Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/28/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB66 | |
| HB35 | |
| HB97 | |
| HB99 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HB 35 | |||
| * | HB 66 | ||
| * | HB 67 | ||
| HB 97 | |||
| HB 99 | |||
| = | HB 134 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 97
An Act relating to the authority to take oaths,
affirmations, and acknowledgments in the state, to
notarizations, to verifications, to acknowledgments, to
fees for issuing certificates with the seal of the
state affixed, and to notaries public; and providing
for an effective date.
SCOTT CLARK, NOTARY ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR, voiced support for the legislation and asked that
Mr. Westad, intern for Lt. Governor Leman summarize it.
BRIAN WESTAD, INTERN, OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, stated
that HB 97 identifies changes in the Alaska Statutes, which
have not been updated since 1961. These changes have been
suggested by the Alaskan Notaries working together with Lt.
Governor Leman's office.
Mr. Westad referenced the handout: Notary Statute Comparison
- CSHB 97 (JUD). (Copy in File). The comparison is
arranged in sections highlighting the qualifications, terms,
fees, bonds, commission types, commission revocation, notary
data and non-commissioned notaries.
Mr. Westad provided an overview of the handout.
2:21:23 PM
Mr. Westad continued with the overview.
2:22:11 PM
Representative Croft was confused how the procedure for
revocation changes. He referenced the proposed "shared"
responsibility with the Lt. Governor.
Mr. Clark responded that Section 68, Page 16, provides the
Lt. Governor the authority to revoke or suspend the
commission based on grounds for that subsection. If the
status for the notary changes and they no longer qualify for
the commission, that would constitute grounds. An extreme
case would be a notary convicted of a felony during the
course of their commission. Failure to comply with the
chapter gives the Lt. Governor the authority to revoke or
suspend.
Mr. Clark pointed out that the #3 category for "incompetence
or malfeasance" is more nebulous. All the changes are
fairly technical and relate to the legislation itself.
Mr. Clark noted that Section 44.50.069 deals with situations
where the public might call and complain about a notary. In
that situation, instead of the Lt. Governor having the
authority to revoke the commission, it would go through the
Office of Administrative hearings. He thought that
situation could be less defined and would require some
degree of investigation.
2:24:59 PM
Representative Croft referenced that section and asked about
the final analysis and determination of a violation in the
chapter. He stated that Section 44.50.068 surprised him in
that it repeats Section 44.50.069 and gives the Lt. Governor
the sole power. He pointed out that language would not
require a hearing.
Mr. Clark acknowledged that was correct and that it was not
intended to "rob" the notaries of their right to appeal. He
thought it might be appropriate to add a subsection to
Section 44.50.068 that would clarify that the notary would
have the authority to appeal any decision made by the Lt.
Governor.
Representative Croft thought that the two provisions should
be combined into one section. As it appears now, the two
seem to be on different tracks. Mr. Clark agreed and
suggested that Representative Croft could make an amendment,
which their office would support. The current situation is
quite cumbersome. He suggested that if an amendment is
created, it should approach the situation by letting the Lt.
Governor suspend or revoke and then using the administrative
hearing officer to become the appeal mechanism.
2:28:16 PM
Representative Croft commented it should be a matter of
suspending. Mr. Clark agreed.
Representative Hawker agreed with Representative Croft and
thought that an amendment should be brought forward before
the bill was moved from Committee.
Representative Weyhrauch recommended that if there is going
to be an appeal, it should be in a separate section applying
to other provisions. Mr. Clark asked if direction was being
given for the Office of the Lt. Governor to draft an
amendment.
Representative Weyhrauch asked about the qualifications of
the notary. He referenced Section 8, Page 8, which
stipulates the qualifications of those not having been
incarcerated for a felony within 10 years before the
commission takes effect. He asked if a person would qualify
if they were convicted of a felony but had not been
incarcerated. Mr. Clark did not know if it was possible.
2:30:32 PM
Representative Weyhrauch commented that if you choose a
notary, you choose someone that can be trusted. He thought
that a probation felon should be reconsidered. Mr. Clark
replied that it had not occurred to them that someone could
be accused of a felony and not be incarcerated. He
recommended establishing language that would take both
situations into consideration. Mr. Clark agreed it could be
addressed at the same time as the other amendment.
2:31:50 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the application fee had not
been changed; he asked if it had been the same cost since
1961. Mr. Clark responded that fee had been raised from $20
dollars to $40 dollars in 1990. The Lt. Governor did not
proposed that a change be made to that number.
In response to Representative Weyhrauch's comments regarding
the fees, Mr. Clark explained that the $40 dollar fee was
reasonable compared with other states.
Representative Weyhrauch questioned the cost to buy a bond
in 1990 as compared to now. Mr. Clark did not know, but
guessed that they had not increased.
Representative Weyhrauch asked if a notary test was
required. Mr. Clark replied that the test is no longer
required; when researching the statutes, there was no
statutory authority to make it mandatory. The changes
proposed to HB 97 intends to expand the testing program to
make it self guided through the website.
Representative Weyhrauch asked it was required that the
notaries keep a log. Mr. Clark replied that law does not
require it, but notaries are strongly urged to keep a notary
journal. He added that it is an essential element to the
act of notarization. It is not mentioned in the statutes or
in the bill and is a contentious subject. There has been a
lot of objection to a mandatory journal. He commented that
a journal serves the public's best interest as it provides a
record of important information.
2:36:07 PM
Representative Hawker referenced the $40 dollar fee and
asked if the State was receiving sufficient revenue to run
the cost of the program with that amount. Mr. Clark
believed so.
Co-Chair Meyer interjected that since the legislation is in
the process of raising the fees, that section should be
"bumped up" a little. Mr. Clark responded that if the fee
was raised, the bill might not pass. He stressed that
passage is important and that the Office of the Lt. Governor
had looked at the fee schedule closely.
2:37:46 PM
Representative Holm asked if it might be called a tax on the
notary. He inquired about the number of notaries. Mr.
Clark stated that their office processes about 3,000
commissions each year and that there are around 12,000
active notaries.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if any industry dominates the
notary commissions. Mr. Clark replied that the banking
industry is a common business; however, all businesses find
it convenient to have notaries on staff.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if banks offer the service as a
convenience or as a service. Mr. Clark responded that most
banks offer notary services free of charge to their
customers.
Representative Croft referenced the $40 dollar charge and
asked if that fee had been too high in 1990. He suggested
that the question should be if the amount generates enough
money to cover the services and asked if it was comparable
to other states.
Co-Chair Meyer stated he would not suggest an increase if
costs were being met.
Representative Weyhrauch thought it was important to
scrutinize those costs closely and requested that more
information be made available. Mr. Clark offered to provide
that information.
Co-Chair Meyer requested that Mr. Clark work with Suzanne
Cunningham in his office to provide a committee substitute
addressing the items of concern.
Co-Chair Chenault inquired if there was a log of how many
times a notary uses their seal each year. Mr. Clark replied
that without a notary journal, there is no way to track that
type of activity.
Co-Chair Chenault questioned the fiscal note request. Mr.
Clark advised that the fees referenced are not related to
the notaries or the public. They are related to a special
type of certificate, attached to documents going to foreign
countries. Foreign governments often will not accept
documents from any other country without that type of
attached certificate. There are between 2,000 and 3,000 of
those per year and that is what the fiscal note is based
upon.
Co-Chair Chenault asked what most of the certificates deal
with. Mr. Clark explained that they verify that the
notaries really are notaries.
2:43:59 PM
HB 97 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|