Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

04/12/2017 01:00 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 2. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 15 Minutes Following Session --
+= HB 170 AK SECURITIES ACT; PENALTIES; CRT. RULES TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 170(JUD) Out of Committee
+= HB 200 NONPARTISAN OPEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
+= HB 208 TRUSTS; COMM PROP TRUSTS; POWERS OF APPT TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ HB 175 US PRESIDENT ELECT. POPULAR VOTE COMPACT TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
*+ HB 223 MUNICIPAL PENALTY PROVISIONS TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
-- Public Testimony --
Uniform Rule 23 Waived
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 12, 2017                                                                                         
                           2:16 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Matt Claman, Chair                                                                                               
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair                                                                                         
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins                                                                                          
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Representative David Eastman                                                                                                    
Representative Chuck Kopp                                                                                                       
Representative Lora Reinbold                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)                                                                                     
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 208                                                                                                              
"An  Act  relating  to  trusts and  powers  of  appointment;  and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 175                                                                                                              
"An Act  ratifying an interstate  compact to elect  the President                                                               
and  Vice-President  of the  United  States  by national  popular                                                               
vote; and  making related changes  to statutes applicable  to the                                                               
selection by voters of electors  for candidates for President and                                                               
Vice- President of  the United States and to the  duties of those                                                               
electors."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 170                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to  securities, registration, exempt securities,                                                               
exempt transactions,  broker-dealers, agents,  investment advice,                                                               
investment advisers, investment  adviser representatives, federal                                                               
covered   securities,   federal  covered   investment   advisers,                                                               
viatical   settlement   interests,  small   intrastate   security                                                               
offerings,   Canadian   broker-dealers,  and   Canadian   agents;                                                               
relating  to  administrative,  civil,  and  criminal  enforcement                                                               
provisions,  including   restitution  and  civil   penalties  for                                                               
violations; relating  to an investor training  fund; establishing                                                               
increased  civil   penalties  for   harming  older   persons  and                                                               
vulnerable adults;  relating to corporations organized  under the                                                               
Alaska Native  Claims Settlement  Act; amending  Rules 4,  5, 54,                                                               
65,  and 90,  Alaska  Rules  of Civil  Procedure,  and Rule  602,                                                               
Alaska  Rules  of  Appellate  Procedure;  and  providing  for  an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 170(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 200                                                                                                              
"An Act establishing a top  two nonpartisan open primary election                                                               
system  for  elective  state executive  and  state  and  national                                                               
legislative offices;  repealing the  special runoff  election for                                                               
the   office  of   United  States   senator   or  United   States                                                               
representative;  changing  appointment   procedures  relating  to                                                               
precinct  watchers  and  members  of  precinct  election  boards,                                                               
election  district   absentee  and  questioned   ballot  counting                                                               
boards,  and  the  Alaska Public  Offices  Commission;  requiring                                                               
certain  written  notices to  appear  in  election pamphlets  and                                                               
polling  places;  relating  to   declarations  of  candidacy  and                                                               
letters  of intent;  and amending  the  definition of  'political                                                               
party.'"                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARING CANCELED                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 223                                                                                                              
"An  Act  relating to  municipal  penalties  for violation  of  a                                                               
municipal ordinance when  there is a comparable  state crime; and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARING CANCELED                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 208                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: TRUSTS; COMM PROP TRUSTS; POWERS OF APPT                                                                           
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
03/31/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/31/17       (H)       JUD                                                                                                    
04/10/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
04/10/17       (H)       Scheduled but Not Heard                                                                                
04/12/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 175                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: US PRESIDENT ELECT. COMPACT: POPULAR VOTE                                                                          
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FANSLER                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
03/13/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/13/17       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
03/16/17       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/16/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/16/17       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/23/17       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/23/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/23/17       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/28/17       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/28/17       (H)       Moved HB 175 Out of Committee                                                                          
03/28/17       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/29/17       (H)       STA RPT 2DP 3DNP 2NR                                                                                   
03/29/17       (H)       DP: TUCK, KREISS-TOMKINS                                                                               
03/29/17       (H)       DNP: JOHNSON, KNOPP, BIRCH                                                                             
03/29/17       (H)       NR: WOOL, LEDOUX                                                                                       
04/12/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 170                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: AK SECURITIES ACT; PENALTIES; CRT. RULES                                                                           
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
03/10/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/10/17       (H)       L&C, JUD                                                                                               
03/24/17       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
03/24/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/24/17       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
03/27/17       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
03/27/17       (H)       Moved HB 170 Out of Committee                                                                          
03/27/17       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
03/29/17       (H)       L&C RPT 6DP 1NR                                                                                        
03/29/17       (H)       DP: SULLIVAN-LEONARD, STUTES, WOOL,                                                                    
                         JOSEPHSON, BIRCH, KITO                                                                                 
03/29/17       (H)       NR: KNOPP                                                                                              
04/07/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
04/07/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/07/17       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/11/17       (H)       JUD AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
04/11/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/11/17       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/12/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DELENA GOODWIN JOHNSON                                                                                           
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 208 as prime sponsor.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SHAE SIEGART, Staff                                                                                                             
Representative DeLena Goodwin Johnson                                                                                           
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing of  HB 208,  offered a                                                             
PowerPoint Presentation, and answered questions.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MATHEW BLATTMACHR                                                                                                               
Peak Trust Company                                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the  hearing  of HB  208,  offered                                                             
testimony and answered questions.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD HOMPESCH, Attorney                                                                                                      
Hompesch Evans & Averett                                                                                                        
Fairbanks, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  of  HB 208,  answered                                                             
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
BETH CHAPMAN, Attorney                                                                                                          
Faulkner Banfield                                                                                                               
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the  hearing  of HB  208,  offered                                                             
support for the legislation, and answered questions.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
JONATHAN BATTMACHR, Attorney                                                                                                    
Garden City, New York                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:   During the hearing of HB  208, testified in                                                             
support of the legislation.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BARRY FADEM, President                                                                                                          
National Popular Vote                                                                                                           
Lafayette, California                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:   During the hearing of HB  175, testified in                                                             
support of the legislation.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN ANSELM, Director                                                                                                          
Division of Banking and Securities                                                                                              
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development                                                                        
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  of  HB 170,  answered                                                             
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
RENEE WARDLAW, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                       
Commercial and Fair Business Section                                                                                            
Department of Law                                                                                                               
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  of  HB 170,  answered                                                             
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:16:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MATT  CLAMAN called the House  Judiciary Standing Committee                                                             
meeting to  order at 2:16  p.m. Representatives  Claman, Fansler,                                                               
and  Kopp were  present  at  the call  to  order.   Chair  Claman                                                               
advised that,  currently, the  committee did  not have  a quorum.                                                               
Representatives  Eastman,  Reinbold, LeDoux,  and  Kreiss-Tomkins                                                               
arrived as the meeting was in progress.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
        HB 208-TRUSTS; COMM PROP TRUSTS; POWERS OF APPT                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:17:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 208,  "An Act  relating to  trusts and  powers of                                                               
appointment; and providing for an effective date."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:18:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DELENA GOODWIN  JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature,                                                               
paraphrased   her  sponsor   statement,   as  follows   [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Alaska has  set a precedence  as being a leader  in the                                                                    
     Nation's  estate  and  tax  planning  Industry.  Banks,                                                                    
     trust companies, Alaskans, and  Americans from all over                                                                    
     seek  out Alaska  to  be the  home  of their  financial                                                                    
     assets due  to our environment which  promotes economic                                                                    
     security, strength,  and growth. House Bill  208, seeks                                                                    
     to continue the prosperity  of this environment through                                                                    
     further fostering  a conducive  place where  people can                                                                    
     invest  their assets  and know  that our  statutes will                                                                    
     insure their  integrity, and  ability to  benefit their                                                                    
     intended audience.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     We can look  at House Bill 208 as  a "flexibility" bill                                                                    
     which provides  for those looking  to perform  the best                                                                    
     estate  planning, whether  they are  residents or  non-                                                                    
     residents,  assurance that  their irrevocable  document                                                                    
     won't  hinder  its   beneficiaries  through  unintended                                                                    
     results  including; providing  financial resource  to a                                                                    
     dangerous  habit,  not  providing ability  to  pay  for                                                                    
     treatment  of   an  unforeseeable  disability,   or  by                                                                    
     providing  financial  resource  to  someone  who  would                                                                    
     rather  put it  towards a  suitable charity.  Decanting                                                                    
     may also  provide the ability to  keep documents viable                                                                    
     in response to changes in State or Federal tax laws.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Since 1997, Alaska  has been a leader  in adopting laws                                                                    
     to  improve estate  and tax  planning options  for both                                                                    
     Alaskans  and   non-Alaskans.  House  Bill  208   is  a                                                                    
     continuation   of  this   leadership  as   it  provides                                                                    
     expansion and  clarification to our  existing statutes.                                                                    
     House  Bill 208  focusses on  expanding and  clarifying                                                                    
     four  key  areas  of  our  State  Statutes  surrounding                                                                    
     irrevocable trusts.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     The  four  areas are  Decanting  of  Trusts, Powers  of                                                                    
     Appointment,  traceability  of  Trust  Assets  for  Tax                                                                    
     Efficiency,  and  Clarification of  Trustees'  Specific                                                                    
     Powers. These four areas have  since, and in some cases                                                                    
     prior to,  1997 been forced  to be decided by  a Judge.                                                                    
     Providing  the  ability  for these  four  areas  to  be                                                                    
     clearly  outlined  by  the  original  settlor,  and  by                                                                    
     providing  beneficiaries   the  ability  to   adapt  to                                                                    
     unforeseen   events,   we   continue  to   provide   an                                                                    
     environment  where irrevocable  trusts, like  our State                                                                    
     and National  Constitution, may be amended  to provide,                                                                    
     or  not  provide,  in clearly  outlined,  yet  commonly                                                                    
     unforeseen, circumstances.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Keeping all of  these things in mind, I  humbly ask for                                                                    
     your support  in keeping Alaska a  leader in innovation                                                                    
     in  the  trust  industry   as  the  financial  industry                                                                    
     continues  it's   perpetually  changing   mentality  by                                                                    
     passing House Bill 208.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:21:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SHAE  SEGART,  Staff,   Representative  DeLena  Goodwin  Johnson,                                                               
Alaska    State   Legislature,    paraphrased   the    PowerPoint                                                               
presentation,  titled  "House  Bill 208,"  as  follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Why is  House Bill  208 being introduced?  What problem                                                                    
     is being solved?                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     House  bill 208  seeks to  expand, and  clarify current                                                                    
     State Statutes  surrounding one of our  most successful                                                                    
     industries. The  piece of legislation  in front  of you                                                                    
     is seeking to  continue the process started  in 1997 by                                                                    
     giving the  State of Alaska a  competitive advantage to                                                                    
     once again  be the best jurisdiction  for Alaskans, and                                                                    
     non-alaskans, to keep their trusts and estates in.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Trust and Estate  planning is one of  these things that                                                                    
     commonly gets  overlooked in the search  for industries                                                                    
     that really strengthen  our economy. We saw  a value to                                                                    
     this   industry  in   1997   when   the  Alaska   State                                                                    
     Legislature passed  the Alaska Trust Act  which quickly                                                                    
     propelled our State to the  top of the nation's ranking                                                                    
     in  Estate and  Tax  Planning Industry.  It holds  vast                                                                    
     benefits to Alaskans as  well as financial institutions                                                                    
     in Alaska.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     I would  like to point  you all  to a few  documents in                                                                    
     your bill  packet, the first  one, as we go  forward to                                                                    
     the four main  areas of this bill is a  matrix what you                                                                    
     decant, what happens when you  decant, and some kind of                                                                    
     hypotheticals in  moving forward.   The other one  is a                                                                    
     trust and  estate glossary, it has  some helpful terms.                                                                    
     As we move  through this law that has  a vernacular all                                                                    
     to itself, and  it is a very nuanced part  of our state                                                                    
     statute  books.   The  next one  would  be our  ranking                                                                    
     comparatively to  other states in the  trust and estate                                                                    
     planning industry.  We are  currently number 7, we used                                                                    
     to  be farther  up  on  this list  when  we passed  the                                                                    
     Alaska Trust  Act in 1997,  and have since sunk  in the                                                                    
     rankings.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     2:23:30 PM                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Online  I   have  Matthew  Blattmachr  of   Peak  Trust                                                                    
     Company,  who  will  be  able   to  answer  any  really                                                                    
     professional questions  that get really  technical into                                                                    
     the trust profession and industry.   Going forth, there                                                                    
     are  four areas  where this  bill really  seeks to  add                                                                    
     expansion,  as   well  as   clarify  in   our  existing                                                                    
     statutes.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Since 1997, Alaska  has been a leader  in adopting laws                                                                    
     to  improve estate  and tax  planning options  for both                                                                    
     Alaskan  and  non-Alaskans.    House   Bill  208  is  a                                                                    
     continuation of  this leadership  as it  adds expansion                                                                    
     and clarification to our existing statutes.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Decanting. Decanting, of course,  is the act of pouring                                                                    
     liquid from  one container to  another as  often occurs                                                                    
     with wine.   When one trust pays (or  pours) its assets                                                                    
     to  another   trust,  this  too   is  referred   to  as                                                                    
     decanting.    Decanting  is used  to  correct  drafting                                                                    
     errors, reduce  costs of trust  administration, enhance                                                                    
     tax effects  and many other  reasons. While  Alaska has                                                                    
     had decanting statutes for nearly  20 years, House Bill                                                                    
     208   would   provide    additional   flexibility   and                                                                    
     clarification  to   this  great   statutory  provision.                                                                    
     Decanting is commonly used by  Alaskans who are looking                                                                    
     to  update their  trust  documents. Additionally,  non-                                                                    
     residents  bring their  business to  Alaska because  of                                                                    
     this progressive statute.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:25:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Powers of Appointment. One of  the most powerful estate                                                                    
     planning  tools   is  to  grant  someone,   such  as  a                                                                    
     beneficiary,  a "power  of  appointment," which  allows                                                                    
     that person  the right to  specify where  property will                                                                    
     pass  at certain  times, such  as when  the beneficiary                                                                    
     dies.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     The proposal  would clarify  certain aspects  of Alaska                                                                    
     law relating to  these powers so they can  be used more                                                                    
     efficiently for tax and other reasons.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Tracing of  Trust's Assets for Tax  Efficiency.  Trusts                                                                    
     are  often  created by  more  than  one settlor.  Under                                                                    
     Internal  Revenue  Code  Section   671,  a  settlor  is                                                                    
     treated as  the owner  of the portion  of the  trust to                                                                    
     which the settlor contributed,  if the settlor reserves                                                                    
     certain powers over the trust property.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Under AS 13.36.169,  a trustee may divide  a trust into                                                                    
     one or  more separate  trusts if certain  tax elections                                                                    
     are  made. However,  the statute  does not  contemplate                                                                    
     dividing a trust into separate  portions when there are                                                                    
     multiple  settlors and  treating each  separate portion                                                                    
     as  being   contributed  to  solely  by   one  settlor.                                                                    
     Although  a trust  instrument might  grant this  power,                                                                    
     Alaska law does not.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     The  proposal  would allow  a  trustee  who has  traced                                                                    
     contributions  to  a trust,  as  well  as earnings  and                                                                    
     reinvestments  on  such  contributions, to  divide  the                                                                    
     trust  into  one more  separate  trusts  of which  each                                                                    
     settlor would  be treated  as the  sole settlor  of the                                                                    
     trust  as   to  the   portion  to   which  he   or  she                                                                    
     contributed. This  power would provide more  clarity as                                                                    
     to  the tax  treatment  of trusts  with  more than  one                                                                    
     settlor. No other  state appears to have  a similar law                                                                    
     in effect  at this  time. This  bill would  help Alaska                                                                    
     remain at the forefront of trust legislation.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:27:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Clarification  of Certain  Trustee  Powers. Alaska  law                                                                    
     grants trustees  certain powers.   Among these  are the                                                                    
     right to  acquire insurance to  protect the  trust from                                                                    
     claims from third parties;  however, certain aspects of                                                                    
     the powers are not clear.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     The proposal  would clarify  Alaska law  to say  that a                                                                    
     trustee  can acquire  insurance  to  protect the  trust                                                                    
     assets  from claims  of third  parties and  the trustee                                                                    
     from third  party and beneficiary claims  and to charge                                                                    
     the premiums to the trust.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     These and  many other  Alaska laws the  Legislature has                                                                    
     enacted  have  benefitted  Alaskans,  has  resulted  in                                                                    
     millions  of  dollars   being  deposited  in  financial                                                                    
     institutions  in   the  state  which,  in   turn,  have                                                                    
     provided  funding for  Alaska businesses,  and provided                                                                    
     significant  work for  many Alaskans.  We  hope to  see                                                                    
     this success continue for years to come.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:28:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MATHEW BLATTMACHR, Peak Trust Company,  offered that in 1997, the                                                               
legislature passed  the Alaska  Trust Act,  which put  Alaska not                                                               
only  as   the  first   state,  but   made  Alaska   the  premier                                                               
jurisdiction  for trust  and estate  planning.   These laws  were                                                               
powerful and created a desire  from other states to copy Alaska's                                                               
laws  in that  this would  be a  good industry  to have  in their                                                               
state, it's a clean industry,  it doesn't require any outlay from                                                               
the state in  order to bring it to a  state, or requires maintain                                                               
the  industry.   Therefore,  he said,  it  created a  competitive                                                               
environment with options  for clients and their  advisors, and in                                                               
the  event  Alaska  wants  to  maintain  its  standing,  it  must                                                               
frequently consider  additional bills  that not only  clarify but                                                               
add to existing statutes.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
[MR. SIEGERT  read each  slide on the  PowerPoint word  for word,                                                               
please review each slide for his testimony.]                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:30:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SIEGERT  turned  to  slide  2,  "4  Areas  of  Concern"  and                                                               
paraphrased as follows:                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     4  Areas of  Concern,  Decanting of  Trusts, Powers  of                                                                    
     Appointment,  Traceability  of  Trust  Assets  for  Tax                                                                    
     Efficiency,  and  Clarification of  Trustees'  Specific                                                                    
     Powers                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. SIEGERT turned to slide  3, "Helpful Definitions" and advised                                                               
these definitions are not located in the glossary.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. SIEGERT  turned to  slide 4,  "Decanting a  Trust," questions                                                               
posed  to Mr.  Blattmachr, and  paraphrased as  follows [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Decanting a Trust.  Why  would someone want to decant a                                                                    
     trust?   We already have decanting  statute, isn't that                                                                    
     enough?!  What instances are  most common that call for                                                                    
     a trust to be decanted?                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:32:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BLATTMACHR  answered there are  a variety of  reasons someone                                                               
would  want  to decant,  and  advised  that the  matrix  provided                                                               
within the  materials assists in  setting up some examples  as to                                                               
how decanting can  help.  Decanting, he explained,  may include a                                                               
potential  scrivener's  error  in   the  original  document,  and                                                               
because the issue  was dealing with irrevocable  trusts and there                                                               
was no way to revoke them,  the technical way would be to decant.                                                               
An additional  reason for  decanting may be  changes in  tax law,                                                               
and  pointed to  the shift  in the  national presidential  regime                                                               
which may  bring about tax  law changes, thereby,  rendering some                                                               
planning documents  as inefficient  or ineffective.   The current                                                               
decanting statute is  almost 20 years old, he  described, and due                                                               
to advancements in  decanting and estate planning  law, this bill                                                               
would  add some  flexibility for  Alaskan practitioners  to match                                                               
what other  states currently  allow.  He  explained that  most of                                                               
these instances  are brought up  due to  a certain need  to amend                                                               
the  document  in some  manner,  and  is  done  so for  the  best                                                               
interests  of   the  beneficiaries,   whether  it   was  updating                                                               
provisions in  the document  or changing  dispositive provisions,                                                               
he explained.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:34:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SIEGERT  turned to slide 5,  "Sec. 29, 30" having  to do with                                                               
decanting,  and  paraphrased  as  follows  [original  punctuation                                                               
provided]:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section 29  Adds a new section 13.36.380 (Distribution of                                                                  
     principal)                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
          (a) Authorizes a court to authorize a trustee to                                                                      
          invade the principal of a trust if the court makes                                                                    
          certain findings                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
          (b) Limits the application of this section to an                                                                      
          irrevocable trust for which the trust instrument                                                                      
          provides for certain distributions                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Section 30                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
          (a) indicates that a second power, as defined in the                                                                  
          subsection, created by a first power may be validly                                                                   
          exercised to postpone the vesting of property without                                                                 
          regard to the creation of the first power                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          (b) states that if a first power is exercised to                                                                      
          create a second power as defined in the subsection,                                                                   
          the second power is not valid unless all property                                                                     
          interests vest not later than 1000 years after the                                                                    
          creation of the first power.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
          (c) defines "first power" for the section.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SIEGERT   turned  to  slide  6,   "Powers  of  Appointment,"                                                               
questions  for   Mr.  Blattmachr,  and  paraphrased   as  follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Powers of Appointment. Do Powers of Appointment have                                                                      
     to do with more than just the distribution of assets?                                                                      
     Who holds the Power of Appointment in a trust?  Does                                                                       
     this bill change that to more people?  Is the Power of                                                                     
     Appointment a Fiduciary or Non-fiduciary power?  Why                                                                       
     do they matter?                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. BLATTMACHR responded  that powers of appointment  can do more                                                               
than the  distribution of assets  because that  provision broadly                                                               
gives  the  beneficiary  the  ability to  appoint  assets  for  a                                                               
variety of  reasons, such as  winning the lottery  and appointing                                                               
the assets to a charity, putting  assets into a trust for a child                                                               
with substance abuse problems.   The powers of appointment can be                                                               
used for  tax planning reasons,  for example, to pull  the assets                                                               
out of  someone's estate  and into their  estate.   Typically, he                                                               
advised, the  powers of appointment  is given to  the beneficiary                                                               
of  the   document,  although  sometimes  they   can  be  further                                                               
assigned, and  the bill does not  change who is appointed  or the                                                               
number of people.   He offered that powers of  appointment can be                                                               
held in  a fiduciary  or non-fiduciary  power depending  upon the                                                               
document and the  power itself, and they matter  as they increase                                                               
flexibility within trust documents.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:37:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  referred to  slide 5,  Section 30,  subsection (b),                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
          (b) states that if a first power is exercised to                                                                      
          create a second power as defined in the subsection,                                                                   
          the second power is not valid unless all property                                                                     
          interests vest not later than 1000 years after the                                                                    
          creation of the first power.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted there is a  rule of perpetuity making it 1,000                                                               
years  after the  creation  of  the first  power,  and asked  the                                                               
justification for 1,000 years.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. SIEGERT  answered that under  current statute  [AS 34.27.051]                                                               
there  is  a statutorily  protected  section  of 1,000  years  of                                                               
perpetuity, and this  does not change the common 21  year rule of                                                               
perpetuity.   He  advised  there are  many  states with  expanded                                                               
rules against perpetuities and Alaska  is one state that contains                                                               
1,000 years.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  commented  that   that  is  existing  statute  and                                                               
surmised that  nothing was  being changed  today with  respect to                                                               
trusts.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. SIEGERT agreed.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:39:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SIEGERT  turned to  slides  7-12,  "Sections 1,  5-7,  10-22                                                               
(Powers  of  Appointment),  and read  each  slide  word-for-word.                                                               
[Please see PowerPoint "House Bill 208."]                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:45:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SIEGERT  turned  to  slide  13,  "Traceability  of  Assets,"                                                               
questions  for  Mr.  Blattmachr to  answer,  and  paraphrased  as                                                               
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
       Traceability of Assets.  Isn't this just a way of                                                                        
      avoiding taxes?  Why don't we already have a statute                                                                      
     protecting this already; if it is such a big deal?                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. BLATTMACHR responded that traceability  of assets has nothing                                                               
to do  with avoiding taxes,  in that it provides  practitioners a                                                               
provision  with  which  to  rely   when  unwinding  a  trust  and                                                               
separating  assets.   For example,  practitioners  can rely  upon                                                               
this provision when  "planning the event" and  they have multiple                                                               
grantors of a  single trust, for whatever reason,  and would like                                                               
to separate  the assets of  the trust.   This provision is  not a                                                               
big deal, but it adds clarity to Alaska law, he commented.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:46:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP surmised  that this is technical  area of law                                                               
and some of these terms should  be discussed for clarity, such as                                                               
the definitions of fiduciary versus non-fiduciary.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BLATTMACHR  responded  that fiduciary  versus  non-fiduciary                                                               
comes down  to who holds  that power.  In  the event a  person is                                                               
already acting in  a fiduciary capacity, such as  a trustee, they                                                               
typically hold  a fiduciary power.   In the event they  hold that                                                               
power as  a beneficiary and  are not  in a fiduciary  capacity to                                                               
begin with,  typically it is  a non-fiduciary power.   Generally,                                                               
he explained, the entity or  person that holds the power dictates                                                               
whether it is fiduciary or non-fiduciary.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:48:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP referred  to non-fiduciary,  and asked  that                                                               
when a person is the holder  of a non-fiduciary power, that means                                                               
the person  is not  a beneficiary,  the person  is holding  it in                                                               
trust for another person.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. BLATTMACHR said, "No, not  necessarily."  For example, in the                                                               
event Peak  Trust Company held  a fiduciary power  of appointment                                                               
over trust  assets, it would  hold that in a  fiduciary capacity,                                                               
most likely.   Wherein, he said, the Peak Trust  Company would be                                                               
held  to the  same standard  with that  power as  with any  other                                                               
action or  inaction.  He  related that for a  beneficiary holding                                                               
that power, they typically do not  have to hold it in a fiduciary                                                               
capacity.  There may be standards  to who they can appoint it to,                                                               
such as a  defined class of beneficiaries, and there  may not be,                                                               
that goes into  different types of powers.  He  advised that they                                                               
do  not have  a fiduciary  duty when  exercising that  power, but                                                               
again, if  they are a  beneficiary, they would be  appointing the                                                               
assets for their benefit.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:49:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that he  would research the issue a bit                                                               
on his own, and asked that "invasion of trust" be explained.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BLATTMACHR explained  that invasion is typically  a term that                                                               
defines  the appointment  of  assets from  one  trust to  another                                                               
trust  as far  as  decanting.   Typically,  he  said,  it is  not                                                               
separated between  whether that  was income  or principle,  it is                                                               
that the current trust was  being invaded, pulling assets out and                                                               
putting them into a new trust.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:50:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP surmised  that  it has  nothing  to do  with                                                               
getting  into  earnings  of  a   trust  versus  getting  into  an                                                               
appropriation or a  withdrawal of the principle of  the trust, it                                                               
doesn't break it  down in that manner.  He  further surmised that                                                               
an invasion means taking anything out of a trust.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BLATTMACHR  responded  in   the  sense  of  decanting,  yes.                                                               
Typically, the entirety  of the original trust is put  into a new                                                               
trust.  Although, he commented,  that might change when decanting                                                               
one trust and separating it out  into three trusts, one trust for                                                               
the benefit of three different  beneficiaries and take a pro rata                                                               
share.   He  agreed that  it  is typically,  not necessarily  the                                                               
definition of principle versus income.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:51:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER  asked that  the tax  structure, currently                                                               
in  place in  Alaska, be  explained, whether  they are  all taxed                                                               
equally, and whether there are different structures.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. SIEGERT deferred to attorney Richard Hompesch.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:53:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER  noted that different types  of trusts are                                                               
available,  and  requested  that   tax  liability  structures  be                                                               
explained  within the  different trusts  set up  in the  State of                                                               
Alaska.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:53:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD  HOMPESCH, Attorney,  Hompesch Evans  & Averett,  advised                                                               
that Alaska  does not tax the  income of trusts or  estates under                                                               
current law,  trusts and  estates are  subject to  federal income                                                               
and transfer taxes.   He advised that he was  testifying today on                                                               
his own behalf, and not on behalf of any party.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:54:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER specifically asked  whether all trusts tax                                                               
in the  exact same manner, whether  it be a federal  or state tax                                                               
structure.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. HOMPESCH  replied that  the taxation  of trust  income varies                                                               
from  state-to-state,   and  the  federal  taxation   income  and                                                               
transfer  tax  of  trusts  is  generally the  same.    There  are                                                               
exceptions, some trusts are exempt  from federal income taxation,                                                               
known  as  Charitable  Trusts,  but  most  of  the  trusts  being                                                               
discussed  today  may be  decanted  into  another trust  and  are                                                               
subject to federal income taxes.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER referred  to  allowing  decanting due  to                                                               
innovations in  trusts or changes  in the tax code,  for example,                                                               
and asked  whether it would  be possible  for a person  to decant                                                               
their current  trust into a  new trust that would  suddenly occur                                                               
into a tax liability.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. HOMPESCH answered "Not to my knowledge, no."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:56:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SIEGERT  turned to  slide  14,  "23  - Dividing  trust  into                                                               
separate portions  for income tax  purposes," and  paraphrased as                                                               
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     This section adds a new subsection to read:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Unless  a governing  instrument specifically  refers to                                                                    
     this  section and  provides otherwise,  if  a trust  is                                                                    
     created  by more  than one  settlor, and  if a  trustee                                                                    
     keeps  records  tracing  contributions, a  trustee  may                                                                    
     divide the trust  into one or more  separate trusts for                                                                    
     which a specific  settlor shall be treated  as the sole                                                                    
     settlor of the  separate portion of the  trust to which                                                                    
     the settlor  contributed. A  trustee may  exercise this                                                                    
     power  at any  time,  whether before,  or,  or after  a                                                                    
     settlor's  death. A  trustee  may  exercise this  power                                                                    
     whether or not the trust  was initially governed by the                                                                    
     law of this state or the  situs of a trust was moved to                                                                    
     this state.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:57:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SIEGART  turned  to slide  15,  "Clarification  of  Specific                                                               
Powers  of  a  Trustee,"  having  to  do  with  clarification  of                                                               
specific  powers  of  a  trustee,   and  paraphrased  as  follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     What are Specific Powers of  a Trustee?  Can't specific                                                                    
     powers be given by the trust?                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BLATTMACHR  advised  that under  Alaska  law,  the  specific                                                               
powers of  a trustee  are quite broad  and include  anything that                                                               
might  be  reasonably  expected  for  a  trustee  to  perform  to                                                               
administer a trust.   He further advised there  are some specific                                                               
definitions under Alaska law that  can be further clarified under                                                               
the  trust documents.    In addition,  he  explained, Alaska  law                                                               
allows for different  trustees to hold different  powers, and for                                                               
certain powers to  be taken away from trustees.   Specific powers                                                               
can  be given  by  the trust  and give  more  flexibility to  the                                                               
trustee  than what  Alaska law  allows, or  it can  also restrict                                                               
abilities of trustees in the document, he explained.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:58:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SIEGERT turned  to slide 16, "Section 2,"  and paraphrased as                                                               
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Specific Powers of Trustees. Except as otherwise                                                                         
     provided by this chapter, in addition to the powers                                                                        
     conferred by the terms of the trust, a trustee may                                                                         
     perform all actions necessary to accomplish the proper                                                                     
     management, investment, and distribution of the trust                                                                      
     property, including the power?                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
        This is followed by the 29 powers that are                                                                              
        statutorily protected.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
        (17) to insure the property of the trust against                                                                        
     damage or loss and to insure the trustee against                                                                           
     liability with respect to third persons or                                                                             
     beneficiaries of the trust;                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:59:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SIEGERT  turned to slide 17,  "Section 3," having to  do with                                                               
the   clarification  of   specific   powers   of  trustees,   and                                                               
paraphrased as follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
        (b) A trustee may pay as a charge against trust                                                                         
        property the cost incurred to perform an action                                                                         
     authorized under (a) of this section                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:59:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SIEGERT  turned to slide 18,  "Sections 25-28 (Definitions),"                                                               
changes   in  definition   to  accommodate   new  sections,   and                                                               
paraphrased as follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Sec. 25 - Changes definition to accommodate new subsections                                                                
     of Definition                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Sec. 26 - (b)(2) updates to include new legal term "power"                                                                 
     instead of authority. Deletes clarification of "trustee" to                                                                
     agree with powers given in the proposal.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Sec. 27 - includes a revocable trust in definition of                                                                      
     "invaded trust"                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Sec. 28 - Adds definition of beneficiary                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:00:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  offered appreciation for the  technical bill                                                               
and  acknowledged the  capacity of  Alaska to  be a  vanguard for                                                               
setting  up  trusts  in  estates  because  it  is  a  significant                                                               
industry in  and of  itself.  He  offered his  understanding that                                                               
clean-up keeps  the state  in a leadership  role, and  asked when                                                               
the committee would hear from the Department of Law.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  advised the  bill would not  move today,  and asked                                                               
that  the Department  of Law  be available  during the  next bill                                                               
hearing.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 208.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:02:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BETH  CHAPMAN,  Attorney,  Faulkner  Banfield,  advised  she  has                                                               
practiced in estate planning and  the special needs planning area                                                               
for the  past 29  years, and  supports HB 208.   She  pointed out                                                               
that not only  will the legislation continue  to improve Alaska's                                                               
laws in  bringing trust business to  the state, but it  will also                                                               
help  Alaskans.   The decanting  provisions,  in particular,  are                                                               
used quite  frequently to help  Alaskan families'  correct trusts                                                               
and protect beneficiaries.  These  amendments continue to provide                                                               
flexibility  and  more  opportunities   to  help  their,  mostly,                                                               
Alaskan clients, and  respond to changed circumstances  in a cost                                                               
efficient manner so  that the court system was  not involved, she                                                               
said.   Oftentimes, these  trusts are  written when  children are                                                               
young and  may terminate  at a  certain age,  and that  child may                                                               
later   develop  disabilities   or   sometimes  substance   abuse                                                               
problems.   These laws allow  the correction of those  trusts, to                                                               
make sure the  funds stay in trust for the  individual, provide a                                                               
safety net, and give their  clients certainty that their families                                                               
will be cared for in the future.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:04:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked Ms. Chapman to  speak to the                                                               
nature of the trust industry  in Alaska, the industries attracted                                                               
to the state  with the most appealing  statutory environment, the                                                               
attractiveness of  Alaska to the  industry, and the scope  of the                                                               
industry relative to other states.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAPMAN  responded that  the industry  has been  comprised of                                                               
various components since 1997, the  financial industry, the trust                                                               
companies, and the financial institutions  that receive the trust                                                               
funds required  to be  deposited in  Alaska for  non-residents to                                                               
use the  trust laws.   Since 1997,  Alaska had been  the premiere                                                               
jurisdiction  and   it  was  the  first   jurisdiction  to  start                                                               
modernizing trust laws,  other states started to  compete and the                                                               
states  copied  whatever  was  done  in  Alaska,  in  particular,                                                               
Delaware, South  Dakota, and Nevada.   Over the years,  she said,                                                               
"we  have tried  to  limit" how  many times  they  go before  the                                                               
legislature  to seek  modernization of  these laws,  and [due  to                                                               
those  efforts]  other  states leaped  over  [Alaska].    Several                                                               
rankings  are  provided,  one  was   included  in  the  materials                                                               
regarding decanting,  and Alaska previously  was at the  top, but                                                               
it is no longer  at the top.  She said, "We  are trying to strike                                                               
a balance" that will continue  to attract those trusts to Alaska,                                                               
and  also continue  to ensure  that Alaskans  want to  keep their                                                               
funds  in  Alaska  because, she  explained,  similar  to  anyone,                                                               
Alaskans  will  look  for  the best  laws  for  their  particular                                                               
financial needs.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:06:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  described   that  the  notion  of                                                               
modernizing laws was  interesting and it suggested  that the laws                                                               
are  neutral  and  merely  reacting  to  the  changing  financial                                                               
industry or evolving technologies.   In the event his description                                                               
was correct, he  asked whether the trust  industry had considered                                                               
trying to  get around  the legislative  process if  the revisions                                                               
were  merely technical,  and  whether  it considered  regulations                                                               
with a board.  He then asked, if  that was not the case, what the                                                               
points of  pushback were, and why  had not all 50  states adopted                                                               
laws appropriately modern.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAPMAN  reminded Representative  Kreiss-Tomkins that  she is                                                               
an attorney  in private  practice, and  while she  drafts trusts,                                                               
she is not part of the  trust industry and was appearing today as                                                               
a private  practitioner.  The  trust industry, whether it  be the                                                               
Peak  Trust  Company or  other  trust  companies in  Alaska,  are                                                               
regulated by  regulation and one  state department.   She related                                                               
that when she first started practicing,  the state did not have a                                                               
trust code and when  she had a question she had  to look to other                                                               
states to find the answer.  She  said, "What we are trying to do"                                                               
is create a statutory  framework offering practitioners, clients,                                                               
and anyone using those laws, some  certainty as to what they are,                                                               
with  some standards.   Other  states are  starting to  also move                                                               
forward with  new changes, she  opined, as 22 states  adopted the                                                               
decanting  statutes, and  Alaska was  the second  state in  1997.                                                               
Also, more  and more states are  moving toward the repeal  of the                                                               
rule against  perpetuity and states  are looking to make  it more                                                               
assessable  for people  to use  trusts  as part  of their  estate                                                               
plan, she explained.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:09:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JONATHAN BATTMACHR, Attorney,  advised he is a member  of the New                                                               
York, California,  and Alaska bar associations,  and is currently                                                               
retired.   He described  HB 208  as "excellent"  in that  it will                                                               
help Alaska  maintain its position  as one of the  premiere trust                                                               
jurisdictions in the country.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN,  after  ascertaining  no one  wished  to  testify,                                                               
closed public testimony on HB 208.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
[HB 208 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
        HB 175-US PRESIDENT ELECT. COMPACT: POPULAR VOTE                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:11:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 175, "An  Act ratifying an interstate  compact to                                                               
elect the  President and Vice-President  of the United  States by                                                               
national  popular vote;  and making  related changes  to statutes                                                               
applicable to the selection by  voters of electors for candidates                                                               
for President and Vice-President of  the United States and to the                                                               
duties of those electors."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:12:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER introduced himself  as prime sponsor of HB                                                               
175, the  U.S. Presidential  Election Compact,  commonly referred                                                               
to as the "National Popular Vote."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:12:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER  advised that the  purpose of the  bill is                                                               
to  get to  the  core value  of  "What  does a  vote  mean?"   He                                                               
described  voting as  a  sacred  right that  many  women and  men                                                               
struggled to gain and fought hard  and gave their lives to defend                                                               
this  right, of  which  is held  in the  highest  regard in  this                                                               
country.   With that highest  regard, he said, most  important is                                                               
that every  vote is equal.   Although,  he noted, that  right has                                                               
not always  been held in  that regard,  but the nation  is moving                                                               
more and more  to the point where  it wants that to  be the case.                                                               
He reminded  the committee that  laws had been modified  to allow                                                               
minorities and women the right to  vote and, he described this as                                                               
just another step on that  journey to make certain every person's                                                               
vote counts exactly the same.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER pointed  out that  the current  electoral                                                               
college  system favors  swing states  that  are, essentially,  12                                                               
states  that determine  who is  elected as  the President  of the                                                               
United  States.   Within that  system, he  commented, predominant                                                               
attention  for  the race  for  president  is  given to  those  12                                                               
states, involving not  only money, but attention  to each state's                                                               
desires and issues.   This bill, he pointed out,  is "very, very,                                                               
much" meant to start a discussion  as to that system, and related                                                               
that it is  the belief of the compact organizers  that every vote                                                               
should  count  equally  toward   determining  who  would  be  the                                                               
President of the United States, whether  in Ohio or Alaska.  This                                                               
bill ratifies a  compact intended to grant the  presidency to the                                                               
candidate  who  receives  the most  popular  votes,  rather  than                                                               
counting  vote's state-by-state.   It  is important  to note,  he                                                               
said,  that currently  it takes  270 electoral  votes to  win the                                                               
presidency,  and this  [compact takes  effect when  enough states                                                               
pass this compact  with their electoral votes totaling  270.]  He                                                               
explained that  the states that sign  on at that time  will then,                                                               
rather than voting  necessarily for how just the  people in their                                                               
state  vote,  will  vote  how the  national  popular  vote  goes.                                                               
Currently, 10 states  and the District of  Columbia have ratified                                                               
this  compact representing  a total  of 165  electoral votes,  15                                                               
states have passed the compact  through one legislative body and,                                                               
he stressed  that it is time  for Alaska to start  thinking about                                                               
this compact, which is why it was brought forward.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:16:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER offered  that  a key  issue important  to                                                               
this vote  is that Alaska, currently,  holds a large seat  at the                                                               
table when it comes to the  nation.  By far, he described, Alaska                                                               
is the greatest  resource development state in the  nation, it is                                                               
the reason the  United States is considered an  Arctic Nation, it                                                               
has  36 percent  of  all federal  lands, and  40  percent of  all                                                               
federally  recognized  tribes.    Yet,  rarely  are  those  facts                                                               
brought  up  in  a  presidential  election  because  to  win  the                                                               
presidency, the candidates need to  cater to the 12 swing states.                                                               
By ratifying  the National  Popular Vote, Alaska  can get  on the                                                               
record with Alaskan values as part  of that national picture.  He                                                               
advised  he  believes  in  this   compact  because  it  increases                                                               
Alaska's count around  the nation and, hopefully  during the next                                                               
presidential election, candidates will  speak to Alaska's issues,                                                               
such as,  resource development, drilling  in the  Arctic National                                                               
Wildlife Refuge  (ANWR), climate  change affecting  its villages,                                                               
and  stressing the  importance of  Alaska's federally  recognized                                                               
tribes moving forward.   This compact stresses  the importance to                                                               
each candidate to  speak to Alaskan issues in order  to win every                                                               
vote cast in this state, he pointed out.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:18:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  stated that she  is not thrilled  with the                                                               
electoral college  system, but  she has  real problems  with this                                                               
bill.    She surmised  that  a  significant portion  of  Alaska's                                                               
population could vote  for one candidate, and  because the states                                                               
of California and New York  vote for another candidate, the votes                                                               
of Alaska would  be for the candidate of New  York and California                                                               
who received  the most  votes.   She ask  Representative Fansler,                                                               
why he  doesn't change the  system according to what  the framers                                                               
anticipated and  offer an  amendment to  the Constitution  of the                                                               
United States to abolish the current system.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:20:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER, in  response to  Representative LeDoux's                                                               
point regarding  Alaska voting  one way  and the  electoral votes                                                               
another way,  countered that Alaska  has statewide  elections for                                                               
governor and  federal senators and  representatives.   Alaska law                                                               
reads that every vote in Alaska  counts and it does not partition                                                               
off votes district-by-district  wherein a gubernatorial candidate                                                               
must win 21 out of the 40  house districts in order to be elected                                                               
governor.   The  office the  country elects  as a  nation is  the                                                               
Office of  the President of the  United States, and this  bill is                                                               
saying to  take the same idea  Alaska uses to elect  its governor                                                               
and spread that out to the entire nation, he explained.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER  responded   to  Representative  LeDoux's                                                               
point regarding  an amendment to  the Constitution of  the United                                                               
States, and countered  that to change and  amend the constitution                                                               
is an  "extremely monumental task."   Quite honestly,  he stated,                                                               
the nation  has not  had an  amendment for  quite some  time, let                                                               
alone  an attempt  to  amend the  constitution  since the  1970s.                                                               
This bill, he pointed out, allows  a mechanism in which to obtain                                                               
the desired  goal of  a national  popular vote,  and at  the same                                                               
time offers security because Alaska  could "pull out if we wanted                                                               
to," he  related.  Representative Fansler  offered a hypothetical                                                               
situation in which Alaska decided  to enact this compact and move                                                               
forward,  Alaska  could  then  drop out  before,  or  after,  the                                                               
compact was ever  initiated if the people of  Alaska decided this                                                               
was  not what  they wanted,  "or if  we put  in together  a place                                                               
where we say the electoral college  is something that, in the old                                                               
form, was much more beneficial to  us."  This compact provides an                                                               
additional safety net  in which to make  decisions, he expressed.                                                               
Furthermore, in the  event the Constitution of  the United States                                                               
was amended and abolished the  electoral college system, it would                                                               
be just  as difficult to turn  around and re-amend it  to add the                                                               
system back in, such as prohibition, he explained.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:23:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  noted that  Representative Fansler  was an                                                               
eloquent  speaker,  but  she  still  wasn't  convinced.    As  to                                                               
prohibition,  she  remarked, at  one  point  people were  fed  up                                                               
enough with what  they perceived as alcohol abuse  to abolish the                                                               
use of liquor in this country  and passed the amendment.  Except,                                                               
she offered,  prohibition turned out  to not exactly work  in the                                                               
manner people desired, so the  amendment was repealed.  She noted                                                               
her belief  that the constitution  is a document that  should not                                                               
be  easy to  amend,  and  asked whether  there  had  been a  real                                                               
movement  to  amend  the  constitution  to  abolish  the  current                                                               
system.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:24:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER  commented that the electoral  college had                                                               
been in dispute and debated  since its inception, and its history                                                               
was brought up regarding the  powers of large states versus small                                                               
states,  and with  regard to  the Founding  Fathers possibly  not                                                               
trusting  the  wellbeing  of the  general  populous  to  directly                                                               
elect,  and  the electoral  college  came  about  as a  means  of                                                               
compromise  between  the states  as  they  were coming  together.                                                               
Since that time,  there have been constant debates  as to whether                                                               
it should  or should not be  there, with movements to  change the                                                               
constitution, and  the prevailing  thought appears to  be whether                                                               
to maintain the  status quo, or to try the  National Popular Vote                                                               
and the flexibility of this compact, he offered.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the bill would not move today.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:26:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  referred  to  the  statement  that  the  12                                                               
battleground states  often determine the outcome  of the election                                                               
with all  of the  focus on  those states,  and commented  that by                                                               
going to  a popular vote,  the battlegrounds would be  reduced to                                                               
11 states  to get  to the  270 electoral  votes.   The population                                                               
centers  would then  become the  real focus  and Alaska  would be                                                               
even further  left out.   He offered that  Representative Fansler                                                               
made  a  good argument  against  National  Popular Vote  when  he                                                               
pointed out some  of the unique features of Alaska  that only the                                                               
people  living   here  can  appreciate  with   its  diversity  of                                                               
interests and,  he commented, which  is probably why  direct peer                                                               
democracy up  to the  governor level  is ideal.   He  stated that                                                               
Alaskans  would never  trust  someone outside  of  Alaska to  see                                                               
things  in the  same  manner  as Alaskans,  and  noted there  are                                                               
issues many  democrats, republicans,  and independents  in Alaska                                                               
agree  on  simply  by  virtue of  living  here  and  overreaching                                                               
policies are  rarely fought.   He commented that in  getting away                                                               
from  the  current  representative  republic  to  a  direct  peer                                                               
democracy, this  state would lose  because, while it  never comes                                                               
down to the state's two  electoral votes, it probably would never                                                               
come down to  the last Alaskan vote.  He  expressed fear that the                                                               
population centers,  being 11 states,  would become the  focus of                                                               
all  of the  money  garnered in  Alaska's  campaign funding,  and                                                               
Alaska would be further irrelevant and more left out.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:28:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER briefly answered  that to be quite honest,                                                               
no  one knows  how  this would  change  elections, but  elections                                                               
would change because suddenly, every  vote was in play, and which                                                               
ever  candidate cobbled  together 50.00001  percent of  the votes                                                               
would win the  presidency.  Possibly, he said,  a candidate would                                                               
go  straight  to these  major  cities,  but possibly  they  would                                                               
actually start  to speak  directly to the  issues of  the states,                                                               
realizing that in order to win  the 700,000 votes in Alaska, they                                                               
must speak  to Alaska's issues  and set up  campaign headquarters                                                               
throughout the  state, not just  in Anchorage.   Alaska typically                                                               
trends  red,  and  California  typically   trends  blue,  and  by                                                               
typically,  he offered,  he meant  massively.   Therefore, a  red                                                               
voter  in California  may think  it doesn't  matter whether  they                                                               
vote because  the democrat will  win, whereas under  the National                                                               
Popular  Vote, suddenly  the  typical color  of  a state  doesn't                                                               
matter  because   every  vote   is  important.     Hopefully,  he                                                               
commented, one of  the nice byproducts of this  [compact] is that                                                               
it will also drive up voter turnout, which everyone wants.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:31:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BARRY FADEM,  President, National  Popular Vote, advised  that he                                                               
has  been  the  president  of National  Popular  Vote  since  its                                                               
inception in  2005.   He said  he would  quickly run  through the                                                               
five benefits that accrue to  Alaska if the National Popular Vote                                                               
passes.   Under  the  National Popular  Vote,  the most  dramatic                                                               
change  for Alaskans  is that  every vote  cast in  Alaska counts                                                               
just  as much  as a  vote cast  around the  country.   An Alaskan                                                               
voter  will  know on  election  night  when  the news  shows  are                                                               
running  the totals,  their  vote was  including  in the  totals.                                                               
There will be a presidential campaign  in all 50 states and under                                                               
the National  Popular Vote, every  vote in every state  is equal.                                                               
He  related  that  the  organization  could  not  guarantee  that                                                               
presidential  candidates  or  their   surrogates  would  come  to                                                               
Alaska, but there  would be specific television and  radio ads on                                                               
issues  important to  that state.   In  2016, 94  percent of  the                                                               
campaign  visits were  in  12  states.   For  the  first time  in                                                               
Alaska's  history,  he  stressed,  the state  would  actually  be                                                               
participating in the presidential  election and discussing issues                                                               
important to Alaska.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:33:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FADEM remarked  that currently  both  national parties  pump                                                               
millions  of   dollars  into  the  12   battleground  states  for                                                               
grassroots activities.   Under the National Popular Vote  in a 50                                                               
state campaign,  it is  expected that  the national  parties will                                                               
spread that money out and build  a grassroots structure in all 50                                                               
states  because  every   four  years  all  50   states  would  be                                                               
battleground states  under the National  Popular Vote.   In 2012,                                                               
$2.1 million was  raised by both parties in the  State of Alaska,                                                               
and every cent of that money  exported out to the 12 battleground                                                               
states.   Under  the National  Popular Vote  the money  raised in                                                               
Alaska by both  parties could actually stay in Alaska.   As to an                                                               
emotional benefit, he said he  guaranteed that no voter in Alaska                                                               
would ever go to the  voting booth with the presidential election                                                               
already being  decided.  During  the last  20 years, most  of the                                                               
elections have  been called  by the media  long before  the polls                                                               
closed in  California or Alaska,  and under the  National Popular                                                               
Vote, no winner  would be declared until all of  the votes in all                                                               
50 states had been counted.   Thereby, allowing Alaskans to go to                                                               
the voting booth  and the President of the United  States had not                                                               
yet been determined.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:34:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FADEM noted  that last  year, two  books were  published and                                                               
documented that  battleground states  do better [during  the term                                                               
of  the president]  than  non-battleground  states because  [they                                                               
receive] 7  percent more in  presidential controlled  grants, and                                                               
twice as  much in  disaster relief.   He pointed  out that  it is                                                               
difficult  to  attract the  attention  of  the White  House  when                                                               
standing  in line  behind the  12 battleground  states that  will                                                               
receive  the primary  attention of  the president,  for the  next                                                               
four years.   The  only reason  for this bill  today is  that the                                                               
Founding Fathers gave  citizens the exclusive right  to make this                                                               
decision, and referred to the  Constitution of the United States,                                                               
Article II, Section  1, and he paraphrased that  it gave citizens                                                               
the  exclusive right  to make  that  decision.   He reminded  the                                                               
committee that the  decision to make is, what  system of awarding                                                               
Alaska's  electoral votes  is in  the best  interests of  Alaska.                                                               
Now,  he commented,  contrast the  current system  wherein Alaska                                                               
has  zero  influence  in the  presidential  election  versus  the                                                               
attributes he had described under the National Popular Vote.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:36:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FADUM,   in  response  to  Representative   Kopp's  previous                                                               
question, answered that Representative  Kopp's point about the 11                                                               
states  was   interesting  because  that  point   would  be  true                                                               
currently,  as  opposed  to  the National  Popular  Vote.    When                                                               
looking at the  11 largest states in the country,  if everyone in                                                               
those  11 states  voted for  the same  candidate, the  big states                                                               
would  control   today,  just   as  Representative   Kopp  argued                                                               
regarding  the National  Popular  Vote, except,  he pointed  out,                                                               
that's not the  real world.  For instance, with  regard to the 12                                                               
biggest states,  he related that  in 2004,  six were red  and six                                                               
were  blue; and  in  2016,  seven were  red  and  six were  blue.                                                               
Therefore, the 12  biggest states do not  guarantee a significant                                                               
margin for either political party.   In 2004, when looking at the                                                               
12  largest  states, the  difference  turned  out to  be  244,657                                                               
between Mr.  Kerry and President  Bush in the 12  biggest states,                                                               
although, a  corollary to that  was the  big cities.   He pointed                                                               
out  that big  cities, such  as New  York, Chicago,  Los Angeles,                                                               
don't  control elections  today  and they  would  not control  it                                                               
under the National Popular Vote.   The total population of the 50                                                               
largest cities in the country is  15 percent of the population of                                                               
America, and  the 50th  largest city is  Arlington, Texas  with a                                                               
population  of 365,000.   He  suggested looking  at the  money in                                                               
terms of campaigning,  the average cost per vote  was as follows:                                                               
New York-$5.02;  Los Angeles-$5.06;  but the 25th  largest median                                                               
market being Indianapolis-$0.04; and the  101th market being Fort                                                               
Smith, Arkansas-$0.03.   Television ads  and radio ads  cost less                                                               
in  rural  areas   of  the  country  and  in   Alaska,  and  when                                                               
presidential campaigns calculate the  fact that every vote counts                                                               
in all 50 states, candidates will campaign everywhere.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:39:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  asked whether  he understood  correctly that                                                               
the interstate  compact that the National  Popular Vote requires,                                                               
would be that each state would  pledge its electoral votes to the                                                               
overall winner regardless of who  its citizens voted.  Therefore,                                                               
he   related,  the   candidate  running   in  Alaska   is  always                                                               
subservient to  whoever wins nationally  because the  bottom line                                                               
is  that if  a  state signs  on  to this,  that  state's vote  is                                                               
subservient to  the national  will, and  that where  the electors                                                               
are going.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. FADUM offered that this is  an issue of state identity and he                                                               
would  not   quite  characterize  it   in  the  same   manner  as                                                               
Representative  Kopp.   He said,  in a  national election  voters                                                               
care  whether their  candidate became  the  president, and  state                                                               
identity, whether a state voted  for their person as President of                                                               
the  United States,  is a  footnote because  voters care  whether                                                               
their person won the presidency.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:41:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented  that Mr. Fadum hit on  the 20 mile                                                               
philosophical divide between them because  the role of a state is                                                               
not a  footnote.  He argued  that the states are  the entities in                                                               
the  constitution that  elect the  president,  it is  not a  peer                                                               
democracy  and "we  do care"  who we  vote for  as a  state.   He                                                               
remarked that  possibly in California  it is a footnote,  but not                                                               
in Alaska.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:42:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  commented  that   in  speaking  for  the                                                               
residents of  his district, he  did not know whether  the promise                                                               
to bring  more political ads  to television was a  winning point,                                                               
and  possibly  should not  be  considered  one  of the  top  five                                                               
points.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:42:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS,  in  response  to  Representative                                                               
Kopp's  comments, noted  that there  are two  predominantly rural                                                               
states that  already do  exactly what "you  are" describing.   In                                                               
2016,  he  pointed  out,  Bruce  Poliquin's  Maine  Congressional                                                               
District  has   a  system  of   allocating  electoral   votes  by                                                               
congressional  district and  the overall  popular vote  winner of                                                               
that   state  receives   the  two   "electoral  votes   that  are                                                               
represented  by the  senators  cast its  vote  for Donald  Trump,                                                               
whereas  the  other  three  electoral   votes  went  for  Hillary                                                               
Clinton."    He  explained  that if  someone  voted  for  Hillary                                                               
Clinton in  Maine, that voter  saw one  of their electors  go the                                                               
other way,  allegedly contrary  to the  will of  that state.   In                                                               
2008,  the  exact  inverse  occurred   in  Lee  Terry's  Nebraska                                                               
Congressional  District  regarding  President Obama  and  Senator                                                               
McCain,  so this  system is  already happening,  he pointed  out.                                                               
There  is a  logical  jump that  has  to be  made,  and while  he                                                               
appreciates  how it  appears, the  overall point  is that  people                                                               
want  a system  that  will  vest and  franchise  the  state in  a                                                               
national  political conversation.   He  remarked that  it appears                                                               
blindingly  clear  that  currently a  political  conversation  is                                                               
directed to  a dozen elite  states, which  is not in  any state's                                                               
best interests, red or blue.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[HB 175 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
        HB 170-AK SECURITIES ACT; PENALTIES; CRT. RULES                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:44:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE   BILL   NO.  170,   "An   Act   relating  to   securities,                                                               
registration,  exempt  securities, exempt  transactions,  broker-                                                               
dealers,   agents,   investment  advice,   investment   advisers,                                                               
investment adviser  representatives, federal  covered securities,                                                               
federal   covered   investment  advisers,   viatical   settlement                                                               
interests, small intrastate  security offerings, Canadian broker-                                                               
dealers, and Canadian agents;  relating to administrative, civil,                                                               
and  criminal enforcement  provisions, including  restitution and                                                               
civil penalties for violations;  relating to an investor training                                                               
fund; establishing  increased civil  penalties for  harming older                                                               
persons   and  vulnerable   adults;   relating  to   corporations                                                               
organized  under   the  Alaska  Native  Claims   Settlement  Act;                                                               
amending  Rules 4,  5,  54, 65,  and 90,  Alaska  Rules of  Civil                                                               
Procedure,  and Rule  602, Alaska  Rules of  Appellate Procedure;                                                               
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:45:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX moved  to adopt  Amendment 1,  Version 30-                                                               
LS0333\J.2, Bannister, 4/10/17, which read as follows:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 34, lines 18 - 19:                                                                                                    
          Delete "by a governmental authority"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:45:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  explained that  the amendment  deletes the                                                               
phrase "by  a governmental authority" because,  she opined, there                                                               
should  be a  description  of any  pending  litigation action  or                                                               
proceeding  that  materially  affects the  issuer's  business  or                                                               
assets,  whether or  not it  was contemplated  by a  governmental                                                               
entity, or anyone.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER withdrew his objection.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:46:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  objected for purposes of  discussion, and                                                               
noted that  he was not  sure he understood exactly  how expansive                                                               
it would be  when removing that language.  He  offered a scenario                                                               
of making  a motion to  change a  bylaw for his  political party,                                                               
and asked  how he draws  that barrier to  make sure it's  not too                                                               
expansive.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   LEDOUX   responded    that   if   someone   sent                                                               
Representative  Eastman a  letter that  read, "Dear  David, We're                                                               
going to  sue you, and  we're going to  sue you for  $1 million."                                                               
In that scenario, if Representative  Eastman was a billion dollar                                                               
entity being  sued for $1  million, possibly  it would be  no big                                                               
deal,  but  if  $1  million   was  other  than  chump  change  to                                                               
Representative Eastman,  it would materially affect  his business                                                               
or assets.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:47:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked whether  there was some  other part                                                               
of  this  chapter that  had  the  word  "legal" before  the  word                                                               
"action" so that an action must be a legal action.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  referred to  the  first  portion of  Sec.                                                               
45.56.310(b)(12).   Securities  registration   by  qualification,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
         (12)   a    description   of    any   pending                                                                          
     litigation, action, or proceeding ...                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   advised  that   this  is   boiler  plate                                                               
language.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:47:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  withdrew his  objection.  There  being no                                                               
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
[CHAIR CLAMAN passed gavel to Vice Chair Fansler.]                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:48:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, Version 30-LS0333\J.1,                                                                 
Bannister, 4/11/17, which read as follows:                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 5, following "agents;":                                                                                     
          Insert   "relating   to   protecting   older   and                                                                  
     vulnerable adults from financial exploitation;"                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 62, line 12, following "a":                                                                                           
         Insert "broker-dealer, investment adviser, or"                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 62, line 14:                                                                                                          
          Following "the":                                                                                                      
         Insert "broker-dealer, investment adviser, or"                                                                         
          Delete "promptly"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 62, line 15, following "administrator":                                                                               
          Insert "not later than five days after the                                                                            
     broker-dealer,   investment   adviser,   or   qualified                                                                    
     individual  develops  the  reasonable belief  that  the                                                                    
     financial    exploitation   or    attempted   financial                                                                    
     exploitation  has or  may have  occurred,  or is  being                                                                    
     attempted,  except that  the broker-dealer,  investment                                                                    
     adviser,  or qualified  individual  shall notify  adult                                                                    
     protective services  and the  administrator immediately                                                                    
     upon  confirmation  of  the financial  exploitation  or                                                                    
     attempted financial exploitation of the covered adult"                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 62, lines 16 - 19:                                                                                                    
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(b)  The requirements of (a) of this section may                                                                     
     not be construed to require  more than one notification                                                                    
     for  each  occurrence   of  exploitation  or  attempted                                                                    
     exploitation."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page  62, line  20, following  the first  occurrence of                                                                    
     "a":                                                                                                                       
         Insert "broker-dealer, investment adviser, or"                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 62, line 21, following "a":                                                                                           
         Insert "broker-dealer, investment adviser, or"                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 62, line 22, following "adult":                                                                                       
          Insert "previously"                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 62, line 23:                                                                                                          
          Following "adult,":                                                                                                   
          Insert "as well as any other person allowed under                                                                     
     state or federal law or regulation, or the rules of a                                                                      
     self-regulatory organization,"                                                                                             
          Following the second occurrence of "the":                                                                             
         Insert "broker-dealer, investment adviser, or"                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 62, lines 26 - 28:                                                                                                    
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Reletter the following subsections accordingly.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 63, line 9:                                                                                                           
          Delete the second occurrence of "person"                                                                              
          Insert "individual"                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 63, line 16:                                                                                                          
          Delete "results"                                                                                                      
          Insert "status"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 63, line 17, following "administrator":                                                                               
          Insert ", and provides additional status updates                                                                      
       to the administrator and adult protective services                                                                       
     upon request"                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 63, line 18:                                                                                                          
          Delete "(e)"                                                                                                          
          Insert "(d)"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 63, line 31:                                                                                                          
          Delete "(e), (f), or (g)"                                                                                             
          Insert "(d) or (e)"                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 64, line 2:                                                                                                           
          Delete "person"                                                                                                       
          Insert "adult"                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 64, lines 4 - 7:                                                                                                      
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Reletter the following subsections accordingly.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 64, following line 18:                                                                                                
          Insert a new subsection to read:                                                                                      
          "(h)  A broker-dealer, investment adviser, or                                                                         
     qualified   individual  acting   in   good  faith   and                                                                    
     exercising  reasonable care  under  (a) -  (g) of  this                                                                    
     section   is  immune   from  administrative   or  civil                                                                    
     liability for a  notification, disclosure, disbursement                                                                    
     delay,  or  record sharing  under  (a)  - (g)  of  this                                                                    
     section."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Reletter the following subsections accordingly.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 65, line 12:                                                                                                          
          Delete "investment adviser,"                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:48:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN  ANSELM,  Director,  Division of  Banking  and  Securities,                                                               
Department  of   Commerce,  Community  &   Economic  Development,                                                               
explained  that the  Division of  Banking  and Securities  worked                                                               
with  the industry  to create  this amendment  so the  bill would                                                               
work better for  its business practices, and was  clearer for the                                                               
community.  This amendment, in  and of itself, protects elder and                                                               
vulnerable  Alaskans  by  requiring  the  financial  industry  to                                                               
report when it believed that  financial exploitation was about to                                                               
take  place,  or  had  taken  place.   It  allows  the  financial                                                               
industry  to  hold onto  a  disbursement  regarding a  securities                                                               
trade, for  instance, until it  was determined there was,  or was                                                               
not,  exploitation,  she  explained.   She  noted  that  the  two                                                               
reporting  pieces   include  the  Administrator   of  Securities,                                                               
Division  of  Banking  and Securities,  Department  of  Commerce,                                                               
Community  & Economic  Development  (DCCED), and  also the  Adult                                                               
Protective Services  (APS), Division  of Senior  and Disabilities                                                               
Services, Department of Health and  Social Services.  She offered                                                               
that  in the  event those  reports  are made,  the industry,  the                                                               
stockbroker, investment advisor, the  advisor's firm, are granted                                                               
administrative  and civil  immunity  from violation  of the  act.                                                               
Immunity is  a large piece  for industry, she described,  and the                                                               
industry works together with the division to resolve the issue.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  withdrew his  objection.    There being  no                                                               
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:50:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  moved to adopt Amendment  3, Version 30-LS0333\J.4,                                                               
Bannister, 4/12/17, which read as follows:                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 92, lines 13 - 15:                                                                                                    
          Delete ", a regulation adopted under this                                                                             
     chapter, or an order  issued under this chapter, except                                                                    
     AS 45.56.550  or  the  notice  filing  requirements  of                                                                    
     AS 45.56.330 or 45.56.445,"                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 92, lines 16 - 18:                                                                                                    
          Delete "A person convicted of violating a                                                                             
     regulation or  order issued under  this chapter  may be                                                                    
     fined, but  may not  be imprisoned,  if the  person did                                                                    
     not know of the regulation or order."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:51:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that Amendment  [3] was in response to the                                                               
in-depth  and extended  discussion during  the last  bill hearing                                                               
with regard to  criminal violations and issues.   He reminded the                                                               
committee that  the concerns expressed  involved having  a charge                                                               
that did not include a  mental state, and questions about whether                                                               
it did,  or did not, actually  create a misdemeanor.   During the                                                               
course  of  the discussions,  the  Department  of Law  offered  a                                                               
potential amendment to delete [Sec.  45.56.670(a), page 92, lines                                                               
13-15] to read as follows:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
          (a)  ...   ,  a  regulation  adopted   under  this                                                                    
     chapter, or an order  issued under this chapter, except                                                                    
     AS 45.56.550  or the notice  filing requirements  of AS                                                                    
     45.56.330 or 45.56.445.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  explained  that deleting  the  language  regarding                                                               
regulations and  orders would not  only be satisfactory  with the                                                               
Department of  Law, but it would  make the last sentence  of Sec.                                                               
45.56.670(a),  lines  16-18  superfluous because  it  related  to                                                               
regulations  and orders.   In  adopting Amendment  3, he  further                                                               
explained,   the  language   would   be   more  consistent   with                                                               
traditional  criminal  provisions, and  there  would  not be  the                                                               
issue  of  regulations  that  might   create  a  crime  that  the                                                               
legislature had not created.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:52:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. ANSELM advised  that the Department of  Commerce, Community &                                                               
Economic Development has no objection to Amendment 3.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:52:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  the  exact  effect this  amendment                                                               
would  have  on violations  of  notice  filing requirements,  and                                                               
whether  that would  increase the  penalties  for someone  merely                                                               
making a notice filing requirement violation.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN opined  that this  narrows  it, as  opposed to  the                                                               
range of regulations that could be  issued that one would have to                                                               
show knowledge.  Under this  amendment, the only issue that could                                                               
be  a basis  for a  criminal charge  would be  violations of  the                                                               
statutes.  He  explained that when "they  reference violates this                                                               
chapter" means Alaska Statutes within  Chapter 45, and they would                                                               
have to show  "knowing violation" of those  statutes, rather than                                                               
violations of  regulations or  orders.   It actually  narrows the                                                               
scope of  conduct that could  be subject to criminal  charges, he                                                               
said.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:54:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN noted  that  currently  AS 45.56.330  and                                                               
45.56.445  include  notice  filing  requirements,  and  they  are                                                               
currently exempted  because there is  [page 92, line  14] "except                                                               
... or."  In the event  that exemption was removed, and those are                                                               
included  within  this chapter,  he  paraphrased,  "A person  who                                                               
intentionally  violates  this  chapter,  including  these  notice                                                               
filing  requirements is  guilty of  a class  C felony"  [page 92,                                                               
lines 12-15].   He asked whether  the intent of the  committee is                                                               
that a simple notice filing  requirement violation would now be a                                                               
felony under Amendment 3.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  related  that he  did  not  follow  Representative                                                               
Eastman's question.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:55:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP   asked,   in   explaining   Representative                                                               
Eastman's question, the committee to  turn to Sec. 46.56.550, and                                                               
he pointed out that it currently  exempts this as being a felony,                                                               
and paraphrased,  "filing of  sales and  advertising literature."                                                               
Under  Amendment  3, he  explained,  it  takes out  this  section                                                               
dealing  with advertising  to clients  and the  proper manner  in                                                               
which  to advertise.   It  also removes  the filing  requirements                                                               
under  AS  45.56.330 and  45.56.445,  as  those are  specifically                                                               
exempted from  being felonies.  Representative  Eastman had asked                                                               
whether  the  intent of  the  committee  was  to now  make  those                                                               
felonies because  the amendment pulls  out the exceptions  and by                                                               
default would fall into felony territory.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:56:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RENEE WARDLAW,  Assistant Attorney  General, Commercial  and Fair                                                               
Business  Section,   Department  of  Law,   [audio  difficulties]                                                               
responded   that  excluding   the  following   language  in   the                                                               
amendment, and  paraphrased, "except AS 45.56.550,  or the notice                                                               
filing requirements  of AS 45.56.330  or 45.56.445" means  that a                                                               
violation of those statutes could result in a class C felony.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:57:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   LEDOUX   commented    that   she   agrees   with                                                               
Representative Eastman  and possibly  with Ms.  Wardlaw, although                                                               
she  was  unsure [due  to  audio  difficulties].   Representative                                                               
LeDoux advised that  she had to leave the meeting  but would like                                                               
to see an amendment to Amendment 3.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER commented  that there  was no  suggestion                                                               
from   Ms.   Wardlaw,   other    than   her   confirmation   that                                                               
Representative Eastman's point was correct.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:58:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP moved  to adopt  Conceptual  Amendment 1  to                                                               
Amendment 3,  for the  purpose of  not "felonizing"  conduct that                                                               
would  become a  felony, which  is not  currently a  felony.   In                                                               
order to  be consistent  moving forward,  he suggested  that this                                                               
amendment  would keep  everything  as currently  excepted from  a                                                               
felony prosecution,  the same as  it is currently.   In reference                                                               
to  amending Amendment  3,  to  simply delete  [page  1] line  3,                                                               
"except  AS 45.56.550  or the  notice filing  requirements of  AS                                                               
45.56.330 or 45.56.445."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER  surmised that  Conceptual Amendment  1 to                                                               
Amendment 3  deletes line 3,  "except AS 45.56.550 or  the notice                                                               
filing requirements of AS 45.56.330 or 45.56.445."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  noted he would like  input from Ms. Anselm  and Ms.                                                               
Wardlaw as to Conceptual Amendment 1.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. ANSELM  commented that the Department  of Commerce, Community                                                               
& Economic Development  is fine with Conceptual  Amendment 1, and                                                               
asked that Ms. Wardlaw speak to the conceptual amendment.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. WARDLAW advised  that the Department of Law  has no objection                                                               
to Conceptual Amendment 1.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN, as  maker  of  the amendment,  advised  he has  no                                                               
objection  to  Conceptual  Amendment   1.    He  commented  that,                                                               
interestingly, by deleting "the  last sentence of the amendment,"                                                               
the   committee  was   keeping   that  language   in  the   bill.                                                               
Consequently, there was  a bit of a mirror effect,  but he had no                                                               
objection, he said.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   FANSLER   noted   there  being   no   objection,                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
4:02:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN withdrew  his objection  to Amendment  3.                                                               
There being no objection, Amendment 3, as amended, was adopted.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
[VICE CHAIR FANSLER returned the gavel to Chair Claman.]                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:02:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  referred to Amendment 1,  noting that the                                                               
committee  removed  the  parameter   that  "contemplated  as  yet                                                               
unexecuted litigation  actions or  proceedings by  a governmental                                                               
authority."   He asked  Ms. Wardlaw, whether  it was  clear, with                                                               
this amendment now going forward  in the bill, exactly what types                                                               
of  proceedings  would be  wrapped  up  in  this which  were  not                                                               
previously included.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. WARDLAW  responded that the amendment  actually expands legal                                                               
proceedings  beyond   governmental  agencies  to   include  other                                                               
parties, and at this time the  Department of Law has no objection                                                               
to Representative LeDoux's amendment.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  clarified that his question  was, what it                                                               
now  includes  because  the word  "contemplated"  remains,  which                                                               
means  it  has  not  yet  happened.    He  asked  what  sorts  of                                                               
contemplated things  haven't happened yet,  actions, proceedings,                                                               
and such, which now fall under the scope of this statute.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. WARDLAW  answered that "contemplated"  would be  inclusive of                                                               
any  proceedings that  had not  yet occurred,  such as  something                                                               
under  consideration by  "this agency,"  and was  not yet  at the                                                               
point of filing a complaint.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  referred to "governmental authority"  and explained                                                               
that  it was  fairly common,  especially in  securities settings,                                                               
for an entity  "regulated by these" to receive a  letter from the                                                               
government  advising  the person  they  made  some errors.    The                                                               
government's  "demand  letter,"  or  a  private  entity's  demand                                                               
letter, serves  as putting the  person on notice that  within 30,                                                               
60 days,  or whatever time  period, if  the person had  not fixed                                                               
the  errors, the  government may  file civil  or criminal  action                                                               
with regard  to the violation, or  the private entity may  file a                                                               
civil  lawsuit.     He  explained   that  an  entity   must  take                                                               
affirmative  action in  the form  of the  demand letter  giving a                                                               
party notice that  a lawsuit may be filed, in  private as well as                                                               
public actions.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. WARDLAW advised that Chair Claman was correct.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
4:07:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to  [Sec. 45.56.670(a), page 92],                                                               
lines 16-17, and  commented that it was simply saying  that it is                                                               
any proceeding to which the issuer is  a party.  He said that the                                                               
issuer could be  on either side of the action  because it did not                                                               
appear to  be limited in  any manner.   He then referred  to line                                                               
18,  and paraphrased,  "any contemplated  proceeding," and  asked                                                               
whether the  language here  limits this so  that it  only applies                                                               
when the party is on the  receiving end of a litigation action or                                                               
a proceeding  was being contemplated.   He further  asked whether                                                               
it would  not apply in a  case not yet filed  wherein someone was                                                               
going the other direction where  proprietary information might be                                                               
involved,  i.e.,  the  fact  that  they are  about  to  file  the                                                               
lawsuit,  and obviously  if the  lawsuit had  not yet  been filed                                                               
there was probably a reason.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  ANSELM  responded  "No,  it   does  not  affect  that,"  and                                                               
explained that this is for  a registration by qualification which                                                               
is used  in many states.   The intent, she explained,  is that it                                                               
does not matter whether a party  was on the receiving side or the                                                               
promulgation side of situation, it  needs to be disclosed because                                                               
if  a party  is being  sued or  is suing  another party,  "it can                                                               
affect what  the value of  the securities  are, and it  should be                                                               
disclosed."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:09:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked, to whom this  information would go                                                               
to and whether there was  adequate protection that no proprietary                                                               
information would be disclosed to the detriment of the party.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. ANSELM answered  that when registrations come  in, until they                                                               
are  final,  are  considered proprietary,  and  the  issuers  are                                                               
allowed  to   point  out  to   the  division  which   pieces  are                                                               
proprietary.   She  offered that  it would  be kept  confidential                                                               
until it couldn't be kept  confidential any longer, and depending                                                               
upon the situation, it may not  be approved for sale in the State                                                               
of Alaska due to problems with a registration.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  questioned that if the  information would                                                               
become  public  at some  point,  at  what  point does  it  become                                                               
public, and further questioned whether  the fact that someone was                                                               
contemplating   a   lawsuit   whether   that   would   meet   her                                                               
understanding of proprietary.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  ANSELM responded  that "it  would  depend on  what it  was,"                                                               
typically,  if  there  was  a   problem  for  the  insurer  in  a                                                               
securities transaction,  the issuer would withdraw  the potential                                                               
offer of securities  until the problem was  resolved because that                                                               
is not  something they want hanging  out there.  She  pointed out                                                               
that  investors, and  the marketplace,  do not  like uncertainty;                                                               
therefore,  the  insurer would  probably  pull  it back,  get  it                                                               
resolved,  and  then  move  forward.   In  the  event  it  was  a                                                               
sensitive matter, the  insurer would ask the division  to keep it                                                               
cloaked, and under the privacy  pieces of the Securities Act, the                                                               
division  can keep  the information  cloaked, or  it can  open an                                                               
investigation and cloak it in that manner.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   asked  whether  it  would   be  cloaked                                                               
indefinitely.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. ANSELM answered that it  would be cloaked indefinitely for an                                                               
investigation  because   those  investigatory  records   are  not                                                               
disclosable.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:12:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER  moved  to  report HB  170,  Version  30-                                                               
LS0333\J,   as  amended,   out  of   committee  with   individual                                                               
recommendations and  the accompanying fiscal notes.   There being                                                               
no  objection,  HB  170(JUD)  moved   from  the  House  Judiciary                                                               
Standing Committee.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:13:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:13 p.m.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB208 ver A 4.10.17.PDF HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 208
HB208 Sponsor Statement 4.10.17.pdf HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 208
HB208 Sectional Analysis ver A 4.10.17.pdf HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 208
HB208 PowerPoint Sectional 4.10.17.pptx HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 208
HB208 Supporting Document-Decanting Matrix 4.10.17.pdf HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 208
HB208 Supporting Document-Decanting Rankings 4.10.17.pdf HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 208
HB208 Supporting Document-Trust Estate Glossary 4.10.17.pdf HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 208
HB208 Supporting Document-Letter Peak Trust Company 4.10.17.pdf HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 208
HB208 Supporting Document-Letter Manley & Brautigam 4.10.17.pdf HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 208
HB208 Supporting Document-Letter ABA 4.10.17.pdf HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 208
HB208 Supporting Document-Letter Northern Law Group 4.10.17.pdf HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 208
HB208 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 4.7.17.pdf HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 208
HB175 ver A 4.12.17.pdf HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 175
HB175 Sponsor Statement 4.12.17.pdf HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 175
HB175 Sectional Analysis ver A 4.12.17.pdf HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 175
HB175 Additional Document-Legal Memo 4.12.17.pdf HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 175
HB175 Supporting Document-Supplemental Information 4.12.17.pdf HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 175
HB 175 Supporting Document-Letters of Support 4.11.17.pdf HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 175
HB 175 Opposing Document-Letters of Opposition 4.11.17.pdf HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 175
HB175 Additional Document-Letter on Congressional Consent 4.12.17.pdf HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 175
HB175 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 4.12.17.pdf HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 175
HB170 ver J 4.7.17.pdf HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 Sponsor Statement 4.7.17.pdf HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 Sectional Analysis 4.7.17.pdf HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 Repealers List 4.7.17.pdf HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 DCCED Whitepaper 4.7.17.pdf HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 Supporting Document-Letter ANCSA Regional Association 4.7.17.pdf HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 Supporting Document-Letter NASAA 4.7.17.pdf HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 HJUD Slide Presentation 4.7.17.pdf HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 Additional Document-Enforcement Comparison Chart 4.7.17.pdf HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 Additional Document-Sponsor's Reply to House Judiciary Committee Questions 4.11.17.pdf HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 Additional Document-Violations in Statute 4.12.17.pdf HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 Amendments #1-3 4.12.17.pdf HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 Amendments #1-3 HJUD Final Votes 4.12.17.pdf HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 Fiscal Note DCCED-DBS 4.7.17.pdf HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170
HB170 Fiscal Note DHSS-SDSA 4.7.17.pdf HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 170