Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/24/1999 01:10 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 65 - SUPPLEMENTAL REVISOR'S BILL Number 1126 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HB 65 "An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes relating to certain repealed law as recommended by the revisor of statutes; and providing for an effective date." CHAIRMAN KOTT called on James Crawford, assistant revisor of statutes, to present the bill. MR. CRAWFORD explained there are five substantive sections in HB 65 that relate to an Act passed in 1994 and in the same year repealed. In this case they were conflicting bills. He explained chapters 45 and 124, SLA 1994 added references to a statute while chapter 118, SLA 1994 repealed that statute. The bill attempts to correct the problem in a manner consistent with legislative intent connected to chapters 45 and 125, SLA 1994. MR. CRAWFORD explained Sections 1, 2, 4 and 5 address chapter 45, SLA 1994 pertaining to certain elderly and disabled adults and minors who receive home care services or who might receive those services in the near future. The legislative intent was to increase protection and protect them against fraud. The event that led to this issue related to an elderly woman who was robbed by a home care provider for $500. That provider also accessed the woman's financial accounts. The legislature through chapter 45 added a criminal records check requirement prior to certain entities receiving state funds. Under AS 12.62.035, a requester would get information on three categories: convictions for felonies, crimes involving any contribution to the delinquency of a minor, and convictions for sex crimes. The statute was repealed and a new one enacted - AS 12.62.160. The solution replaces the term "records" with the term "criminal justice information" and replaces the reference to AS 12.62.160. The new statute is not an exact match to the old statute, however. In other words, those who request records could get more information, but it is consistent with legislative intent. Number 1410 MR. CRAWFORD explained Section 3 is slightly different. It contains a reference to chapter 124, SLA 1994 that only contains one of three categories of records. He noted the legislative history wasn't helpful in determining intent for chapter 124, but he was able to conclude from language in the statute itself that the intent was to keep the scope more narrow. The solution replaces the term "sex crimes" with the definition of sex crimes found in the old repealed statutes. In other words, there is no change in Section 3 between the suggested solution and what was under the old reference. MR. CRAWFORD stated, in summary, some of the solutions are not a perfect fit with respect to the old statute, but are consistent with legislative intent to the extent that legislative history revealed it. Number 1510 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Crawford, based on his research, whether the issue was addressed by the same committees or whether there were two different groups involved causing the oversight. MR. CRAWFORD replied yes chapters 45 and 124, SLA 1994 which added the reference didn't go through the same committees. Number 1550 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated normally there is a clear track to follow when addressing a revisor statute, but in this case Mr. Crawford had to build a bridge of his own. MR. CRAWFORD replied correct. The solution depended on an analysis of legislative history requiring an extrapolation. He justified placing it in a revisor's bill because it tracks legislative intent and attempts to do what the legislature would have done if it had been aware of the problem. Number 1612 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered whether an advisor's authority to make changes versus changes made by the legislature requires some "walls" in this case. MR. CRAWFORD responded the revisor's bill is a service to legislators and if there is anything that causes concern it is a legislator's prerogative to remove it and await a solution in a substantive bill. Number 1676 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he is not suggesting that. He is concerned about establishing a precedent. MR. CRAWFORD replied certainly. Number 1689 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Crawford to review the scopes that have changed in Sections 4 and 5. MR. CRAWFORD replied Sections 1,2,4 and 5 are not specific enough to request national level criminal justice information records according to the Department of Public Safety. The sections give a category of records more or less similar to what the old statute gave, but not exactly. In some situations it won't be close and in some cases more information will be given, such as a person's bail status, a reversal of a conviction notice, or acquittal information. Number 1840 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Crawford why the same scope can't be asked for. MR. CRAWFORD replied it can, but in looking at the legislative intent he came down on being more protective of the individuals the legislators were trying to protect. As an alternative, he can try to reproduce what the old statute would have given in consultation with the Department of Public Safety. Number 1940 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Crawford what exactly is the revisor's authority in statute. MR. CRAWFORD read part of AS 01.05.036. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented the statute is broader than she thought. She further noted that she has never seen this type of substantive change in a revisor's bill requiring verbal information from people in order to come up with intent. The court uses the plain language of the statute before going behind it. Perhaps, a committee bill should be considered. Number 2063 CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed with Representative Kerttula. He doesn't recall a revisor's bill being this substantive. It really is more of a policy call than just notations and changes of previous actions that went unnoticed. He would tend to support a committee bill or have Mr. Crawford go back with the Department of Public Safety and craft a bill reflecting the earlier piece. Number 2115 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Crawford what sort of effort would it take to re-create a bill versus starting over. MR. CRAWFORD replied it would be a lot easier to craft a substantive bill rather than re-create legislative intent. He explained he chose a revisor's bill to present the options early in the legislative session. He reiterated if there is any reason to feel uncomfortable a substantive bill is the better way to go. CHAIRMAN KOTT noted his appreciation for Mr. Crawford's efforts. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI praised Mr. Crawford's efforts in researching legislative intent and noted that he will be around to testify on a substantive bill. Number 2286 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced it is his intent to hold the bill over and to work on a substantive bill. He suggested asking the chairman of the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee to take this on and if that committee is not willing to maybe the House Judiciary Committee should take it on. Number 2291 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested directing Mr. Crawford to draft a more narrow bill to match the specific crimes covered in the original bill. CHAIRMAN KOTT replied according to Mr. Crawford he would rather see a substantive bill crafted than spend time reconstructing intent. It would be cleaner as well. Number 2365 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Chairman Kott whether there is a reason for having the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee take it on rather than the House Judiciary Committee. CHAIRMAN KOTT replied he doesn't have a problem with drafting it as a House Judiciary Committee bill. Number 2419 MR. CRAWFORD stated he remains neutral and will do whatever the committee directs him to do. CHAIRMAN KOTT announced he will have Legislative Legal Counsel draft a bill and run it by Mr. Crawford to ensure that the intent has been captured. MR. CRAWFORD replied he would be happy to give an assessment and explained because it will be a substantive bill it is not constrained by the 1994 legislative intent.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|