.pdf HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 11
HB15 Fiscal Note - DOC 3-21.pdf HJUD 3/23/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15