Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/01/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 90: 1993 REVISOR'S BILL Number 081 CHAIRMAN PORTER turned the committee's attention to HB 90, an act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes. He called David Dierdorff to the witness table. Number 091 DAVID DIERDORFF, REVISOR OF STATUTES, LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, noted that HB 90 was one of an annual string of revisor's bills. He noted that this particular bill was the shortest and least controversial revisor's bill ever. He said that the purpose of these bills was to keep the statutes as clean as possible by annually amending errors found in them. He explained that his office had the authority to correct the smallest errors without the approval of the legislature. However, more substantial amendments must have legislative approval. He mentioned two land survey changes that were included in HB 90, one relating to Kachemak Bay and the other to Alexander Creek. MR. DIERDORFF noted that HB 89 was also a revisor's bill, but a different type than HB 90, in that it made more substantive changes than those made in HB 90. He said that HB 89 was now in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee, but would later be referred to the Judiciary Committee. MR. DIERDORFF stated that he had asked one of the departments to try to solve a problem with Title 47, but that amendment was not yet ready to be included in HB 90. However, he hoped that the change could be included before the bill was passed by the legislature. He noted that the Department of Law reviewed all revisor's bills before they were introduced and had no problem with the content of HB 90. Number 191 REP. DAVIDSON said that Mr. Dierdorff's work made him think of the importance of committee minutes. He asked if Mr. Dierdorff used committee minutes as a source for his revisor's bills, and in that light, whether he felt that the minutes ought to be detailed or not. Number 200 MR. DIERDORFF said that committee minutes were helpful in ascertaining legislative intent, but he said that he had rarely had to go that far back in the record to find out what he needed to know. He noted that committee minutes were helpful to people involved in litigation and needed to research the finer points of the law. The revisor's bill, he added, dealt with grosser points and more obvious errors. The only time he dealt with intent was when he was faced with conflicting statutes. Then he researched the intent of the most recent enactment to see if a statute was inadvertently not repealed or amended. Number 230 REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Dierdorff if he relied on committee reports, which themselves relied on committee minutes. Number 235 MR. DIERDORFF indicated that Rep. Davidson's comment was correct. He noted that his initial source was the Legal Services Division's own internal working files to see how a bill grew. Those files, he said, were invaluable in the creation of HB 89. Number 249 REP. NORDLUND asked Mr. Dierdorff if sections 8 and 9 of HB 90 related to changes in federal law, or if they were merely corrections of improper citations. Number 258 MR. DIERDORFF indicated that federal law had changed, not substantively, but just in terms of where it could be located in the federal statutes. Number 268 REP. NORDLUND reiterated Mr. Dierdorff's point that no content change had been made. Number 271 REP. PHILLIPS referred to changes in legal descriptions made in sections 6 and 7 of HB 90. She asked, if they were found later to have substantially affected someone (for example, a property owner), would Mr. Dierdorff inform the legislature or not? Number 282 MR. DIERDORFF said that the state owned all of the property referenced in sections 6 and 7 of HB 90. Number 289 REP. PHILLIPS asked what he would do if the change were to affect private property. Number 295 MR. DIERDORFF responded that in that case, he doubted that a department would come to him and request the change. He commented that in this case, the change was merely the correction of an error in the legal description of the land. Number 300 REP. GREEN asked Mr. Dierdorff about citation changes made in section 3 of HB 90. Number 316 MR. DIERDORFF said that this was called a "spanned reference," as it spanned from one part of the law to another. He noted that section 3 made a very minor housekeeping change. Normally, he added, these types of changes were made by the Legal Services Division and never brought before the legislature. However, because the law in question pertained to penalties, it became part of the revisor's bill. Number 369 REP. GREEN asked if the land referenced in section 14 had undergone any title change which might present a problem. Number 376 MR. DIERDORFF said that to his knowledge no such problem existed. He described a letter from the land classification officer who had requested the change. The legal description in the statutes was incorrect, he said. The land in question was state-owned land. Section 14 should not affect anyone, the state or private landowners. MR. DIERDORFF added that it was likely that the survey had not been completed and verified at the time the law was enacted. He noted that the type of correction found in Section 14 was made in almost every annual revisor's bill and was necessitated by constant updating of land surveys. Number 405 REP. GREEN asked if the intent of new language in section 12 was to exclude certain relationships between a legislator and a private individual, including one of landlords and tenants. Number 423 MR. DIERDORFF said that a landlord/tenant relationship would have to be reported by both a legislator and a public member of the Legislative Ethics Committee. He commented that the change in section 12 only pertained to the relationship between a public member of the Ethics Committee and a supervisor who was not a legislator. He noted that the section of law was most relevant to the legislator/ legislative employee relationship, or a relationship between a lobbyist and either a legislator or a legislative employee. MR. DIERDORFF added that if a legislative staff member were involved in a business deal with a legislator, people should know about it. However, the relationship between a public member of the Ethics Committee and her or his supervisor in the private sector need not be disclosed. But if a legislator had supervisory control over a public member of the Ethics Committee, that must be reported, he said. In summary, Mr. Dierdorff indicated that the only exclusion made in section 12 was that the five public members of the Ethics Committee did not have to report relationships that they might have with their supervisors. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted the exception of a public member of the Ethics Committee who was supervised by a legislator. Number 454 MR. DIERDORFF said that Chairman Porter was correct, but such a person would likely not be appointed to the Ethics Committee in the first place. Number 460 MR. DIERDORFF asked if the committee had received a fiscal note for HB 90. CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the committee had received the fiscal note. MR. DIERDORFF indicated that he thought the speaker's office would likely waive HB 90 from its Finance Committee referral and send the bill straight from the Judiciary Committee to the Rules Committee. Number 467 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked how the committee wished to proceed. Number 468 REP. NORDLUND moved to pass HB 90 out of committee with individual recommendations. Number 469 CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objections, approved the motion to move the bill out of committee with individual recommendations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|