Legislature(2003 - 2004)

03/11/2003 08:00 AM House STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 15-TELEMARKETERS NO-CALL LISTS                                                                                             
Number 0040                                                                                                                     
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  announced that the  first order of  business was                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 15, "An  Act relating to establishing  the Alaska                                                               
No-Call List, a data base  of residential telephone customers who                                                               
do not  wish to receive telephonic  solicitations; providing that                                                               
the data base be compiled at  no cost to the customers; requiring                                                               
paid  telephonic sellers  to purchase  the  data base;  requiring                                                               
telephonic sellers  to identify themselves;  requiring telephonic                                                               
solicitors  who   are  otherwise  exempt  from   registration  as                                                               
telephonic  solicitors to  file with  the Department  of Law  and                                                               
purchase the data base; and providing for an effective date."                                                                   
[In committee  packets was a proposed  committee substitute (CS),                                                               
Version I, labeled 23-LS0058\I, Craver, 2/28/03.]                                                                               
Number 0219                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  HUGH  FATE,  Alaska State  Legislature,  sponsor,                                                               
referred to  Version I  and said it  provides an  opportunity for                                                               
people  not to  receive annoying  telephonic solicitations.   The                                                               
new language puts  into place a plan to allow  Alaskans to submit                                                               
their phone  numbers to be placed  on a list that  will eliminate                                                               
sales  phone  calls  from  professional  solicitors.    It  would                                                               
require companies  involved in  telephone soliciting  to purchase                                                               
that  list and  make every  attempt  to not  call those  numbers.                                                               
This  won't eliminate  every phone  call.   Groups will  still be                                                               
permitted   to  contact   their   members,   and  companies   and                                                               
organizations that have done business  with a customer within the                                                               
last two years will still be  permitted to contact homes and seek                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  FATE said  this has  support from  the AARP.   He                                                               
noted  that many  telephone solicitor  calls are  directed toward                                                               
seniors.   He  spoke of  the fast-talking  scam artists  who make                                                               
"too good  to come true" offers,  taking the life savings  out of                                                               
the pockets  of many of  those senior  citizens.  He  opined that                                                               
while  [federal  efforts in  progress]  will  help, much  of  the                                                               
authority must  remain in the  hands of  the state.   Noting that                                                               
much of the  language is based on Colorado's, he  said that state                                                               
is "receiving  and not losing funds  from the program."   He told                                                               
the  committee this  is an  opportunity to  improve the  lives of                                                               
constituents  by ending  "this  fast-growing  intrusion into  our                                                               
private  lives."    He  mentioned   an  intention  to  reduce  or                                                               
eliminate the fiscal note.                                                                                                      
Number 0520                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON moved  to adopt  the proposed  CS, Version                                                               
23-LS0058\I, Craver,  2/28/03, as a  work draft.  There  being no                                                               
objection, Version I was before the committee.                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE FATE  clarified that  an annual fee  of $5  [to be                                                               
paid by the residential subscriber] is part of Version I.                                                                       
Number 0720                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  offered Amendment 1, which  [applied to                                                               
Section 9 of the bill  but] read as follows [original punctuation                                                               
     Section 2. AS 45.50.475(b)                                                                                                 
         Page 8, line 14, change "engage a person in a                                                                          
       telephone conversation repeatedly" to "repeatedly                                                                        
     engage a person in telephone conversations."                                                                               
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                              
Number 0810                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  offered   Amendments  2(a)  and  2(b).                                                               
Amendment 2(a) read as follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                 
     Section 2.  AS 45.50.475(b)                                                                                                
          Page 2, line 18, remove "of $750."                                                                                    
Amendment 2(b) read as follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                 
     Section 2.  AS 45.50.475(b)                                                                                                
          Page 2, line 18, remove "of $750."                                                                                    
     This provision allows the attorney general to set the                                                                      
     access fee.                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that  Amendment 2(a) says it would                                                               
be  at  least  $750,  and Amendment  2(b)  allows  [the  attorney                                                               
general] to set the fee.                                                                                                        
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  surmised   that  Representative  Gruenberg  was                                                               
asking  that the  committee hold  a policy  discussion to  decide                                                               
whether the $750 should be removed or put as a "floor."                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he  assumes [the  committee] wants                                                               
it to  cover the cost.   He suggested another option  might be to                                                               
change  the word  "must"  on line  21 to  "is  intended to",  for                                                               
example.  He said he'd just like to make sure these things mesh.                                                                
Number 0983                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  asked how  many solicitations  occur in                                                               
the state.   He explained that the question is  whether $750 will                                                               
cover  the  cost,  and  that  he was  trying  to  understand  the                                                               
dimensions of the issue.                                                                                                        
Number 1030                                                                                                                     
JIM  POUND,  Staff  to Representative  Hugh  Fate,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,  said  it  depends  on   how  many  calls  are  made                                                               
regionally.  He surmised that  in Alaska three or four [companies                                                               
make solicitous  in-state calls];  many calls are  generated from                                                               
Outside.  He  estimated that there are 15 to  20 companies in the                                                               
Seattle  area and  30 to  40 companies  in Colorado.   He  added,                                                               
"Anymore,  they seem  to be  able to  call from  anywhere in  the                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ suggested  that another  alternative is                                                               
to charge a fee each time  the list is used, rather than allowing                                                               
a subscriber to buy the list for a year.                                                                                        
MR. POUND said he would interpret  the $750 in the legislation as                                                               
a one-time-only fee per year, much like a subscription.                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ explained  that his  suggestion was  in                                                               
the  context of  Representative  Gruenberg's proposal  to have  a                                                               
policy  discussion  with  regard   to  subsidizing  the  cost  of                                                               
maintaining the list.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  FATE posited  that [having  a per-use  fee] could                                                               
tend to raise administrative costs.                                                                                             
Number 1230                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reported that his  study of the fiscal note                                                               
showed that  at $750, it would  be a $103,000 fiscal  note in the                                                               
first  year, which  would take  approximately 125  subscribers to                                                               
offset.  Referring to the numbers  of companies in and out of the                                                               
state previously alluded  to by Mr. Pound, he said  he was trying                                                               
to figure out how the bill would be enforced.                                                                                   
Number 1326                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE FATE  responded that he thinks  there was previous                                                               
discussion  regarding that  point.   He  said there  are ways  of                                                               
enforcing  it,  but  there  will also  be  "some  slippage";  for                                                               
instance,  some solicitors  change  phone  numbers and  addresses                                                               
every week.   Regarding the others, he recalled  that "there were                                                               
ways in which the state could  stop those kinds of solicitors, or                                                               
force them to buy the list."                                                                                                    
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  asked about  charging a fee  that would  pay for                                                               
the cost of the program, and leaving it up to the agency.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated  that's essentially the intent                                                               
of Amendment 2(b).                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE FATE  explained that the  fiscal note had  not yet                                                               
been changed to reflect the  effects of the $5 per-person charge.                                                               
He  added, "That  was to  have changed  this fiscal  note and  to                                                               
have,  if not  completely covered  the  cost, to  have come  very                                                               
nearly to covering the cost."                                                                                                   
Number 1433                                                                                                                     
MR. POUND, in response to  a question from Representative Seaton,                                                               
said the  phone company will  have nothing  to do with  the fees.                                                               
The company  involved with the fees  will be that with  which the                                                               
Department of Law has contracted,  because that is where the data                                                               
base will be created.                                                                                                           
Number 1476                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  DAHLSTROM  told  Representative Fate  she  didn't                                                               
understand  how the  state could  manage this  without the  phone                                                               
company's   involvement.     She   asked  if   he'd  engaged   in                                                               
conversations  with the  various local  exchange carriers  and if                                                               
they are able and willing to step  up to the plate with regard to                                                               
the enforcement that will go along with this.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said several states  do this very nicely.  He                                                               
deferred to Mr. Pound.                                                                                                          
MR.  POUND responded  that  he'd held  a  conversation with  GCI,                                                               
whose biggest concern was with  the management of telephone lines                                                               
and the  associated costs.  He  noted that the $5  fee and annual                                                               
renewal  requirement would  eliminate  GCI's concern.   He  said,                                                               
essentially, a  person's number would  come off the list  if that                                                               
person didn't automatically  renew and pay the $5 each  year.  In                                                               
further response,  he reiterated  that no money  would go  to the                                                               
phone  company; it  would  go  to the  contractor  that would  be                                                               
contracted with  through the Department  of Law.   It would  be a                                                               
matter of people's  asking to be on the list,  regardless of what                                                               
phone company they used.                                                                                                        
Number 1648                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ said  it  seems charging  people $5  to                                                               
assert  their privacy  rights is  a tad  peculiar.   He asked  if                                                               
there was any reason not to drop that provision.                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FATE  answered that  there is probably  no reason,                                                               
but Alaska hasn't  had any experience [with a no-call  list].  He                                                               
also mentioned  the state's current  population base.  The  $5 is                                                               
necessary in  order to pay  for the program, he  opined; however,                                                               
that doesn't mean that provision  can't be dropped in the future,                                                               
once there is some experience in the program.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  said he  can't imagine that  the number                                                               
of  people  who would  register  for  this service  would  exceed                                                               
20,000-50,000.     In   that  range,   he  said,   the  cost   of                                                               
administering the  $5 fees would  take most of what  income might                                                               
result from  administering those fees.   He added, "I hate  to go                                                               
to people and  say, 'You need to  pay in order to  be let alone.'                                                               
I think that sends a real mixed message."                                                                                       
Number 1760                                                                                                                     
MR.  POUND responded  that people  already  have to  pay a  phone                                                               
company  for unlisted  telephone numbers.   A  $5 user  fee would                                                               
cover [the  state's] expenses.  He  said, "If we do  not charge a                                                               
$5 user  fee and there  is no ability  to cancel out  a telephone                                                               
number,  the   telephone  company  is  going   to  consider  that                                                               
additional  cost  on their  end,  and  they're  going to  end  up                                                               
charging the fee and they'll get the $5."                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  said it  seems [the  legislature] could                                                               
see that  costs are  covered by  having the  amount be  more than                                                               
$750.   He explained that if  people want to pay  money to bother                                                               
him at  home, he is quite  willing to let them  do that; however,                                                               
he doesn't think he should have to  pay to tell them to leave him                                                               
alone.   He  stated  his  belief that  the  burden  is on  [those                                                               
companies] to gain access to his  information, not on him to tell                                                               
them to stay away.                                                                                                              
MR.  POUND told  Representative  Berkowitz that  the "black  dot"                                                               
list - which  the program under discussion has been  equated to -                                                               
is basically a "pay" service.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  emphasized that  it's a  [service] with                                                               
the  phone company.   He  said there  is an  important difference                                                               
between  requiring the  government  to  be an  agent  of pay,  as                                                               
opposed to a private entity.                                                                                                    
Number 1859                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred  to page 5, beginning  on line 23,                                                               
which read:                                                                                                                     
               (4) calls on behalf of the person that                                                                           
     result  in violations  of this  section occur  not more                                                                
     than  twice  in  a  30-day  period  [AS  45.50.475  ARE                                                                
He said the way that reads to  him is that a solicitor could call                                                               
once a month -  basically, several times a year -  and not have a                                                               
Number 1900                                                                                                                     
MR.  POUND  explained  that  the  intent  is  to  allow  for  two                                                               
mistakes.  The [language] is not  designed so that if a solicitor                                                               
calls someone  who is on the  list, he or she  can immediately be                                                               
thrown into jail; it is  designed to eliminate as many solicitous                                                               
phone calls  as is practicable.   He added, "And if  it becomes a                                                               
problem under the harassment section, then it becomes a felony."                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  reiterated that his interpretation  of the                                                               
language  is that  a solicitor  could call  once a  month without                                                               
being in violation.                                                                                                             
MR. POUND said that is the  language of the Department of Law and                                                               
that  he  doesn't think  Representative  [Fate]  would object  to                                                               
eliminating that section.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  FATE   stated,  "You   sometimes  have   to  make                                                               
allowances for mistakes."  He  said he thinks the language simply                                                               
allows for two mistakes in a 30-day period.                                                                                     
Number 2015                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON said  he  doesn't think  it was  anybody's                                                               
intention to  allow a telemarketer  to call  a person on  the no-                                                               
call list once a month.   He asked if he might be misinterpreting                                                               
the language.                                                                                                                   
MR.  POUND said  he  interpreted  the language  to  say that  the                                                               
solicitor would  not be  allowed to make  more than  two mistakes                                                               
"out of their data base" in a 30-day period.                                                                                    
Number 2030                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  referred  to [page  5],  beginning  on                                                               
line 12, which read as follows:                                                                                                 
          (d)  A person who employs individuals to engage                                                                       
     in telephonic  [TELEPHONE] solicitations is  not liable                                                                
     for the violation of this  section [AS 45.50.475] if an                                                                
     employee solicits a  residential telephone customer who                                                                    
     is identified  in the  data base  [TELEPHONE DIRECTORY]                                                                
     as  not  wishing   to  receive  telephonic  [TELEPHONE]                                                                
     solicitations if the person established that                                                                               
               (1) the person has adopted and implemented                                                                       
     written procedures  to comply with (a)  of this section                                                                    
     including corrective actions where appropriate;                                                                            
               (2) the person has trained its personnel in                                                                      
     the   procedures   established   under  (1)   of   this                                                                    
          (3) the call that violated this section [AS                                                                       
       45.50.475] was made contrary to the procedures and                                                                       
     policies established by the person; and                                                                                    
               (4) calls on behalf of the person that                                                                           
     result  in violations  of this  section occur  not more                                                                
     than  twice  in  a  30-day  period  [AS  45.50.475  ARE                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the way  he reads that, a solicitor                                                               
can make two calls  to a person on the [no-call]  list in any 30-                                                               
day period and  get away with it; a solicitor  who makes three or                                                               
more is in violation.  He  said he could understand the goal from                                                               
[the Department  of] Law, because [the  deleted original language                                                               
using] the  word "infrequent" is  vague, which could result  in a                                                               
constitutional  challenge.   He said  the question  is to  decide                                                               
what the standard ought to be.                                                                                                  
Number 2155                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH reminded  the  committee that  there were  still                                                               
proposed  amendments pending.   He  remarked that  Representative                                                               
Fate  had addressed  the fiscal  note, but  it was  based on  the                                                               
original bill.   He acknowledged  that it would be  any sponsor's                                                               
concern to  have a low  fiscal note,  but said, "The  fiscal note                                                               
had  not   addressed  these  fee   changes."    He   agreed  with                                                               
Representative Berkowitz that  he doesn't want to have  to pay to                                                               
have someone not call him,  which is like paying [racketeers] for                                                               
protection.   He  said he  also thinks  [the legislature  should]                                                               
charge the people  who want to take advantage of  the consumer by                                                               
calling  at   all  hours  to   pay  the  cost  of   the  program.                                                               
Transferring the burden  of the cost to the  callers might result                                                               
in a zero fiscal note.                                                                                                          
Number 2265                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM asked  if  the  purpose of  the  bill is  to                                                               
protect people  from getting the  [solicitous] calls; if  so, why                                                               
would someone  want to pay a  $5 fee every year?   He emphasized,                                                               
"I don't  want them to  call ever."   He asked how  the committee                                                               
might present an  option for people to put their  names on a list                                                               
so  that  they'd  never  be   called.    He  said  Representative                                                               
Berkowitz  brought   up  an   interesting  point   about  rights.                                                               
Representative  Holm said,  "I'm not  sure when  you get  a phone                                                               
that you have a  right not to have somebody ring  it."  He stated                                                               
his  understanding  that  there  is machinery  currently  on  the                                                               
market   for  approximately   $30  that   prevents  people   from                                                               
automatically dialing one's  number.  He asked for  guidance.  He                                                               
clarified that  he wants to  know if  this bill will  stop people                                                               
from calling  or only stop them  from calling for a  year because                                                               
the $5 fee has been paid.                                                                                                       
Number 2366                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  FATE responded  that [HB  15]  is not  a bill  to                                                               
protect.  He  said people would make the choice  whether to be on                                                               
the list.                                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  responded that he  never chose to  be called                                                               
to begin with.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asserted  that the ability to  call people is                                                               
simply freedom of speech.   He said HB 15 may  not prevent one or                                                               
two  calls from  slipping  through, because  there are  "renegade                                                               
solicitors"  who make  a business  of this.   He  reiterated that                                                               
similar programs have  been successful in other states.   He said                                                               
[the  legislation] would  reduce  and, in  many cases,  eliminate                                                               
those solicitations that are unwanted.                                                                                          
Number 2474                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  DAHLSTROM  asked who  would  have  the burden  of                                                               
proof that a  solicitous phone call was made.   She also referred                                                               
to page 5 [line 24] and  proposed a change from the 30-day period                                                               
to  no more  than two  call in  a 365-day  period.   She added  a                                                               
suggestion to put everyone on the  no-call list and let those who                                                               
want to receive solicitous phone calls pay the fee.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  FATE responded  that  arbitrarily  saying that  a                                                               
solicitor may call nobody may  be unconstitutional because of the                                                               
freedom of speech amendment.                                                                                                    
Number 2544                                                                                                                     
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  said everyone is angry  about getting solicitous                                                               
phone calls and [HB 15] needs to move.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE FATE noted that he  has received [numerous] public                                                               
opinion messages [in support of] the legislation.                                                                               
Number 2588                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ,  in  regard to  Representative  Holm's                                                               
previous  questions about  the propriety  of banning  people from                                                               
making phone calls, said people  put "no trespass" signs on their                                                               
doors.  He  said he honors those when he  campaigns and hopes the                                                               
other legislators do  too.  He said he is  weighing in with those                                                               
who previously  said the $5  fee should  not be passed,  but that                                                               
cost should be  passed on to the solicitors.   He asked that [the                                                               
sponsor] make sure that [automated  calls] are addressed as well,                                                               
since  they aren't  live  calls  from people  and  are "way  more                                                               
annoying  than they  ought to  be, even  when they  are political                                                               
ones from the President."                                                                                                       
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  stated his  intent  to  pass  the bill  out  of                                                               
committee by Thursday [March 13,  2003] as a committee substitute                                                               
that would speed through the House Finance Committee.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE FATE  said he would  appreciate the  assistance of                                                               
the committee.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ noted  that the  $5 issue  is a  policy                                                               
call for  this committee to  make, whereas working on  the fiscal                                                               
note is the job of the House Finance Committee.                                                                                 
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said  he thinks the focus of the  committee is to                                                               
have "as  much of  the burden  of the program  pass to  those who                                                               
would take advantage of the consumer."                                                                                          
Number 2717                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  stated a need for  either an interstate                                                               
compact or federal legislation.   He suggested adding a provision                                                               
to the  bill requesting  the federal  government to  legislate in                                                               
this area, because these companies are not Alaskan companies.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  FATE  related  his understanding  that  there  is                                                               
pending federal legislation.                                                                                                    
Number 2804                                                                                                                     
STEVE   CLEARY,  Executive   Director,  Alaska   Public  Interest                                                               
Research Group (AKPIRG), let the  committee know that he would be                                                               
available whenever HB  15 is scheduled again.  He  said he was in                                                               
Colorado recently, and his relatives  [lauded] the program there.                                                               
He said, "The  fact that it's more than paying  for itself speaks                                                               
to how worthy this program is."                                                                                                 
Number 2869                                                                                                                     
MARIE DARLIN, AARP Capital City  Task Force, testified in support                                                               
of HB 15, noting that the  committee had a letter of support from                                                               
[AARP's] state office  in which it addressed the  fact that there                                                               
is  currently  proposed  federal  legislation.    Notwithstanding                                                               
that, she said  AARP's members strongly feel  that [Alaska] needs                                                               
to have its  own law, because the [pending] federal  law does not                                                               
go far enough  and doesn't preclude states  from having "stronger                                                               
bills."  She  noted that the "black dot" program  costs $5 to $8,                                                               
depending  on  a  person's  phone  company's  rates.    She  said                                                               
probably two-thirds of seniors [in  Alaska] would pay $1, if that                                                               
amount were offered, in order not to be called [by solicitors].                                                                 
Number 2946                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   HARRY   CRAWFORD,  Alaska   State   Legislature,                                                               
cosponsor HB 15, said the amount of  $750 was set in an effort to                                                               
establish  a  self-supporting  program, after  looking  at  other                                                               
states' programs, which were between $300 and $800.                                                                             
TAPE 03-19, SIDE B                                                                                                            
Number 2996                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  said the program  should be paid  for by                                                               
the people  who want to  make money with it;  consumers shouldn't                                                               
have to pay to be left alone.   He referred to the current "black                                                               
dot" list and  said, in some places in rural  Alaska, it costs up                                                               
to  $50  to  get  on  it.   He  noted  that  only  2  percent  of                                                               
subscribers in Alaska  get on that list, whereas  in other states                                                               
that have a do-not-call list, the  number of subscribers is 10 to                                                               
20  percent.   He  offered  his  belief  that  $750 would  be  an                                                               
adequate amount to attract  third-party contractors to administer                                                               
the program at no cost to the state.                                                                                            
Number 2917                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  asked  Representative Crawford  if  he                                                               
knows if other states have a  mandatory fine for violation of the                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered, "It's all  over the board as to                                                               
what  becomes a  violation."   He said  he thinks  two calls  per                                                               
month is probably the most lax.   He noted that [the sponsor] had                                                               
used much of the language from  the Colorado bill, but added, "We                                                               
left that part out."                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  said  it  seems  that  if  there  were                                                               
mandatory sanctions  for violations,  those sanctions  would help                                                               
offset the cost of the  program.  He added, "There's unscrupulous                                                               
solicitors out  there, and we  ought to  be dinging them  for the                                                               
cost of this, rather than the people of the state."                                                                             
Number 2878                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said  the State of Oregon  is making more                                                               
money back on the program with  its prosecutions than it ever put                                                               
out.   It is a positive  fiscal note once the  program gets under                                                               
way.  He  informed the committee that when  Louisiana [adopted] a                                                               
do-not-call list, 50,000 people signed up in the first week.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE FATE mentioned including  the Department of Law in                                                               
discussions of HB 15 [that  would take place between this meeting                                                               
date and the next hearing on March 13, 2003].                                                                                   
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 15 would be held over.                                                                        

Document Name Date/Time Subjects