Legislature(2001 - 2002)

03/21/2001 01:40 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                     SB 82-2001 REVISOR'S BILL                                                                              
MS.  PAMELA  FINLEY, Revisor  of  Statutes,  Legislative  Legal  and                                                            
Research Services, said  SB 82 is prepared pursuant to statute.  The                                                            
purpose of  SB 82 is to  fix errors in previous  legislation  if the                                                            
fix does not involve policy choices.                                                                                            
SENATOR COWDERY asked if SB 82 was just a clean-up bill.                                                                        
MS. FINLEY replied yes.                                                                                                         
SENATOR COWDERY asked about the change of age for a minor.                                                                      
MS. FINLEY said when the  definition of minor at 19 was enacted, the                                                            
age of majority  was 19, which is  part of the Uniform Probate  Code                                                            
(UPC).  The UPC  Model Act says, "Here insert the  age of majority,"                                                            
it was done and  it was correct in 1972.  In 1977,  however, the age                                                            
of majority  was lowered to 18, and  it was not changed in  the UPC.                                                            
SENATOR  COWDERY  asked  about  the  Medicare  supplemental   policy                                                            
MS. FINLEY  said  the defined  term does  not exist  in [42  U.S.C.]                                                            
1345ss[(g)(1)].   It is being changed  to fit with what the  federal                                                            
law actually says.                                                                                                              
SENATOR  COWDERY  asked  for  an explanation  of,  "required  to  be                                                            
submitted to [SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY] the legislature."                                                                         
MS. FINLEY said under [AS]  23.42.15, subsection (b) the legislature                                                            
had to  approve the monetary  terms of an  agreement under  "23.40,"                                                            
the public employee's agreement.   This was changed last year, which                                                            
caused the approval requirement  to no longer make sense in terms of                                                            
(c).   (c) should have  been amended  last year  when (b) went  from                                                            
approval to  submission.  "This says  that the terms do not  have to                                                            
be approved and now it  is saying they do not have to be submitted."                                                            
These are the  terms of a school district  - the school district  in                                                            
Wasilla  does  not  have  to  submit  its   contract  terms  to  the                                                            
Number 386                                                                                                                      
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR  asked if "spousal equivalent" in  Sec. 9 is defined                                                            
again in a different section.                                                                                                   
MS. FINLEY  explained that  it was not defined  in AS 39.50.030(g),                                                             
"this was a  bad cross-reference."   The definition that  applies to                                                            
AS 39.50.030(g) is found in AS 39.50.200.                                                                                       
CHAIRMAN  TAYLOR   noted  that  some   of  the  changes   were  just                                                            
grammatical.  He asked for an explanation of Sec. 15.                                                                           
MS. FINLEY referred to  the language at the top of page 5, "however,                                                            
a lessee that  owns or operates a  natural gas pipeline."   She said                                                            
that (A)  was in  existing law  and (B)  was added  last year.   The                                                            
problem was the bracketed  language on lines 9 through 19 used to be                                                            
at the end [(B)].  The  language that required it to accept "without                                                            
unreasonable  discrimination,"   used  to  go  at  the  end  of  the                                                            
paragraph,  which was  acceptable,  but when  another exception  was                                                            
added,  it was put  in the  middle where  it did  not belong.   This                                                            
language  was  subject  to  negotiation  between  industry  and  the                                                            
attorney general's  (AG) office.  After the legislation  passed, the                                                            
AG notified Ms.  Finley that there was a mistake.   Before she added                                                            
this section  to  SB 82, industry  look  at it and  approved of  the                                                            
Number 509                                                                                                                      
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he  could not see any substantive changes in SB
82, and without  the changes subsection (B) becomes  convoluted.  He                                                            
noted,  for the  record, that  there are  no substantive  or  policy                                                            
changes that  are occasioned  by the language  being moved  from one                                                            
part of the statute to another.                                                                                                 
MS. FINLEY replied no.                                                                                                          
CHAIRMAN  TAYLOR  noted that  on the  top of  page  7, the  language                                                            
"[LAND  AND  WATER  MANAGEMENT]"   was deleted   and  replaced  with                                                            
"division of lands."   He asked if this was because  the division of                                                            
lands already encompassed land and water management.                                                                            
MS. FINLEY  replied  yes, the division  of lands  is established  in                                                            
statute.  The  division of land and  water management never  existed                                                            
in statute it only existed in fact.                                                                                             
Number 592                                                                                                                      
MS.  FINLEY  said it  was  a subgroup  that  was  never statutorily                                                             
created.   Because  it was  not legally  created  under statute,  it                                                            
could very easily be uncreated by changing the name.                                                                            
SENATOR COWDERY  asked for an explanation of the effective  dates in                                                            
Sec.  25 and  Sec. 26.   He  also  asked for  an explanation  of  AS                                                            
01.10.070(c) [in Sec. 26.].                                                                                                     
MS. FINLEY  noted that  AS 01.10.070(c) is  the statutory  provision                                                            
that  provides for  immediate  effective  dates if  the legislature                                                             
passes  it by  the  required two  thirds  vote.   The  reason for  a                                                            
special  effective  date  for Sec.  23  is that  the  section  being                                                            
amended, AS  45.29.702(b), does not  take effect until July  1.  The                                                            
reason the revisor's bill  is given an effective date is so that any                                                            
changes  it makes,  if  the same  section is  amended  later by  the                                                            
legislature, will override the revisor's bill.                                                                                  
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR  asked if a law that  was passed last year  on liens                                                            
occasioned Sec. 23.                                                                                                             
MS. FINLEY  answered  yes.  This  is the  redo of  Article 9 of  the                                                            
Uniform  Commercial  Code (UCC).   In  the Model  Act,  there was  a                                                            
subsection  (c), which  was  a temporary  provision,  and was  later                                                            
moved into a temporary  law provision.  It was deleted because there                                                            
was no subsection (c).                                                                                                          
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR  said the bill was  a rewrite of the UCC.   He asked                                                            
if a transitional piece was labeled as a regular piece.                                                                         
MS. FINLEY replied yes.                                                                                                         
SENATOR COWDERY  moved CSSB 82 with individual recommendations  from                                                            
committee.  There being  no objection, CSSB 82 moved from committee.                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects