Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/29/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Cliff Davidson
Representative Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 41 "An Act relating to civil liability for skiing
accidents, operation of ski areas, and duties of
ski area operators and skiers; and providing for
an effective date."
CSHB 41 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 147 "An Act relating to the disclosure of information
by an employer about the job performance of an
employee or former employee."
CSHB 147 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HJR 3 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska limiting tenure in the
legislature.
CSHJR 3 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH NO RECOMMENDATION
HB 61 "An Act relating to the offense of operating a
motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while
intoxicated; and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 61 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
WITNESS REGISTER
GAYLE HORETSKI
Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-6841
Position Statement: Gave an overview of CSHB 41 (JUD),
CSHB 147 (JUD), and CSHJR 3 (JUD); made
suggestions regarding HB 61
GARY MENDIVIL
Eaglecrest Ski Area
155 South Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-5284
Position Statement: Answered questions related to HB 41
MITCH GRAVO
Alyeska Ski Resort
2550 Denali, 17th Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: 272-6474
Position Statement: Discussed HB 41
RAGA ELIM
Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-2400
Position Statement: Answered questions related to HB 41
GRETCHEN PENCE
Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P. O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-4322
Position Statement: Provided information related to HB 41
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Court Building, Room 608
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-4968
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 61
MARGOT KNUTH
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Criminal Division
P. O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Supported .08 DWI offense, but suggested
deleting section 3 of HB 61
JUANITA HENSLEY
Chief, Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P. O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 465-4335
Position Statement: Supported .08 DWI offense, but suggested
deleting section 3 of HB 61
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 41
SHORT TITLE: CIVIL LIABILITY FOR SKIING ACCIDENTS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS,Hudson,Porter,
Toohey,Mulder
TITLE: "An Act relating to civil liability for skiing
accidents, operation of ski areas, and duties of ski area
operators and skiers; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/11/93 34 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 35 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
01/26/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/26/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/29/93 183 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
02/04/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/09/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/09/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/10/93 285 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 5DP 1DNP
02/10/93 285 (H) DP: PORTER, GREEN, MULDER,
MACKIE,HUDSON
02/10/93 285 (H) DNP: SITTON
02/10/93 285 (H) -3 ZERO FNS (DNR, COURT, DCED)
2/10/93
02/10/93 285 (H) -2 ZERO FNS (LAW, LABOR)
2/10/93
02/10/93 312 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MULDER
03/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/05/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/29/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 147
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR REFERENCE INFO
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACLEAN,Phillips,Porter
TITLE: "An Act relating to the disclosure of information by
an employer about the job performance of an employee or
former employee."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/10/93 292 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/10/93 292 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY
02/25/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/01/93 480 (H) L&C RPT 5DP
03/01/93 481 (H) DP: PORTER, MACKIE,WILLIAMS,
GREEN,HUDSON
03/01/93 481 (H) -3 ZERO FNS (ADM, COURT, LAW)
3/1/93
03/08/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/08/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/10/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/10/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/29/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 3
SHORT TITLE: LIMITING TERMS OF LEGISLATORS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Kott
TITLE: Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska limiting tenure in the legislature.
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/04/93 22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/11/93 22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 22 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
01/26/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/26/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/26/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/26/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/26/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/30/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/30/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/06/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/09/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/09/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/93 317 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NEW TITLE 5DP
2NR
02/11/93 318 (H) DP: VEZEY, OLBERG, G.DAVIS,
SANDERS,KOTT
02/11/93 318 (H) NR: ULMER, B.DAVIS
02/11/93 318 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/11/93
02/09/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/11/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/10/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/10/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/29/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 61
SHORT TITLE: LOWER ALCOHOL LIMIT TO 0.08 FOR OMVI'S
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NORDLUND,Ulmer,Brown
TITLE: "An Act relating to the offense of operating a motor
vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while intoxicated; and
providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/15/93 73 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/15/93 74 (H) TRANSPORTATION, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
01/27/93 169 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BROWN
02/25/93 (H) TRA AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/25/93 (H) TRA AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/25/93 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/26/93 779 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 1DP 3DNP 2NR
03/26/93 779 (H) DP: MENARD
03/26/93 779 (H) DNP: G.DAVIES, VEZEY, MULDER
03/26/93 780 (H) NR: MACKIE, G.DAVIS
03/26/93 780 (H) -3 FISCAL NOTE (DPS, LAW, ADM)
3/26/93
03/26/93 780 (H) -2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES(CORR, ADM)
3/26/93
03/29/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-44, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to
order at 2:07 p.m., on March 29, 1993. A quorum was
present. Chairman Porter announced that the committee would
take up HB 41 first.
HB 41: CIVIL LIABILITY FOR SKIING ACCIDENTS
Number 036
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, called the members' attention to a draft
committee substitute for HB 41 (CSHB 41 (JUD)), dated March
27, 1993. She mentioned that state agencies and others had
submitted recommended amendments to HB 41, which had been
incorporated into CSHB 41 (JUD).
Number 060
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER noted that CSHB 41 (JUD) included
changes which had been suggested by, among others, Mr.
Richard Harren, an attorney who had testified during the
last hearing on HB 41.
MS. HORETSKI stated that the first change appeared on the
bottom of page 3 of CSHB 41 (JUD). She indicated that the
House Labor and Commerce committee substitute for HB 41 had
included language which stated that if a person was injured
as a result of an "inherent danger" of skiing, in
determining percentages of fault, the trier of fact could
not treat the inherent danger as part of the ski area
operator's "fault." She said that the language had been
deleted, at the suggestion of Mr. Harren, because if an
injury was the result of an inherent danger, then the
injured party could not maintain a suit on that ground.
Number 100
MS. HORETSKI commented that ski area officials had agreed
with the proposed deletion. She expressed an opinion that
the revised language was clearer. She stated that the next
change appeared on page 4, lines 10-11. She reminded the
committee that the Eaglecrest Ski Area had informed them of
a program involving handicapped skiers. She said that
language was added to CSHB 41 (JUD) to clarify that if a
skier did not have sufficient physical dexterity, but was
assisted by someone who did, then that person would be
allowed to ski.
MS. HORETSKI indicated that the next changes appeared on
page 5. She said that the language in question pertained to
plans which ski area operators had to submit. New language
required that the plans be reviewed and approved by the
Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Existing law provided that the Commissioner of the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) reviewed and approved
plans. She noted that both the DPS and the DNR had
suggested this particular change. There was an exception to
this arrangement if a ski area was located on federal land.
MS. HORETSKI said that in that situation, the appropriate
federal agency would be responsible for reviewing and
approving the plan. She mentioned that new language also
appeared on page 5, beginning on line 9. That new language
embodied Representative Gail Phillips' proposed amendment,
which was meant to exclude two small ski areas in Homer and
Anchorage from the requirement to meet national ski patrol
standards.
Number 164
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND asked if the language on page 5,
lines 16-18, was also new language.
MS. HORETSKI replied in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND indicated that he intended to offer
amendments later in the hearing.
Number 172
MS. HORETSKI stated that the new language appearing on page
5, lines 16-18 was suggested by both the DPS and the DNR.
It held that the DNR would not be civilly liable for
resulting damages. She called the language "standard
disclaimer language." She pointed out a change on page 6,
line 11 of CSHB 41 (JUD). She said that a reference to a
"safety gate" had been changed to read "stop gate." The
next change, she said, appeared on page 9, and pertained to
warnings on signs and lift tickets. The new language
appearing on lines 26-28 was intended to clarify what kind
of natural hazards were considered inherent dangers of
skiing.
Number 210
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that Mr. Harren had indicated that
the warning sign language embodied in the House Labor and
Commerce committee substitute for HB 41 was not entirely
accurate. The new language recognized that there were
qualifications to some inherent risks of skiing. If a
hazard was not readily visible under ordinary visibility
conditions, from a distance of at least 100 feet, he said,
then it was not an inherent risk of skiing, and needed to be
marked by a sign.
Number 226
MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to the last
change incorporated into CSHB 41(JUD), appearing on page 12.
The change clarified the definition of "groomed slope or
trail," she said, and was added at the request of ski area
operators. She commented that the new definition provided
that a groomed slope or trail must have been packed or
prepared within the previous twelve hours.
Number 253
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND expressed concern over the
definition of "groomed slope or trail." He mentioned that
ski areas often had expert trails which equipment could not
gain access to, because of their steepness.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES commented that if equipment
could not access a particular trail, then it would not be
considered "groomed."
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND replied that certain runs were still
intended to be used by skiers, although they were not able
to be groomed by equipment.
Number 276
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS stated that there would be a
difference between the definition of a "groomed slope" and a
"run."
Number 283
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND understood that HB 41 was attempting
to set out which ski area runs would be marked.
MS. HORETSKI stated that Representative Nordlund was correct
in his assertion that the point of defining "groomed slope
or trail" was to clarify which trails required signs. She
reminded committee members of a concern expressed during the
last hearing that ski area operators could not conceivably
mark every tree and rock within a ski area.
Number 300
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND acknowledged that a ski area could
not be expected to mark every conceivable line that a skier
would follow in getting to the bottom of a mountain. That,
he said, was part of the inherent risk that skiers took.
However, he stated that there were runs, marked on maps,
that might be too steep for grooming equipment to access,
but on which hazards should still be marked by signs.
Number 309
MS. HORETSKI stated that she had described all of the
changes incorporated into CSHB 41(JUD).
Number 312
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Gary Mendivil to comment on the
definition of "groomed slope or trail."
Number 326
GARY MENDIVIL, from the EAGLECREST SKI AREA, commented that
his ski area did include regularly-used runs which could not
be accessed by grooming equipment.
Number 346
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned that she was not a skier, and
could not visualize how a ski area would mark a run which
was too steep for equipment to groom.
Number 350
MR. MENDIVIL replied that skiers could still get down the
runs, and could put up signs. He asked if a rock which was
not visible and not on a groomed trail would be considered
an inherent risk of skiing.
Number 359
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that, in his interpretation, it
would be considered an inherent risk of skiing.
Number 365
MR. MENDIVIL called the members' attention to the language
on page 9, lines 19-29 regarding inherent risks of skiing.
Number 369
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that the only reference in the
bill to "groomed slope or trail" of which he was aware was
located on page 8, line 30. He suggested that the committee
change the term to "designated run" and then define it as
one which was marked on a map as a run.
Number 379
MR. MENDIVIL commented that, during the last meeting, the
approach that Representative Nordlund had just suggested was
what individuals were trying to move away from.
Number 389
MITCH GRAVO, representing ALYESKA SKI RESORT, thought the
committee was trying to distinguish between "groomed slopes"
and "open slopes." He said that, as a skier, there were
open slopes at Eaglecrest Ski Area and Alyeska Ski Resort
which he would not consider going down. He added that there
was an expectation that non-readily-visible hazards should
be marked on groomed slopes. However, he said, on open
slopes, it was unreasonable to require ski areas to mark
every hazard. He supported the proposed definition of
"groomed slope or trail."
Number 420
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MOVED to ADOPT CSHB 41 (JUD), dated
March 27, 1993. There being no objection, IT WAS ADOPTED.
Number 426
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that in many ways, he felt
that HB 41 was a good bill. He noted that the bill went
into amazing detail regarding signs. He commented that
other areas of the bill, including pertaining to ski area
plans of operation, were not as well "fleshed-out." He said
that as a member of the skiing public, he wanted the bill to
provide more assurances that plans of operation would be
sufficient, especially when the bill absolved the state of
any liability for inadequate plan review.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND wanted to see HB 41 include a
provision that the DNR would adopt regulations setting out
more detail about what would be required in a plan of
operation. He commented that it was somewhat incongruous to
set out warning sign requirements in such great detail, and
to provide almost no detail about a ski area's plan of
operation. He did not see a need to include the language on
page 5, lines 16-18, absolving the DNR's Commissioner from
liability resulting from acts or omissions. He understood
that the state would probably already be immune from
liability, due to the sovereign immunity clause.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that the language on lines
16-18 took the heart out of public assurances that ski area
plans of operation were adequate.
Number 478
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expected that the DNR would adopt
regulations, whether or not the legislature told them to do
so.
Number 491
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that the legislature had to
authorize an agency to promulgate regulations.
Number 496
RAGA ELIM, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DNR'S COMMISSIONER,
commented that ski area plans of operation had always been
reviewed by DPS officials. He noted that the state was
getting into the ski area business, as it owned the land
where the Alyeska Ski Resort was being expanded, and also
had holdings in the Hatcher Pass and Girdwood areas.
Because the state owned the land where ski areas were
located, he said, plan review responsibilities were being
transferred from the DPS to the DNR.
MR. ELIM said that the DNR intended to set out very specific
requirements for ski area operators, in addition to those
set forth in HB 41, whether through regulation or through
lease terms. He said that it was not clear whether or not
the DNR would need to adopt regulations.
Number 529
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES did not understand how a ski area
operator could file a plan, if there was no attendant
instructions for doing so. She asked Mr. Elim if he felt
that HB 41 should include a provision requiring the DNR to
adopt regulations.
Number 536
MR. ELIM stated that if HB 41 did not include a requirement
that the DNR adopt regulations, the agency would still have
the discretion of adopting regulations on its own.
Alternatively, he stated that the DNR could also come up
with policies and procedures relating to ski area operation
plans. He understood that the DPS had not adopted
regulations regarding ski area operation plans, but did have
a working relationship with the resorts regarding what was
expected of them.
Number 557
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1, requiring
that the DNR adopt regulations pertaining to ski area
operation plans.
Number 568
GRETCHEN PENCE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DPS' COMMISSIONER,
addressed the method by which her department reviewed ski
area operation plans. She said that the DPS did not
currently have any regulations regarding the plans, nor had
it in the past. She mentioned that the DPS had developed a
working relationship with the ski areas over the past
several years.
MS. PENCE commented that present statutes required the DPS
to review ski area operation plans for some basic safety
provisions, regarding avalanches, search and rescue, and
missing persons reports. She noted that the DPS had never
gone "on site" to examine a ski area.
Number 588
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND mentioned the Rizer case, in which a
child was lost on a ski slope. He had heard Alyeska
criticized for having an inadequate plan for dealing with a
missing person. He noted that, without regulations, the
public was not assured that a ski area would have adequate
plans in place. The regulatory process, however, would
provide the public with more assurances, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS perceived that adopting amendment
no. 1 would result in CSHB 41 (JUD) needing a fiscal note
and therefore a House Finance Committee referral. She added
that because ski areas were already required to submit plans
of operation, and because a working relationship already
existed between the state and the ski areas, the committee
could elect to not require the DNR to adopt regulations.
Number 619
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the amendment would not
necessarily require a fiscal note.
Number 631
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that the committee could send
a letter of intent along to the House Finance Committee,
stating that if the DNR determined that CSHB 41 (JUD) would
result in a fiscal impact, then the House Finance Committee
could add a fiscal note at that time. He wished to amend
his amendment to refer specifically to the DNR's
commissioner.
Number 639
MR. ELIM asked if the DNR had authority to promulgate
regulations under Title 5.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked why the DNR, and not the DPS,
would be reviewing ski area plans.
Number 650
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that most of the lands involved
would be coming under the DNR's purview.
Number 658
REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON questioned whether the
committee was unwilling to improve CSHB 41 (JUD), as it
would result in the bill receiving an additional committee
of referral.
Number 663
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee was currently
addressing the question of whether the DNR had the
authority, under Title 5, to promulgate regulations. He
noted that HB 41 already had a House Finance Committee
referral.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS was simply questioning whether the
committee needed to add a fiscal note to CSHB 41 (JUD).
Number 666
MR. ELIM stated that he had written a new fiscal note to
comport with CSHB 41 (JUD). He was uncertain as to whether
regulation writing would result in an additional fiscal
impact.
Number 674
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Elim to comment on the
relative workloads associated with writing regulations and
writing policies and procedures.
MR. ELIM responded that the regulatory process entailed much
more time and effort than the process of writing policies
and procedures.
Number 687
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND considered replacing "department"
with "commissioner of natural resources" as a friendly
amendment to his amendment.
Number 689
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how long the gap between the
effective date of CSHB 41 (JUD) and the finalization of
regulations would be.
Number 694
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that, until regulations were
finalized, he assumed that plans would be reviewed according
to procedures now in place.
Number 705
MR. GRAVO commented that if the committee was concerned
about the fiscal impact of the amendment, they could amend
the amendment to say that the DNR shall adopt a policy to
implement the section.
Number 712
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that Mr. Gravo's suggestion embodied
that which was now in place. He added that the legislature
either established policy and asked departments to implement
it, or established a general policy and asked departments to
adopt specific regulations. He would be uncomfortable doing
something halfway between those two approaches, he said.
Number 726
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that HB 41 was very
detailed regarding signs, yet much more general with regard
to other provisions. The effect of that, he said, was that
sign requirements were getting a great deal of public
review, while other aspects of ski area operations were not.
He expressed his support for requiring the DNR to adopt
regulations.
Number 736
CHAIRMAN PORTER did not see the adoption of regulations as a
bar to implementing the rest of the statute.
Number 744
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON stated that it appeared that HB 41
was attempting to solve problems faced by some of the
smaller ski areas. Yet, he said, it seemed that the
committee was trying to craft a bill which would apply to
all ski areas.
There being no objection to the adoption of AMENDMENT NO.1,
IT WAS ADOPTED.
Number 756
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked why the immunity language on
page 5, lines 6-18 had been added to CSHB 41 (JUD).
Number 768
MS. HORETSKI replied that the DPS and the DNR had suggested
the addition.
Number 770
MS. PENCE stated that the Department of Administration's
Division of Insurance had recommended the addition to the
DPS.
Number 786
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that because AMENDMENT NO.1,
requiring the DNR to adopt regulations, had been adopted, he
would not offer an amendment pertaining to the immunity
language.
TAPE 93-44, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON called the members' attention to
page 5, line 1. He asked if a ski area was obliged to
follow a plan, once prepared and implemented. He said that
if that was not the case, then he would OFFER AMENDMENT NO.
2 adding language to that effect.
Number 029
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that, in his opinion, following
the plan was inherent in the language of CSHB 41 (JUD).
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON WITHDREW AMENDMENT NO. 2.
Number 067
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 3, inserting a
new provision requiring an operator or its predecessor who
had a plan in effect on January 1, 1993, to implement that
plan as a minimum standard for skier safety. He said that
the intent of his amendment was to prohibit ski areas from
implementing lesser standards than those in place on January
1, 1993.
Number 081
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussing the amendment.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if it would be appropriate to say that
a plan in place on January 1, 1993 would operate as a
minimum standard for skier safety until the adoption of
regulations by the DNR.
Number 092
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that the committee could be
creating a problem, in that, for 1993, plans would already
be in effect.
Number 101
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON stated that it was his intent that
ski areas not adopt plans which were less stringent than
those already in place for 1993.
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that the January 1, 1993 date
concerned him. He noted that ski area operation plans were
probably amended at times, with those amendments resulting
in even safer skiing conditions. He asked Representative
Davidson if he would object to changing the January 1, 1993
date to the date HB 41 passed.
Number 123
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that by the time HB 41
passed the legislature and was signed by the governor, ski
season would be over. She OBJECTED to the motion on the
basis that the amendment was a moot point.
Number 132
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON wanted to ensure that ski areas did
not adopt lower safety standards than those which were
currently in place. He understood the Chairman's concern
regarding the January 1, 1993 date, but said that, in his
opinion, the Chairman's suggestion for rectifying the
problem would not adequately address the situation.
Number 147
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that there was adequate time to get
regulations in place before the next ski season began. He
understood what Representative Davidson was trying to
accomplish with his amendment, but did not like the
amendment's presumption that ski area operators were "laying
in wait" to reduce safety standards.
Number 171
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON expressed his opinion that when
safety costs money, safety generally did not happen. He
reminded the committee members that they had heard powerful
testimony expressing concerns with HB 41. He wanted to
ensure that the committee had tried to address some of the
concerns and fears that people had testified about.
Number 184
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that some of the testifiers had
assumed that adoption of HB 41 would result in less safe
skiing conditions than now existed. She said that testimony
she had heard seemed to indicate that the perceived problem
was ski areas not adhering to plans in place, not that the
plans themselves were inadequate. She expressed an opinion
that HB 41 would ensure that plans would be at least as
stringent as they were today. With the adoption of
regulations, she added, plans would likely be even more
stringent than they were now.
Number 205
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the committee had heard
testimony expressing an opinion that a particular ski area
operator had not correctly implemented a plan, or did not
have an appropriate plan. That opinion, he noted, would be
tested in court.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON stated that some laws, not excluding
HB 41, made it more difficult for aggrieved parties to file
lawsuits.
A roll call vote on amendment no. 3 was taken.
Representatives Nordlund and Davidson voted "YEA."
Representatives Kott, Phillips, James, and Porter voted
"NAY." And so, AMENDMENT NO. 3 WAS NOT ADOPTED.
Number 243
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 4, deleting the
word "groomed" on page 8, line 30.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED.
Number 250
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON understood that many ski trails were
not groomed. His amendment sought to expand the safety
responsibilities of ski area operators, he said. He cited
concerns of parents whose children went skiing.
Number 265
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee had discussed this
issue prior to Representative Davidson's arrival at the
meeting. He said that the idea behind requiring signs only
on groomed trails was so that an operator was not made to
post a sign on every tree and rock within the ski area.
Number 282
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that many of the unsigned
trails were in areas where children would not be skiing,
unless they were expert skiers.
Number 288
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that his children had skied all
over the Alyeska ski area. He added that they knew, and he
knew, that skiing was inherently risky.
Number 303
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND said that, as he read Representative
Davidson's amendment, it could require a ski area operator
to mark every tree on a ski slope. For that reason, he
said, he intended to vote against the amendment.
Number 310
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON WITHDREW AMENDMENT NO. 4.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 41 (JUD),
dated 3/27/93, as amended, with individual recommendations,
and a zero fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO
ORDERED.
Number 323
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the next item of business
before the committee was HB 147.
HB 147: EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR REFERENCE INFO
MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to a new draft
committee substitute (CSHB 147 (JUD)), dated March 12, 1993.
She noted that a companion bill, SB 122, was currently on
the Senate floor. She stated that the only change between
CSHB 147 (JUD), dated March 12, 1993 and an earlier House
Judiciary committee substitute appeared on the bottom of
page 1.
MS. HORETSKI stated that the new committee substitute had
two paragraphs at the bottom of page 1, and the old
committee substitute had three paragraphs. She explained
that former paragraphs (1) and (2) had been combined into
present paragraph (1) which required that, in order for an
employer to lose the presumption of good faith, he or she
must have recklessly, knowingly, or with a malicious
purpose, disclosed false or deliberately misleading
information. If disclosed information was accurate, she
noted, these provisions would generally not apply.
Number 375
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 147
(JUD), dated March 12, 1993. There being no objection, IT
WAS SO ORDERED.
Number 379
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 147 (JUD),
dated March 12, 1993, out of committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, IT WAS SO
ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would now take
up HJR 3.
HJR 3: LIMITING TERMS OF LEGISLATORS
MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to a draft
committee substitute (CSHJR 3 (JUD)), dated March 24, 1993.
She reminded the committee that they had suggested referring
to calendar years, instead of terms, to avoid ambiguity.
She said that that change had been incorporated into CSHJR 3
(JUD).
MS. HORETSKI noted another change included in CSHJR 3 (JUD),
on page 1, line 12. The new version of the resolution
stated that "no person may serve consecutively more than
fourteen full calendar years". An earlier version of the
resolution provided that no person could serve consecutively
"more than eleven full or partial calendar years", she said.
Number 426
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that CSHJR 3 (JUD).
Number 431
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said that it might be a compromise,
but he still found it to be bad public policy. He predicted
that the resolution would spawn litigation, and asked why
the legislature desired to limit the public's choice. He
stated that the resolution went overboard in attempting to
fix a problem which did not exist. He noted that this year,
there were 18 new House members. He said that there would
be a negative effect on the legislature if there was an even
higher concentration of new legislators after the next
election. He recommended that the committee not move the
resolution out.
Number 458
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that term limits already
existed, at the voting booth. However, she said that most
of her constituents felt that term limits were needed. She
expressed an opinion that the legislature would benefit from
a high concentration of new members every two years.
Number 472
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON replied that he had not intended to
slight the freshmen legislators. He noted that thoroughly
learning the legislative process took a great deal of time.
He added that institutional memory helped new legislators to
learn.
Number 484
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that a constitutional revision
task force might be formed to work during the interim. She
said that it might be appropriate to refer HJR 3 to that
task force for study.
Number 500
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHJR 3
(JUD), dated March 24, 1993. There being no objection, IT
WAS ADOPTED.
Number 504
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to PASS CSHJR 3 (JUD),
dated March 24, 1993, out of committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note.
Number 510
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked if this meant that there would
never be the opportunity to hold a bill in the House
Judiciary Committee for further study.
Number 519
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied in the negative. He noted that
there had been a great deal of discussion over the years,
both within the legislature and outside of it, on the issue
of term limits.
Number 522
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that, realistically, if the
committee was having such a difficult time moving the
resolution out, how could the resolution win a 2/3 vote on
the House floor.
Number 528
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that the best place to
vote on the resolution was on the House floor. There being
no objection to moving CSHJR 3 (JUD) out of committee, IT
WAS SO ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 61 next.
HB 61: LOWER ALCOHOL LIMIT TO 0.08 FOR OMVI'S
Number 540
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 61, told
the committee that his bill would lower the blood alcohol
content (BAC) level at which a person would be considered to
be legally drunk while driving, from .10 to .08. He called
the members' attention to a chart included in the bill
packets which showed the practical effect of that change, in
terms of quantity of drinks, body size, and sex of the
subject. (A copy of the chart may be found in the House
Judiciary Committee Room, Capitol Room 120, and after the
adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska State
Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.)
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that studies had shown
that driving ability was significantly impaired when a
person had a BAC of approximately .05. That impairment
included reduced visual acuity and slower reaction time, he
said. He noted that for commercial motor vehicle operators,
a BAC of higher than .04 was considered legally drunk under
present state law. He said that HB 61 would not solve the
problem of drunk driving, but could help alleviate the
problem to some extent.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that the committee would
probably hear testimony that most drunk driving accidents
involved persons with a BAC of well above .10. He agreed
with that. However, he said that HB 61 would make some
difference in making the state's highways safer. He noted
that his bill would encourage people to act responsibly.
Number 586
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked about the effect of the recency
of drinking on the results of a breath test.
Number 592
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that a commonly-used defense at DWI
(driving while intoxicated) trials was that a person had had
a lot to drink just before getting in the car, but believed
that he or she would not feel the effects of the alcohol
until after he or she had arrived at home.
Number 615
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND was encouraged to introduce HB 61 by
the Alaska Peace Officers Association in Anchorage. He
stated that when people were found to have a BAC of .10, it
was difficult to make those prosecutions "stick." He said
that if there was a lesser penalty, people registering a BAC
of .10 could plead down to that lesser penalty and be
successfully prosecuted for a DWI offense. He said that
under HB 61's provisions, people found to have a BAC of .08
would be penalized by a fine of at least $250. He said that
he had crafted the bill in such a manner so as to not impact
the Department of Corrections (DOC).
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that a DWI on one's record,
combined with a fine and probably increased insurance rates
would create a deterrent to driving while under the
influence of alcohol.
Number 641
MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW (DOL), stated that the DOL supported the
concept of a .08 DWI offense. She noted that the DOL had
supported similar legislation the year before. She said
that a growing number of states, especially Western states,
were using .08 as the cut-off for DWI offenses. She
commented that her department was concerned about the
sentencing provisions contained in section 3 of the bill,
however. She expressed support for deleting that section.
The reason for that, she said, was that by creating a
separate offense, although still a class A misdemeanor, a
.08 DWI would be considered a "lesser offense" to a .10 DWI
prosecution.
MS. KNUTH said that in that situation, defendants
registering a BAC of .10 might seek to plead down to the
lesser .08 offense, because the lesser offense did not
require mandatory jail time. She mentioned federal highway
safety incentive funds for which the state could apply. In
order to receive those funds, she said, the state would have
to impose mandatory jail time, at least 48 hours, for repeat
DWI offenders. She mentioned that there was currently no
provision for that jail time in HB 61, meaning that passage
of HB 61 would not comply with federal funding requirements.
MS. KNUTH stated that Alaska's appellate courts had said
that a .08 DWI offense was not "substantially similar" to a
.10 DWI offense. Therefore, she said that Alaska could not
count any .08 DWI conviction from another jurisdiction as a
prior offense for sentencing purposes. She stated that that
circumstance would continue unless section 3 were deleted
from HB 61.
TAPE 93-45, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. KNUTH expressed her opinion that the elements of HB 136,
Drunk Driving and Breath Test Offenses, would dovetail well
with HB 61.
Number 020
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND was interested in amending HB 61 so
as to make the state eligible for federal funding. He asked
Ms. Knuth if there were many acquittals for persons charged
with DWI offenses, whose BAC registered on or near the .10
margin.
Number 034
MS. KNUTH did not know about acquittals, but knew that there
were many cases which were simply not prosecuted because the
BAC was on or near the margin. She commented that under
current law, a person could be charged with a DWI offense if
his or her BAC registered under .10. However, she said that
it was difficult to successfully prosecute such cases. If
the state had a .08 DWI offense, she added, the state
expected that persons who had a BAC at or near the .10
margin would plead down to the lesser .08 DWI offense. The
state did not expect to make more arrests, she said, just to
end up with more convictions.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that with HB 61, persons
charged with a .10 DWI offense could plead down to the
lesser .08 charge, whereas under current law, persons with a
BAC at or near .10 were often not prosecuted.
Number 081
MS. KNUTH was concerned about whether or not a .08
conviction would count as a DWI offense, in terms of the
state's repeat offender sentencing laws. She feared that
HB 61 would lessen the deterrent effect of the state's
current DWI laws.
Number 104
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what would happen in the event that a
person was convicted of a .08 DWI offense, and later was
convicted of a DWI offense, with a BAC of .15. "Would that
person be treated as a second offender?" he asked.
Number 112
MS. KNUTH believed that person would not be treated as a
second offender.
Number 122
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND recognized that as a problem. He
stated that the reason for making a .08 DWI a separate
offense was to not add to the already overcrowded jails in
the state. He noted that if HB 61 was amended as the DOL
had suggested, it would require a DOC fiscal note. He
mentioned Representative Eldon Mulder's HB 136, Drunk
Driving and Breath Test Offenses, and said that if that bill
passed, it would be a good idea to make the change suggested
by Ms. Knuth.
Number 156
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the committee could ask the DOC
to draft a fiscal note based on HB 136 being law at the time
that HB 61 was enacted.
Number 179
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that HB 61 might inspire some trials,
as defendants sought to get a charge reduced from a .10
offense to a .08 offense. He said that the state's track
record for convictions, other than those for defendants
whose BAC was at or near .10, was very good. He expressed
fear that HB 61 might have a negative effect on the state's
track record for DWI convictions.
Number 203
JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF OF DRIVER SERVICES, DIVISION OF MOTOR
VEHICLES (DMV), DPS, said that her department supported a
.08 DWI offense. However, she had concerns about section 3
of HB 61. She recommended that the committee delete that
particular section. She also expressed concerns about
section 5 of the House Transportation Committee's substitute
for the bill. She stated that federal law allowed states to
keep .10 laws for three years after states became eligible
for certain federal grants. Then, she added, states had to
change to a .08 DWI law in order to be eligible for those
grants.
Number 260
MS. HENSLEY commented that section 5 of CS HB 61 (TRA) was
therefore a moot point. She mentioned that states that had
adopted .08 laws had shown a 15.4% reduction in traffic
fatalities. The State of Maine had shown a 37% decrease in
alcohol-related traffic fatalities, she noted. But, she
said, that state heavily enforced the new .08 law.
Number 276
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Knuth if sections 3 and 5 were to
be removed from the bill, would HB 61 then simply lower the
BAC level at which intoxication was presumed from .10 to
.08.
Number 284
MS. KNUTH replied in the affirmative.
Number 296
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that prosecutors would still have the
ability to charge a DWI offense if the driver's BAC was
between .04 and .07, with egregious conduct indicative of
intoxication.
Number 303
MS. KNUTH stated that if HB 61 was amended as proposed,
Alaska, for the first time, could treat people with .08 DWI
convictions from other jurisdictions as repeat DWI
offenders.
Number 314
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to DELETE sections 3
and 5 from CSHB 61 (TRA). There being no objection, IT WAS
SO ORDERED.
Number 339
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that the Transportation
Committee had also changed the effective date of HB 61, from
1994 to 1995, in order to take into account the provisions
of section 5. He suggested changing the effective date back
to January 1, 1994, as it was in the original bill. He made
a MOTION to AMEND the bill in that manner.
Number 354
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT OBJECTED, for the purposes of
discussion. He asked what the intent behind a January 1,
1994 effective date was.
Number 361
MS. HENSLEY responded that a January 1, 1994 effective date
would give the DMV more time to change its forms and inform
law enforcement officers of the change in law. She said
that the DMV could gear up to implement the new law in less
time, if the committee desired to change the effective date.
Number 377
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that a January 1 date would
"catch" drivers out on New Year's Eve. He would rather see
an earlier effective date or a January 2 effective date in
the bill.
MS. KNUTH commented that September was the usual effective
date for new crime bills.
Number 391
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND WITHDREW his MOTION. He made a new
MOTION to CHANGE the effective date to September 1, 1993.
Number 403
CHAIRMAN PORTER supported the proposed new effective date.
Number 412
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT observed that the September 1 effective
date would result in approximately the same time frame as
allowing the bill to go into effect 90 days after being
signed by the governor.
Number 427
MS. HENSLEY stated that the September 1, 1993 effective date
would give the DMV sufficient time to prepare to implement
the law.
There being no objection to the amendment, IT WAS ADOPTED.
Number 445
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND requested that the committee write a
letter to the DOC, asking that its fiscal note indicate the
effect of HB 61 in the event that HB 136 was enacted.
Number 456
MS. HORETSKI indicated that the committee could request two
different fiscal notes from the DOC, one of which could
reflect the fiscal impact of HB 61, given enactment of HB
136.
Number 464
CHAIRMAN PORTER proposed asking the DOC to prepare two
fiscal scenarios for HB 61, based on enactment and non-
enactment of HB 136.
Number 482
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE out CSHB 61
(JUD). There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|