Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

04/02/2018 07:00 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

Audio Topic
07:00:13 PM Start
07:00:37 PM HB355
08:04:35 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 355 FIRE;FOREST LAND; CRIMES;FIRE PREVENTION TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 355(RES) Out of Committee
        HB 355-FIRE;FOREST LAND; CRIMES;FIRE PREVENTION                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
7:00:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO.  355, "An Act relating to the  crime of criminally                                                               
negligent burning; relating to protection  of and fire management                                                               
on forested land;  relating to prohibited acts  and penalties for                                                               
prohibited acts on forested land;  and providing for an effective                                                               
date." [Before the committee was CSHB 355(RES).]                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  referred to the  hearing on 3/19/18 and  noted that                                                               
the committee considered Amendments  1-3, Amendment 1 was adopted                                                               
and Amendments  2, and 3,  failed to  be adopted, and  during the                                                               
2:21 p.m. meeting today, Amendment 4 failed to be adopted.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
7:01:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  moved to  adopt Amendment 5,  labeled 30-                                                               
LS1382\J.6, Bruce/Radford, 3/16/18, which read as follows:                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, line 1:                                                                                                            
          Delete "knows of a fire or"                                                                                           
          Insert "[KNOWS OF A FIRE OR]"                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
7:01:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  referred to Section  12, page 3,  line 30                                                               
through page 4, line 3, which read as follows:                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Sec. 12. AS 41.15.110 is amended to read:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
               Sec.  41.15.110(a).  Uncontrolled  spread  of                                                                  
     fire; leaving fire unattended.   (a) A person who knows                                                                  
     of  a fire  or  sets  a fire  on  forested land  owned,                                                                    
     possessed, or controlled by  the person, shall exercise                                                                    
     due  care to  prevent  the uncontrolled  spread of  the                                                                    
     fire.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN commented  that separating  that language                                                               
from someone who actually sets  a fire or participates in setting                                                               
a fire, it  is appropriate they should exercise "all  due care to                                                               
prevent  the  uncontrolled  spread  of the  fire."    Except,  he                                                               
questioned how the  legislature can legally require  a person who                                                               
receives an alert  on their iPhone that there is  a fire on their                                                               
property across the  state to prevent the  uncontrolled spread of                                                               
the fire.  In  the event a person sets a fire,  then they own the                                                               
fire and are  responsible for the fire, but if  someone else sets                                                               
the fire (indisc.) be responsible  for making sure that fire does                                                               
not spread in an uncontrolled manner.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
7:03:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP   referred  to   Representative   Eastman's                                                               
example, that if  a person becomes aware of a  fire on land owned                                                               
by them that  is across the state, his read  is that the person's                                                               
knowledge of  that fire  requires that  the person  has to  be in                                                               
control of the land.  He  asked whether the person is actually in                                                               
control  of the  land if  they are  not directly  at the  fire in                                                               
person.   He then  referred to  the term  "due care"  wherein the                                                               
landowner notified someone that they  were not present to observe                                                               
the  fire but  were  aware  of the  fire,  and  asked whether  in                                                               
Representative Eastman's  mind, "due  care" would be  carried out                                                               
if the person  notified the fire control authorities  in the area                                                               
or any other emergency authority.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN answered  that  Representative Kopp  "was                                                               
"not  quite catching  the meaning  of the  language before."   He                                                               
noted  that  [page 4,  lines  1-2]  read: "forested  land  owned,                                                               
possessed,  or controlled",  and  Representative  Kopp was  "just                                                               
reading  'or'  into an  'and'  there,"  meaning  that if  it  was                                                               
controlled  by  a  person,  then they  should  be  doing  certain                                                               
things.   Actually, he  said, it  is saying that  if the  land is                                                               
"just owned by you, controlled  by someone else, or whatnot," the                                                               
language before the committee is  that the person still has every                                                               
bit  of the  responsibility of  someone who  either possesses  or                                                               
controls  "that."   He  opined  that  "and" would  be  preferable                                                               
reading  because there  is a  natural logic  that goes  from that                                                               
[language].     He   reiterated   that   "owned,  possessed,   or                                                               
controlled" is expansive.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  stated that for  purposes of this  amendment, there                                                               
is  no language  changing  "owned, possessed,  or controlled"  to                                                               
"owned,  possessed,  and controlled".    The  simple question  is                                                               
whether  to  adopt  this  amendment  with  the  language  "owned,                                                               
possessed, or controlled", he pointed out.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  reiterated  that if  the  discussion  is                                                               
about  exercising "due  care" for  someone setting  the fire,  it                                                               
makes perfect  sense.  Although,  he said,  Representative Kopp's                                                               
question was  more about, what  is the  due care for  someone who                                                               
simply knows about a fire that  is not under their control.  This                                                               
discussion is about  a heating fire, for example,  and "you might                                                               
not have  anything to  do with  it other than  the fact  that you                                                               
heard about  it, or whatnot," he  asked, what is the  due care at                                                               
that  point   because  calling  911  would   not  necessarily  be                                                               
appropriate, he said.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
7:07:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP commented  that "due  care" in  the language                                                               
alleviates the  concern of  the maker  of this  amendment because                                                               
"due  care" is  a term  used to  describe the  basic speed  rule,                                                               
which is any time a person  is driving faster than the conditions                                                               
permit,  such  as  weather  and  snow,  sleet,  or  fog  limiting                                                               
visibility, and  so forth.   A person  can drive under  the speed                                                               
limit and still  be in violation of the basic  speed rule because                                                               
the person was  not exercising "due care."   He further explained                                                               
that  "due care"  is  a  term law  enforcement  uses when  citing                                                               
people  for  being responsible  in  some  manner for  creating  a                                                               
dangerous circumstance.   He offered that after  listening to the                                                               
amendment maker and  due care, if someone was aware  of a heating                                                               
fire  on  property they  owned,  possessed,  or controlled,  that                                                               
person is not exposing themselves  to liability unless the person                                                               
believed the  heating fire  was somehow not  attended or  had the                                                               
possibility  of  becoming  dangerously  expansive  quickly.    He                                                               
related that  the manner  in which the  language is  written, the                                                               
amendment  maker's concern  is  met  by the  way  it  is read  in                                                               
context.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
7:09:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged  that his question did                                                               
not  relate  directly  to  Amendment  5, but  in  looking  at  AS                                                               
41.14.110, CSHB 355  removes all of the "if such  and such person                                                               
does this, they are guilty  of a misdemeanor" language, and asked                                                               
what Sec. 41.15.110 does in that case.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHRIS MAISCH,  State Forester,  Division of  Forestry, Department                                                               
of  Natural  Resources,  asked Representative  Kreiss-Tomkins  to                                                               
repeat  his  question  regarding  the current  AS  41.15.110  and                                                               
leaving a fire unattended.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS pointed  out that  AS 41.15.110(a)                                                               
and (b) lay out,  "if you do this or you do  that, you are guilty                                                               
of a misdemeanor," and CSHB  355 eliminates the "you're guilty of                                                               
a  misdemeanor"  language,  and   it  appears  to  simply  create                                                               
definitions.  He related that he  is trying to understand what AS                                                               
41.15.110 does if CSHB 355 passes.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH responded  that  those  sections as  to  the type  of                                                               
penalties are  addressed later  in the new  version of  CSHB 355.                                                               
He explained that  it updates all of the statutes  to establish a                                                               
bail schedule as  well as misdemeanor and  felony offenses, which                                                               
is why it is struck, at this point, in the language.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
7:11:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  said   that  given  the  language                                                               
Representative  Eastman  is homing  in  on  and the  scenario  he                                                               
described  relating to  the  language in  Amendment  5, he  asked                                                               
whether his colleagues have encountered  a scenario where someone                                                               
knows of a fire, but  isn't reasonably responsible by any common-                                                               
sense definition,  but the person then  becomes criminally liable                                                               
for that fire.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH answered that he is  not aware of a scenario described                                                               
by Representative Kreiss-Tomkins.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
7:12:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  noted  that  when  she  first  looked  at                                                               
Amendment  5, she  thought it  was with  regard to  some sort  of                                                               
liability on  a person who  had no connection with  the property,                                                               
and  failed  to  report.    She pointed  out  that  under  Alaska                                                               
criminal law, unless someone has  a duty to someone or something,                                                               
the  state  generally does  not  make  them  liable if  they  are                                                               
irresponsible and do  not care to report it to  the police or the                                                               
fire  department.    Except,  she since  realized  that  it  only                                                               
relates to land "owned, possessed,  or controlled" by the person,                                                               
it makes sense to her that those  people would have a duty to use                                                               
common sense.  She said she will not support Amendment 5.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
7:13:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that  the committee is reading that                                                               
it  is  about some  type  of  dangerous  fire,  or likely  to  be                                                               
dangerous  fire,  or uncontrolled  fire,  and  it is  not  simply                                                               
dealing  with  the  existence  of  a fire.    In  the  event  the                                                               
discussion is about an uncontrolled  fire, there should be a duty                                                               
of care to  deal with the fire  if it is on  a person's property.                                                               
Except, he  said, this is simply  talking about the fact  that it                                                               
is a  plain fire and  the person,  by implication, did  not start                                                               
the fire or  have any part in  starting the fire.  He  said he is                                                               
not   supportive  of   attaching  criminal   liability  in   that                                                               
situation.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
7:14:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote was  taken.   Representative Eastman  voted in                                                               
favor of  the adoption of  Amendment 5.   Representatives Kreiss-                                                               
Tomkins,  Kopp,  Stutes, LeDoux,  and  Claman  voted against  it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 5 failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-5.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
7:14:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 6, labeled 30-                                                                  
LS1382\J.7, Bruce/Radford, 3/16/18, which read as follows:                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, lines 16 - 17:                                                                                                     
          Delete ", investigate,"                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
7:15:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  turned  to   [CSHB  355]  Sec.  13.  [AS                                                               
41.15.120,  page  4,  lines  15-21],   and  explained  that  this                                                               
provision  deals  with  "failure   to  assist  in  preventing  or                                                               
suppressing fires,"  and he paraphrased  the current  language as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     If an officer  or employee of the United  States or the                                                                    
     state who  is authorized  to prevent or  suppress fires                                                                    
     requests  a  person  to assist  in  the  prevention  or                                                                    
     suppression of  a fire  and informs  the person  of the                                                                    
     officer or  employee's official status, and  the person                                                                    
     fails  to  assist  the  officer   or  employee  in  the                                                                    
     performance  of  duties,  the person  is  guilty  of  a                                                                    
     misdemeanor.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  noted that  if someone is  not authorized                                                               
to prevent  and suppress fires,  those individuals should  not be                                                               
added to the list of people  who have authority to order a person                                                               
to do something and the  person becomes criminally liable if they                                                               
do not  do what  was ordered,  he said.   For someone  who cannot                                                               
prevent  and suppress  fires and  ordering someone  to help  them                                                               
prevent  and suppress  fires  is "a  little bit  of  a leap,"  he                                                               
described.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
7:17:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  Mr. Maisch  whether, under  current                                                               
law, he  could request  someone who  had nothing  to do  with the                                                               
starting of the fire to assist.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH responded  that under  current law,  one of  his fire                                                               
staff could make  a request of someone to help,  such as call 911                                                               
to  report the  fire,  while the  fire  prevention officer  (FPO)                                                               
undertakes suppression action.   All of his officers  do have the                                                               
authority  to   suppress  and  control   fires  in   addition  to                                                               
investigate, he advised.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
7:18:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked,  "So, is  that normal?"   She  then                                                               
asked  Representative Kopp  that during  the  time he  was a  law                                                               
enforcement  officer, whether  a bystander  could be  arrested if                                                               
they  refused to  abide by  the officer's  instructions, even  if                                                               
they had nothing  to do with the crime.   She commented that that                                                               
is not how she thought Alaska's laws worked.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP answered  yes,  it is  called  a failure  to                                                               
respond  to  request  for  assistance   at  the  direction  of  a                                                               
uniformed  police officer.   He  advised  that it  is actually  a                                                               
misdemeanor offense  to fail to  respond to that request,  and it                                                               
has been  a while since  he read that section  of law but  it has                                                               
been  on  the  books  for  many decades.    In  response  to  the                                                               
immediacy of  need for help,  he emphasized that  law enforcement                                                               
is a collective societal responsibility  and there are times when                                                               
all hands-on decks  are necessary to safely bring  a situation to                                                               
a safe  resolution.   Personally, he  never used  that provision,                                                               
and  he commented  that  by adding  the  term "investigate,"  the                                                               
discussion is  definitely about uniformed and  badged deputy fire                                                               
marshals  or fire  marshals who  are  sworn peace  officers.   By                                                               
having "them in there" indicates  that it is logically consistent                                                               
with Title  11, in that if  the urgency of suppressing  that fire                                                               
required  immediate assistance  from the  person who  started the                                                               
fire, there  could be criminal  liability attached to  the person                                                               
for  failing to  supply  that  assistance.   The  law has  always                                                               
recognized the  defense of  a person  being physically  unable or                                                               
other  issues  that  can  cause   a  person  to  be  immune  from                                                               
prosecution, he said.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
7:21:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  offered  a real-world  example  wherein  the  Twin                                                               
Creeks Fire  on Kodiak Island  picked up and started  racing into                                                               
forested  lands owned  by the  Kodiak Island  Borough.   A timber                                                               
harvesting operation  was working  on Kodiak  Island at  the time                                                               
and  the   fire  folks   immediately  contacted   the  harvesters                                                               
requesting  assistance.    The harvesting  operation  stopped  to                                                               
provide equipment  in mobilizing the firefighters  because it was                                                               
one of  the few  sources on  Kodiak Island that  had any  type of                                                               
equipment  available to  respond.   To the  extent the  operation                                                               
incurred costs,  it went back later  and requested reimbursement,                                                               
but  this company  pretty much  stopped everything  to fight  the                                                               
fire.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
7:22:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  offered  that in  civil  tort  liability,                                                               
there is absolutely  no obligation to help someone,  and a person                                                               
will never be  civilly liable for failure to  assist someone even                                                               
if the assistance is simply making a telephone call.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP commented  that  he will  never argue  civil                                                               
tort liability, but  for many years now in  criminal law, failure                                                               
to report a violent crime against  an adult or a child and having                                                               
the knowledge  of the  crime or  that it  was ongoing,  exposes a                                                               
person to misdemeanor penalties.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
7:23:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  opined that  that was  only if  the person                                                               
had a  duty to the  person, for  example a doctor,  because there                                                               
are certain mandatory reporters.   She asked, under criminal law,                                                               
"would the word 'investigate' be in there?"                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP reiterated that he  has not read that statute                                                               
in a while  and he would have  to read it again, but  that is one                                                               
of things  police officers do,  they investigate.  When  he looks                                                               
at  the term  "investigate," he  said  it elevates  this above  a                                                               
normal fire service officer (FPO)  who is there to either prevent                                                               
or  suppress the  fire.   "Investigation" rapidly  gets into  the                                                               
criminal arena, and he said  he guesses that "you are insinuating                                                               
the law enforcement function there, and  that is why you are also                                                               
consistent with  the Title 11  directive."  He commented  that he                                                               
would like to know if his understanding is correct.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   CLAMAN  commented   that  a   question  raised   by  this                                                               
conversation is  actually whether  adding the  term "investigate"                                                               
makes it a  narrower class of people that  can exercise authority                                                               
to  give orders,  or  whether  it makes  it  a  broader class  of                                                               
people.   He noted that this  amendment seeks to remove  the word                                                               
"investigate."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed to the  word "or" and said it would                                                               
not narrow the class of people.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
7:25:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
AARON PETERSON, Assistant Attorney  General, Fish & Game Section,                                                               
Office of Special Prosecutions,  Criminal Division, Department of                                                               
Law  (DOL),  responded  that Representative  LeDoux  was  correct                                                               
wherein the "or" offsets "investigate"  from prevents or suppress                                                               
and it would  add the class of  responders investigating separate                                                               
from  prevent or  suppress fires.   In  the event  the responders                                                               
only  had authority  to prevent  fires, for  example, they  would                                                               
have the  same authority under  this statute as someone  who only                                                               
had the authority  to suppress or to investigate.   The FPOs have                                                               
the  ability  and,  in  fact  the  duty,  to  perform  all  three                                                               
functions, he advised.  The purpose  behind this is that the FPOs                                                               
rely  on  the  public's  cooperation  when  trying  to  determine                                                               
whether a fire  exists.  He offered a hypothetical  that the FPOs                                                               
believed there  was smoke located  in a certain area,  except the                                                               
only entrance  to reach the area  was blocked by a  truck sitting                                                               
across the road.   The FPOs asked the person  to move their truck                                                               
so they  could get to  the fire, and  he offered that  the person                                                               
has a duty to move their  truck in that circumstance.  Obviously,                                                               
he said,  without a law  creating a  duty, the person  may simply                                                               
say that they are parked there  and to give them a traffic ticket                                                               
because they would not move their truck.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
7:27:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX referred  to  circumstances involving  the                                                               
police  officer that  Representative  Kopp  discussed, and  asked                                                               
whether  under  Title  11, criminal  liability  would  attach  if                                                               
someone refused to help someone in an investigation.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX, in  response  to  Chair Claman,  answered                                                               
that she is interested in any investigation.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. PETERSON referred to AS  11.56.720, Refusal to assist a peace                                                               
officer or judicial officer, which read as follows:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          (a) A person commits the offense of refusing to                                                                       
     assist a peace officer or judicial officer if, upon a                                                                      
     request, command, or order by someone the person knows                                                                     
     to be a peace officer or judicial officer, that person                                                                     
     unreasonably fails to make a good faith effort to                                                                          
     physically assist the officer in the exercise of                                                                           
     official duties.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
          (b) A person who, without expecting compensation,                                                                     
     assists a person in accordance with this section is                                                                        
     not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or                                                                      
     omission in rendering that assistance. This subsection                                                                     
     does not preclude liability for civil damages as a                                                                         
     result of reckless, wilful, wanton, or intentional                                                                         
     misconduct.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          (c) Refusing to assist a peace officer or                                                                             
     judicial officer is a violation.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. PETERSON explained that this  law creates the duty to respond                                                               
appropriately  to  a  request  from  law  enforcement,  in  their                                                               
official capacity,  to make  a good  faith effort  and physically                                                               
assist the officer if necessary.   He then referred to subsection                                                               
(b) and  advised that it bars  civil liability.  He  offered that                                                               
there is an axiom of criminal  law that someone has to perform an                                                               
affirmative act or  omit to do something they are  required to do                                                               
by law  before criminal liability  can attach.   He said  that AS                                                               
41.15.120  has,  for decades,  created  that  duty for  folks  to                                                               
respond appropriately to an officer's  request for prevention and                                                               
suppression  of fires,  and  this  would add  in  those that  are                                                               
investigating.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
7:30:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  asked how  Mr. Peterson sees  this playing                                                               
out as to what additional  authority the word "investigate" adds,                                                               
and where it comes into play.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PETERSON answered  that Mr.  Maisch previously  advised that                                                               
that the  FPOs already  have authority  to prevent  and suppress,                                                               
and he  would have to  ask Mr.  Maisch whether folks  in forestry                                                               
are  solely   authorized  to  investigate.     Inasmuch   as  the                                                               
discussion   is  about   folks   with  only   the  authority   to                                                               
investigate, he  referred to his previous  hypothetical about the                                                               
investigators needing to check a certain  area of land but it was                                                               
barricaded  off.    Barriers, he  related,  are  erected  because                                                               
someone does not want the FPOs  coming onto their land, except it                                                               
would be  necessary in  that case to  determine where  the forest                                                               
fire was headed,  where the fire started, or whether  there was a                                                               
forest fire  at all,  he pointed out.   Any  situation imaginable                                                               
where someone  is preventing fire  investigators from  being able                                                               
to do  their job  and determine  what is going  on with  the fire                                                               
would fall under this category, he advised.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
7:31:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered a  scenario where the location fire                                                               
was known and the FPOs  were simply investigating for purposes of                                                               
who may  have started the  fire.   She related that  her scenario                                                               
did not appear  to be something where all hands-on  deck would be                                                               
necessary.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. PETERSON  asked whether her  question was, for  example, that                                                               
after the fact, a fire  investigator tried to come onto someone's                                                               
land to  request the  landowner's help  in determining  what took                                                               
place here.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX answered yes, that is what she was asking.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. PETERSON  submitted that when  statutes are read, no  word is                                                               
read in  isolation, "a thing  is known by  those around it."   He                                                               
opined that when  reading this section in whole,  under Title 41,                                                               
it applies to FPOs, Division  of Forestry, fire investigators who                                                               
are in  the early stages  of their response  to a forest  fire or                                                               
potential  forest   fire,  and  this  discussion   is  about  the                                                               
potential forest fire.   He commented that he did  not think that                                                               
under the  constitution the legislature  could say  that everyone                                                               
contacted by an investigator must  assist regardless of the stage                                                               
of that  investigation.   He advised  that this  is very  much in                                                               
line with  the rest of the  statute, and it is  very much talking                                                               
about FPOs  and the Division  of Forestry responding to  fires in                                                               
the early stages of potential fires.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
7:34:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  offered a practical  example wherein the  source of                                                               
the reported  smoke was somewhat uncertain,  which caused concern                                                               
that a  fire might be starting  and they wanted to  determine the                                                               
reason  for the  smoke  before  it became  a  forest  fire.   The                                                               
question then  becomes whether those fire  investigators have the                                                               
authority   to    request   assistance   during    that   initial                                                               
investigation  in determining  whether there  is a  fire.   Also,                                                               
specifically  for  the  purposes  of  this  amendment,  he  asked                                                               
whether  the   committee  prefers   "to  not  have   people  that                                                               
investigate included  amongst the  description of people  who can                                                               
make the requests."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX remarked  that  she  re-read this  section                                                               
again  and while  it adds  "investigate"  to the  people who  are                                                               
authorized  to  prevent, investigate,  or  suppress,  it is  very                                                               
clear that  the officers need  to request  a person to  assist in                                                               
the  prevention  or suppression  of  a  fire.   As  opposed,  she                                                               
continued,  to   assist  in   the  prevention,   suppression,  or                                                               
investigation of  a fire.   She said,  "I'm actually  happy," and                                                               
she does not support Amendment 6.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
7:35:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN commented  that  adding "investigate"  is                                                               
pointless because  it would not  affect the FPOs who  can already                                                               
prevent or suppress,  and the discussion is  about preventing the                                                               
possibility of  fires.   He opined that  the committee  is "back-                                                               
dooring what we already dealt  with in a previous amendment about                                                               
going  onto somebody's  land  because now  we're  giving you  the                                                               
obligation  to help  them with  preventing  a future  fire."   He                                                               
commented that  that appears  to be  a little  more than  what is                                                               
being discussed  regarding the "investigate" part,  and logically                                                               
it  doesn't follow  that someone  who can  only investigate  will                                                               
require someone to help them  in preventing or suppressing a fire                                                               
when they are not authorized.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
7:37:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote was  taken.   Representative Eastman  voted in                                                               
favor of  the adoption of  Amendment 6.   Representatives LeDoux,                                                               
Kreiss-Tomkins,  Kopp,  Stutes,  and  Claman  voted  against  it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 6 failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-5.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
7:37:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 7, labeled 30-                                                                  
LS1382\J.8, Bullard/Radford, 3/16/18, which read as follows:                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 16:                                                                                                           
          Delete "A"                                                                                                            
          Insert "Except as provided in AS 41.15.130, a                                                                     
     [A]"                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, lines 22 - 27:                                                                                                     
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
        "* Sec. 14. AS 41.15.130 is amended to read:                                                                        
          Sec. 41.15.130. Backfires and burnouts excluded.                                                                
     AS 41.15.010  -  41.15.040  and 41.15.050  -  41.15.170                                                                
     [AS 41.15.010 - 41.15.170] do not  apply to the setting                                                                    
     of                                                                                                                         
               (1) backfires and burnouts and other burning                                                                 
     or clearing  of land  [A BACKFIRE] under  the direction                                                                
     of an officer  or employee of the United  States or the                                                                    
     state who  is authorized to prevent  or suppress fires;                                                                
     or                                                                                                                     
               (2)  a backfire by a person on land owned by                                                                 
     the person."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
7:37:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Section  14, page 4, lines 22-                                                               
27, and noted  that the discussion is of  backfires and burnouts,                                                               
and  basically  an  exemption  on  lines  24-27,  which  read  as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     do  not apply  to the  setting of  backfires, burnouts,                                                                
     and  other burning  or clearing  of  land [A  BACKFIRE]                                                                
     under the  direction of an  officer or employee  of the                                                                    
     United  States  or  the  state  who  is  authorized  to                                                                    
     prevent or suppress fires.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  stated that the legislation  neglected to                                                               
include and authorize the landowner  to set a backfire to prevent                                                               
their property, or neighboring properties,  from being burned and                                                               
possibly propagating a forest fire.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
7:39:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  requested a description of  a backfire and                                                               
burnout.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH  responded that backfires  and burnouts are  fires the                                                               
fire suppression  crew members actually  set in order  to burnout                                                               
the unburned  fuel between  an advancing  fire and  a constructed                                                               
control line.   A  natural feature,  such as a  river or  a road,                                                               
will burnout the  fuel in front of the fire's  approach to lessen                                                               
its impact when  it hits the control line.   He explained that it                                                               
makes it easier for the officers  to defend that control line and                                                               
safer for the fire fighters in that process.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
7:40:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked  the impact of this proposed  amendment on the                                                               
immunity statute.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH answered  that  "this change"  makes  clear that  the                                                               
discretionary  immunity statute  does  pertain  to backfires  and                                                               
burnouts, and  "burnout" is a new  term added into this  piece of                                                               
legislation.      Under   the   current   statute,   it   begins,                                                               
"Notwithstanding  other provisions  of law"  which  is where  the                                                               
section regarding discretionary immunity  is located.  He advised                                                               
that the  state successfully  defended the  current statute  in a                                                               
recent case and the Brewer and  the Miller Reach fires both spoke                                                               
to this point, but this change  makes it absolutely clear that it                                                               
does pertain.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked  Mr. Peterson whether he would like  to add to                                                               
the testimony of Mr. Maisch.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PETERSON answered  that Mr.  Maisch covered  it and  if that                                                               
answered the  question, he is  content to rely upon  Mr. Maisch's                                                               
answer.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
7:41:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked whether the administration  opposes Amendment                                                               
7.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH responded  that the  Department of  Natural Resources                                                               
(DNR) does oppose the amendment.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN asked  Mr. Maisch  to  explain the  reason for  its                                                               
opposition.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH  replied  that  it   would  be  rare  for  a  private                                                               
individual to have the proper  training and knowledge to actually                                                               
safely  set their  own burnout  or backfire,  and it  could cause                                                               
safety problems  for the fire fighters  who are not aware  that a                                                               
fire might  be behind  them when  they are in  front of  the fire                                                               
working.  He  related that it could also cause  damage to private                                                               
homes   or  businesses   which  would   then  be   an  additional                                                               
consequence for  that untrained individual  to perform  that type                                                               
of control.  Therefore, he said, DNR opposes Amendment 7.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
7:42:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   EASTMAN  commented   that  in   this  particular                                                               
situation,  the  discussion  is  solely  about  private  property                                                               
rights  and  someone using  their  own  private property  to  aid                                                               
themselves and their community in  preventing their property from                                                               
spreading a wildfire.  In  that situation, he said, the committee                                                               
would  be wrong  in  making someone  criminally  liable when  not                                                               
allowing  them to  act in  their own  best interests.   Also,  he                                                               
related, there  are recent news  stories where this not  being in                                                               
statute  was used  against  ranchers to  their  detriment and  to                                                               
"ours as well."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN maintained his objection.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
7:43:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was  taken.  Representatives Kopp,  LeDoux, and                                                               
Eastman  voted  in   favor  of  the  adoption   of  Amendment  7.                                                               
Representatives Stutes, Kreiss-Tomkins,  and Claman voted against                                                               
it.  Therefore, Amendment 7 failed to  be adopted by a vote of 3-                                                               
3.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
7:44:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 8, labeled 30-                                                                  
LS1382\J.9, Bullard/Radford, 3/16/18, which read as follows:                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 3, following "land;":                                                                                       
          Insert "providing that a person may be arrested                                                                     
     only for a misdemeanor or felony violation of certain                                                                    
     statutes and regulations protecting forested land;"                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 14, following "chapter":                                                                                      
         Insert "punishable as a misdemeanor or felony"                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
7:44:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN explained  that Amendment  8 makes  clear                                                               
that when discussing  an arrest, it is only for  a misdemeanor or                                                               
a felony, rather than a citation.   The legislature does not want                                                               
the  state's  fire  service  officers  "to  be  known  or  to  be                                                               
threatening to  other people,  or to  have other  people perceive                                                               
them in any other way than they are," he said.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
7:45:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked  Mr. Peterson whether issues may  be raised as                                                               
to Amendment 8.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PETERSON   answered  that  Amendment  8   might  raise  some                                                               
confusion because  the text of  the amendment says that  a person                                                               
may be arrested only for  "insert: punishable as a misdemeanor or                                                               
felony."   Therefore, he said, if  this were to be  adopted, many                                                               
of the  offenses under Title 41  would be punishable either  as a                                                               
strict liability  violation if there  was no mental state,  and a                                                               
misdemeanor if  there was  a culpable mental  state.   He pointed                                                               
out that under a  broad reading, it could be read  to mean that a                                                               
violation punishable  as a misdemeanor  due to a  culpable mental                                                               
state,  if it  were  charged  that way,  could  give  rise to  an                                                               
arrest, where there is not going  to be an arrest for a violation                                                               
because there  is no  possibility of  incarceration.   He advised                                                               
that he  does think Amendment 8  could muddy the waters  and lead                                                               
to some confusion, wherein there  is otherwise a pretty clear-cut                                                               
delineation between strict liability  violation and a misdemeanor                                                               
based on mental state.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
7:47:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  requested a  description of a  setting in  which an                                                               
officer may  need to arrest  a person  based on a  violation that                                                               
does not carry any potential  for jailtime where they would still                                                               
nevertheless believe there was a need for arrest.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. PETERSON  answered that  he could  not describe  that setting                                                               
because a person would not be arrested on a violation.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH remarked he concurred with Mr. Peterson's statement.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
7:48:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  opined  that  by the  very  nature  of  a                                                               
citation a  person cannot  be arrested,  which is  the difference                                                               
between a citation and a misdemeanor or felony.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   commented  that  the  testifiers   had  confirmed                                                               
Representative LeDoux's view.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
7:49:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked to hear  clearly from the Department of                                                               
Law (DOL)  whether Amendment  8 makes it  more or  less confusing                                                               
for law enforcement.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. PETERSON responded that Amendment  8 makes it more confusing,                                                               
in his  opinion, because it  could give rise to  someone thinking                                                               
"this could be  punishable as a misdemeanor.  I'm  charging it as                                                               
a  violation,  which  I  can't   arrest  for,  but  it  could  be                                                               
punishable as a misdemeanor, so I  can arrest."  He verified that                                                               
Amendment  8  would cause  confusion  which  otherwise would  not                                                               
exist.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
7:50:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  related  that  the  discussion  is  that                                                               
officers now have  the ability to arrest a person  who violates a                                                               
provision of this chapter, and  that (indisc.) not confusing.  In                                                               
the  event a  person violated  a provision  of this  chapter, the                                                               
authority has  been given that  the person  may be arrested.   He                                                               
opined that if  that is not the committee's  intention, it should                                                               
be changed  and not  give the public  the apprehension  that they                                                               
could  be arrested  for violating  a provision  of this  chapter.                                                               
Amendment  8 was  created to  make it  clear in  some manner,  he                                                               
said.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
7:51:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote was  taken.   Representative Eastman  voted in                                                               
favor  of the  adoption of  Amendment 8.   Representatives  Kopp,                                                               
Stutes,  LeDoux, Kreiss-Tomkins,  and  Claman  voted against  it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 8 failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-5.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
7:51:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN ruled  that  Amendment  9, labeled  30-LS1382\J.10,                                                               
Radford, 3/16/18,  rolls Amendments 2-8 into  a single amendment,                                                               
and because the  committee previously reviewed all  of the issues                                                               
in failed Amendments 2-9, he ruled Amendment 9 out-of-order.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
7:51:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  moved to adopt Amendment  10, labeled 30-                                                               
LS1382\J.11, Radford, 3/16/18, which read as follows:                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 2:                                                                                                            
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                   
          Following "land":                                                                                                   
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 3:                                                                                                            
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                   
          Following "land":                                                                                                   
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 6:                                                                                                            
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                 
          Following "land":                                                                                                     
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 26:                                                                                                           
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                     
          Insert "[FORESTED]"                                                                                                   
          Following "land":                                                                                                     
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 13:                                                                                                           
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                     
          Insert "[FORESTED]"                                                                                                   
          Following "land":                                                                                                     
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 17:                                                                                                           
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                 
          Following "land":                                                                                                 
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 22:                                                                                                           
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                     
          Following "land":                                                                                                     
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 26:                                                                                                           
          Delete "forested land [TIMBER, BRUSH, GRASS,] or                                                                  
     other"                                                                                                                     
          Insert "[TIMBER, BRUSH, GRASS, OR OTHER]"                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, line 1:                                                                                                            
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                     
          Insert "[FORESTED]"                                                                                                   
          Following "land":                                                                                                     
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, line 7:                                                                                                            
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                     
          Insert "[FORESTED]"                                                                                                   
          Following "land":                                                                                                     
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 5:                                                                                                            
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                   
          Following "land":                                                                                                   
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 6:                                                                                                            
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                     
          Following "land":                                                                                                     
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 10:                                                                                                           
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                     
          Following "land":                                                                                                     
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 13:                                                                                                           
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                   
          Following "land":                                                                                                   
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 14:                                                                                                           
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                     
          Following "land":                                                                                                     
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, lines 19 - 20:                                                                                                     
          Delete "forested land or other flammable"                                                                             
          Insert "land with inflammable"                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 21:                                                                                                           
          Delete "forested land or other flammable"                                                                             
          Insert "land with inflammable"                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 23:                                                                                                           
          Delete "forested"                                                                                                     
          Following "land":                                                                                                     
          Insert "with inflammable material"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, following line 5:                                                                                                  
     Insert a new paragraph to read:                                                                                            
               "(6)  "inflammable material" means material                                                                      
     that is combustible and easily set on fire."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
7:52:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN explained  that Amendment  10 deals  with                                                               
the current  failure in Alaska  Statutes as to the  definition of                                                               
"forested  land."   When any  member of  the public,  he advised,                                                               
sees   the   words  "forested   land,"   they   have  a   general                                                               
understanding  that the  phrase  probably involves  some type  of                                                               
trees, large bushes, and timber.   He said that the definition of                                                               
"forested land" used  in CSHB 355, has nothing to  do with trees.                                                               
For  example, the  current definition  of  "forested land"  would                                                               
qualify regarding water  and land under water, a  kelp patty, and                                                               
a tide  moving out to  sea, he said.   The  intent of the  use of                                                               
"forested land"  in CSHB 355,  is about flammable material.   The                                                               
amendment language,  he related, is more  specifically about land                                                               
containing flammable material, it  makes the intention clear, and                                                               
it would bring the public along with that intention.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
7:54:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  asked  whether  there  are  other                                                               
instances  in  which  an overly  broad  definition  of  "forested                                                               
lands" has been problematic.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN responded  that  this  bill expands  what                                                               
fire service  individuals can and  should do, which is  fine, but                                                               
it is in  the context of those individuals'  perspectives and the                                                               
public  is not  necessarily thinking  in those  terms.   Whereas,                                                               
fire  service individuals  think more  about what  can burn,  how                                                               
quickly  it can  burn, the  fuel load  on a  particular piece  of                                                               
land, and so forth.     He acknowledged to Representative Kreiss-                                                               
Tomkins  that  he  is  not   aware  of  what  would  normally  be                                                               
considered "forested land"  being abused or misused.   He offered                                                               
that he  is "keying in on  ... the old, very  tailored definition                                                               
of  forested  land,"  and  applying it  to  this  more  expansive                                                               
manner,  which will  potentially cause  new issues  going forward                                                               
with enforcement and educating the public.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
7:56:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked Mr.  Maisch his  thoughts on                                                               
the proposed definition.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH  responded that  "forested land"  is defined  under AS                                                               
41.15.170(3), which read as follows:                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     (1) "damages" includes costs incurred in suppressing,                                                                      
     controlling, or extinguishing a fire;                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     (2) "forested land" includes all land on which grass,                                                                      
     brush, timber, and other natural vegetative material                                                                       
     grows;                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     (3) "forest fire" includes the uncontrolled burning of                                                                     
     grass, brush, timber, and other natural vegetative                                                                         
     material.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH explained that "other  natural vegetative material" is                                                               
key because  it is difficult  to predict what type  of vegetative                                                               
material might actually be flammable and  carry a fire.  He noted                                                               
that "inflammable" is a confusing term  to the lay person, and in                                                               
fact  the National  Fire  Protection  Association (NFPA)  stopped                                                               
using  that  term  in  the  1920s,  and  instead  uses  the  term                                                               
"flammable" as  opposed to  "inflammable."   He advised  that the                                                               
department opposes this definition change.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
7:58:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  commented that use  of inflammable                                                               
caught him  off guard and he  could see how it  would cause great                                                               
confusion.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
7:58:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that  Title 41 is Public Resources,                                                               
and  Chapter 15  is  titled "Forests,"  which  is about  managing                                                               
forests and contracting  for the care of this resource.   The use                                                               
of the term  "forested" is consistent within the  statute, and he                                                               
opined that  for the person  reviewing the law, it  is internally                                                               
consistent because  its heading and intent  deals with management                                                               
of state  forests on public lands.   He noted that  "we could be"                                                               
unintentionally changing language that  could make it not consist                                                               
with what the law was written for in the first place.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
7:59:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   offered  curiosity  as   to  the  1920s   use  of                                                               
"inflammable" material,  and if one  had a  gas can sitting  in a                                                               
vacant  lot, that  probably fits  the definition  of "inflammable                                                               
material."   Except,  when looking  at forested  land, which  has                                                               
some  requirement of  vegetative  growing material,  it would  be                                                               
different than fighting forest fires,  so he has trouble with the                                                               
amendment, he said.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
8:00:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN referred  to the  requirement of  natural                                                               
vegetation and  said that it  takes away from what  the committee                                                               
is trying  to accomplish.   For example,  say someone  stacked up                                                               
all   sorts  of   flammable  material   that  is   not  naturally                                                               
vegetative, this does  not fall into the  definition of "forested                                                               
land."   Land that is  not flammable, that  has no risk  of being                                                               
flammable in  the near future,  is being called  "forested land."                                                               
Which, he said, is what the  request is designed to get away from                                                               
because if  there is really no  chance of it burning,  the public                                                               
should not be calling it "forested land."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:01:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote was  taken.   Representative Eastman  voted in                                                               
favor of the  adoption of Amendment 10.   Representatives Kreiss-                                                               
Tomkins,  Kopp,  Stutes, LeDoux,  and  Claman  voted against  it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 10 failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-5.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN then brought CSHB  355 back before the committee for                                                               
discussion.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:02:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  referred to  the 3/14/2018 letter  of strong                                                               
support  from   the  Kenai   Peninsula  Borough   Mayor's  Office                                                               
[contained  within  the  committee   packets]  and  reminded  the                                                               
committee that  that borough has  suffered a significant  rash of                                                               
wildfires.  He  went on to describe that  the committee discussed                                                               
some good  policy calls, and  that perhaps in the  next committee                                                               
of  referral, the  definition  of  who a  person  has  a duty  to                                                               
disclose  they are  carrying a  firearm  can be  fine-tuned.   He                                                               
added  that if  that  committee is  able to  work  in the  phrase                                                               
"sworn law  enforcement," that phrase  will make  the legislation                                                               
explicitly  clear that  there is  a duty  to [disclose  to] those                                                               
uniformed and  badged deputy fire  marshals or fire  marshals who                                                               
are sworn  peace officers.   He acknowledged that  this committee                                                               
does not  have to address  every issue,  the above issue  is good                                                               
issue to highlight, and this  legislation will have good work put                                                               
to it as it moves forward.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:03:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  moved to report CSHB  355, labeled                                                               
30-LS1382\J,  as  amended,  out   of  committee  with  individual                                                               
recommendations and  the accompanying fiscal notes.   There being                                                               
no  objection,  CSHB  355(JUD) moved  from  the  House  Judiciary                                                               
Standing Committee.                                                                                                             

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB355 ver J 3.14.18.PDF HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB355 Sponsor Statement 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB355 Amendments #1-10 3.19.18.pdf HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB355 Amendments #1-10 HJUD Final Votes 4.2.18.pdf HJUD 4/2/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 355