Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/06/2017 01:30 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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): | |
| HB77 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 77-2017 REVISOR'S BILL
1:45:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the last order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 77, "An Act making corrective amendments to the
Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes; and
providing for an effective date."
1:45:57 PM
LISA KIRSCH, Assistant Revisor, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency,
explained that the revisor's bill is an opportunity to correct
any deficiencies, conflicts, and obsolete provisions in the
statutes. For the most part, she commented, the changes are
minor because her office avoids anything that may be a
substantive change to the law. It is generally "clean-up
provisions" and corrections to make the statutes consistent.
She offered to answer specific questions or go through section
by section.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked that she highlight three to five sections
that may be of more interest than others which represent a
flavor of the changes made.
1:47:12 PM
MS. KIRSCH responded that she could group them by category. She
explained there are a fair number of sections removing the words
"but not limited to." Alaska has a statutory provision in Title
1 allowing her office to remove that language because the word
"including" doesn't need to be qualified "but not limited to."
She explained that provisions with general application to the
statutes as a whole are located in a provision under Title 1,
thereby, eliminating the need to repeat language over and over
again.
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised this is an instance where words are
actually being taken out of the statute book.
MS. KIRSCH agreed, and she said the words are removed because
they are unnecessary due to the provision under Title 1.
1:47:56 PM
MS. KIRSCH advised that six sections delete, repeal, or update
obsolete provisions, 22 sections deal with errors and
oversights, things that may have been changed throughout the law
and then there was one spot that was missed. She pointed to the
end of the sectional and advised that a couple of definitions
are removed because [the subject] word was removed from the
chapter or the section that the word represented. Therefore,
there is no longer a need for the definition because the word
being defined is no longer included, she said.
MS. KIRSCH advised there are 32 sections where the revisor's
office improved the former substance of the law, often it is
grammatical changes and preferred language. She explained that
the revisor's office is directed by Legislative Counsel to
follow the drafting manual and there are certain preferred
phrases, and certain grammatical structures that are preferred
over others so that the statutes are consistent in their usage
of language.
1:49:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that he appreciates the
revisor's bill each year, and appreciates tighter and more
minimalistic statutes. He said that having spent hundreds if
not thousands of hours doing similar work on Wikipedia wherein a
person attempts to bring things into conformance of the Manual
of Style.
MS. KIRSCH responded that Representative Kreiss-Tomkins has a
unique taste and that she shares those tastes.
1:50:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there is anything in the
bill, if this bill had not been introduced, that would impact a
criminal case where a person may, or may not, be seeing jail
time in disregard of the intent of the legislature, or in a
civil case where the person would lose or gain property rights.
MS. KIRSCH answered that that is a broad question, and she could
not say with absolute certainty. Although, she said she does
know that the revisor's office has not amended any criminal law
provisions, at least nothing under Titles 11 or 12. Her office,
she explained, generally provides the revisor's bill provisions
based on what title it would use, and it has performed periodic
reviews of different titles of the statutes. There are no
changes to criminal law directly, but she was unsure there might
not be a provision somewhere that may affect a criminal law
provision. Always, she said, the goal is to avoid changing
substantive law.
MS. KIRSCH related that having said that, in the event there are
two provisions that do not match up and the revisor's office has
created something that makes it parallel, it may avoid a problem
which is the goal. Such that, there may be something that was
not changed in a bill one year, such as a definition was left
in, and a court might look at that and say it creates an
ambiguity. The purpose of the office, in part, is to avoid
conflicts between two provisions of law that might create an
ambiguity problem.
1:53:00 PM
MS. KIRSCH, in response to Representative LeDoux, answered that
there is one revisor, two assistant revisors, and one advisor.
1:53:30 PM
MS. KIRSCH answered Representative LeDoux that she works for
Legislative Legal, and the employees of revisor's office are the
primary employees involved in the revisor's bill. These
employees have other duties, such that all of the draft bills
pass through the hands of one of the assistant revisors, and the
hands of the revisor. She remarked that a recent big project
was the republication of the statutes, and it has been
completed.
1:54:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he is also in favor of cleaning up
the statutes whenever possible, although, he received a concern.
He pointed to page 4, last paragraph of Ms. Kirsch's memorandum
directed to Chair Claman, dated 1/27/17, which read as follows:
Text of Repealed Paragraphs:
...
AS 47.07.900(14)
(14) "nurse midwife" means a registered
professional nurse who is certified as an advanced
nurse practitioner under AS 08.68.850(1) and
authorized to practice as a nurse midwife under
regulations adopted in accordance with AS
08.68.850(8);
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised the concern is regarding the
change to AK 47.07.900 dealing with "nurse midwives." He
pointed out that being from the Matanuska-Susitna Valley there
are quite a few midwives and nurse midwives, and sometimes there
is a running battle between nurses and midwives as to their
respective roles and potential competition for each other.
While looking at removing the definition of "nurse midwife,"
which no longer appears in this section of statutes - which is
the nursing board, he asked whether that definition appears
elsewhere in the statutes, because the midwives have their own
board and would clamor for equal recognition in statute if not
here then somewhere else.
1:56:04 PM
MS. KIRSCH responded that she does not have the ability to
search the electronic database here, but she will get that
information to him later. She explained the reason this
definition is being removed is because the term "nurse midwife"
is no longer used for that chapter. If there is a need for that
definition, it would have to be done through a piece of
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, in the event there are multiple
chapters dealing with similar terms, would the revisor's office
recommend removing those definitions mentioned repeatedly
throughout the statutes, or would it recommend that those terms
used in every chapter should require a definition. Basically,
he said, is there an ability to reference definitions in another
portion of the statute if the chapter a person is looking at
references a term and does not define it, or should that term be
defined repeatedly in each chapter it appears.
1:57:54 PM
MS. KIRSCH related that the decision is made on a case-by-case
basis, but there can certainly be general definitions that apply
to multiple places in the statutes. Often, it will say "this
term -- whatever that term is, say nurse midwife, -- has the
meaning given in ___ and then it lists another statutory
section." Also, she reiterated, Title 1 has a number of
definitions, such as municipality or person, of which are terms
used throughout the statutes. She paraphrased that it will
read: "unless there is a specific definition that applies in a
particular part of the statutes, this definition will apply
throughout." She related that the revisor's office does both of
those things, and there are different reasons to choose to do
one or the other in different parts of the statute.
1:58:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to Sec. 28. [AS 37.06.020(d),
page 14, lines 23-25] which read as follows:
(d) Notwithstanding the guidelines in (b) of this
section, the legislature may appropriate any amount to
be community assistance [REVENUE SHARING] fund.
Nothing in this section creates a dedicated fund.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that the revisor's office had
corrected an oversight.
1:59:27 PM
MS. KIRSCH explained that Sec. 28 replaces "revenue sharing"
with "assistance," via Senate Bill 210, passed during the
Twenty-Ninth Legislature, and made law under Chapter 44, 2016
Session Laws. She advised that those terms were replaced in
that manner throughout, and Sec. 28 is one that the revisor's
office missed.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that she could not recall what
Senate Bill 210 related to.
MS. KIRSCH responded that she could not recall.
2:00:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted she had five sections with regard
to Ms. Kirsch's testimony that the revisor's office changed "the
substance or the form of the law." She referred to Sec. 14, [AS
14.18.020, page 9, lines 8-16], and asked how the form or
substance of the law was changed.
MS. KIRSCH advised this is a section where the revisor's office
is removing "but not limited to" which follows the word
"including." She referred to a statutory provision in Title 1,
and she paraphrased, "anytime in the Alaska Statutes that we use
the word 'including' it is presumed to be followed by 'but not
limited to.'" Therefore, she reiterated, the words "not limited
to" are unnecessary and are being removed.
MS. KIRSCH continued that the next change, "based on" rather
than the "basis of," is a language change and it is not meant to
change the substance of the law or its meaning.
2:01:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted this is based on discrimination
employment which is a large issue for the public, and it is not
known whether the umbrella is bigger here or if it is just "not
limited to" so it sounds like it is a broader umbrella.
MS. KIRSCH reiterated that the words "but not limited to" are
presumed to remain there due to the provision in Title 1,
nothing has been changed by removing them from this section.
2:02:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said it is important "because you said
that -- it is going to change the form or substance of the law."
MS. KIRSCH said that she misspoke and clarified that it is not
making a substantive change that would actually change the
effect of the law. Rather, it is changing the substance in the
sense of the form of the language to put it in a grammatical
form, thereby, removing the words "but not limited to" which are
already included by virtue of the provision in Title 1.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether that is the same for [Sec.
15. AS 14.20.450. Responsibilities of commission] wherein the
revisor's office eliminates "but not limited to." She further
asked whether there are any other changes in Sec. 15.
MS. KIRSCH answered, "No, that's the single change ..."
2:03:19 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that the title of the previously discussed
Senate Bill 210, was "Community Revenue Sharing Program Change
to Community Assistance Program." He remarked that in the
legislature's infinite wisdom it chose to change the name.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to Sec. 16 [AS 22.15.100],
Functions and powers of district judge and magistrate, page 9,
line 25, and asked whether there are any substantive changes in
their duties or responsibilities.
MS. KIRSCH responded "No," the only change in that section is
the addition of the word "those" and the deletion of the word
"such."
2:04:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD queried why the rivisor's office put
these under the substance of the law if there is just one little
word.
2:04:58 PM
MS. KIRSCH explained that it is referred to in that manner
because it is changing the language, it is making a grammatical
change. The word "such" is one that the revisor's office avoids
because it is being used in this case as a demonstrative
adjective. She remarked that the language was traditionally
used by lawyers but is disfavored in this day and age, it is a
language change to reflect common usage of modern English.
2:05:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to Sec. 23 [AS 23.40.225],
Exemption based on religious convictions, page 12, line 26, and
asked her to explain.
MS. KIRSCH pointed out that it is also a deletion of the words
"but not limited to" which are unnecessary due to the provision
under Title 1, and reiterated that "including" is presumed to
include those words following it.
2:06:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that the deletion of the term
"nurse midwife" was the result of a law passed last year.
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify on HB
77, closed public testimony.
2:07:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX complimented Ms. Kirsch on all of the hard
work that has obviously taken place, and that she is aware
Legislative Legal and Research Services works extremely hard and
has lost people in the last couple of years. She related that
there are times Legislative Legal and Research Services is
working almost 24/7, and the legislators truly appreciate its
work. In light of how overworked the staff of Legislative Legal
and Research Services are, she asked how necessary it is to
change things, such as Sec. 14, [AS 14.18.020], page 9, line 14,
which read as follows:
(1) ... noninstructional duties based
on [THE BASIS OF] sex or race; and
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX continued, as opposed to "on the basis
of." She said she looks at that as "six to one - half dozen of
the other" and that "but not limited to" is not of any huge
concern to her. She then expressed that she would rather not
use the limited hours overworking people with this type of
"stuff," but the bill is finished and she appreciates the
diligence.
2:09:32 PM
MS. KIRSCH responded that at the danger of becoming
philosophical, she views her duty as a revisor to create the
best possible law she can. She remarked that she is proud of
the body of law in Alaska, as opposed to a person working their
way through the federal statutes or regulations. Given the laws
she has reviewed from other states, jurisdictions, and federal
law, she pointed out that Alaska has a sensible, coherent, and a
consistent body of law that she appreciates and it is important
to her. While it may appear there are differences without any
important distinction, legal cases can sometimes turn on a
single word, she pointed out. The revisor's office tries hard
to create a sensible, consistent, coherent body of law that is
not caught up in needless legal terms, or terms of art, making
it more difficult for the average person to understand, she
remarked. The changes may appear to be minor changes, but she
takes them seriously, and it is important to her as a revisor,
she stressed.
2:11:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to work she does in reviewing
the statutes, and asked whether the revisor's office has ever
discovered any problematic conflicts in the law.
MS. KIRSCH responded that, in part, the revisor's office
performs a review of a certain group of titles and determines
the changes during the interim. Of course, she said, during the
session if it discovers difficulties or problems in the context
of an open section in a bill, it will suggest the change
improving the section, or correcting a problem, to the
legislator to possibly include the change as part of their bill.
In that manner the body has a chance to look at it and in the
event the bill passes, those changes are made.
2:12:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that it is amazing how much the
revisor's office catches how one statute changes so many other
areas in the law, and it gets into repealers. He thanked the
revisor's office for all the work it does in helping legislators
catch things which seem to be the bigger projects legislators
take on, the spider's web is enormous in the law and it has been
effective in catching those, he commented.
2:13:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Ms. Kirsch's earlier
testimony about the difference between Alaska's statutes and
other state's statutes, and related that her comments are
accurate and he appreciates there is someone going through and
performing that work. He offered that it gives him peace of
mind as an Alaskan that the major errors, if any, will be
caught.
2:13:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN observed that the use of "but not limited to" is a
conversation he has had when drafting contracts as to whether
those words were necessary. He offered that "we are not always"
using words economically and he appreciates the details. The
legislature gives Legislative Legal and Research Services the
largest dose of work during session and appreciates that the
revisor's office's work takes place out of session so it is not
burning the midnight oil. He said he also appreciates
Representative LeDoux's perspective that it can be time
consuming.
2:15:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER said he, too, is appreciative of all of
the hard work, and to tend toward Representative LeDoux's
comments, he related that, hopefully, as technology advances it
will cut down on some of these kinds of situations. He
suggested, in not wishing to burn the legislature's employees
out with this type of work, perhaps legislators should consider
all of the ramifications when drafting their legislation and put
it in on the front end.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered the members an opportunity to review his
book relating to Uniform Law Recommendations and a manual on how
to write clear and concise legislation.
2:16:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report HB 77, Version 30-
LS0010\O out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection,
HB 77 passed from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Legislative Ethics Appointment Joyce Anderson-Application Letter 2.4.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2017 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Legislative Ethics Appointment Joyce Anderson-Support Letter Chief Justice Craig Stowers 2.4.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2017 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Legislative Ethics Appointment Joyce Anderson-Resume 2.4.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2017 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB077 ver O 1.25.17.PDF |
HJUD 2/6/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB077 Sectional Analysis 1.27.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB077 Supporting Document-Department of Law 1.18.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB077 Supporting Document-Department of Law 2.3.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB077 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 2.2.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/6/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 77 |