Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/15/1995 01:09 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 15, 1995
1:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 115: "An Act relating to settlement and payment of claims for
minimum wage and overtime compensation claims and to
liquidated damages and attorney fees for minimum wage and
overtime compensation claims."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 153: "An Act relating to the surety bond for certain judicial
officers."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 151: "An Act relating to magistrate jurisdiction in presumptive
death proceedings."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 150: "An Act relating to receipts for bail forfeited in
satisfaction for certain offenses."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HJUD - 03/15/95
HB 25: "An Act revising Rule 16, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, relating to discovery and inspection in
criminal proceedings, to adopt the comparable federal
rule."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 432
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 115
PAM NEIL, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
217 2nd Street, Suite 201
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 115
SHERRI GOLL, Lobbyist
Alaska Women's Lobby
P.O. Box 210685
Anchorage, AK 99521
Telephone: (907) 274-2010
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 115
REED STOOPS
Lynden, Incorporated
100 Mount Roberts
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided written testimony in favor of HB 115
C.J. ZANE, Past Director
Community Relations and Government Affairs
Holland America Lines
Address and phone not available
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 115
BOB BLASCO, Attorney
Robertson Monagle and Eastaugh
240 Main Street, Suite 800
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3340
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 115
MR. FLANNIGAN, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, AK 99802-1149
Telephone: (907) 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 115
ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide
House Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4990
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 115
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 264-8228
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 150, HB 151 and HB 153
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 115
SHORT TITLE: DAMAGES & ATTY FEES FOR UNPAID WAGES
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/25/95 130 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/25/95 130 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
01/30/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/30/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/01/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/03/95 230 (H) L&C RPT 2DP 2DNP 2NR 1AM
02/03/95 231 (H) DP: PORTER, KOTT
02/03/95 231 (H) DNP: ELTON, SANDERS
02/03/95 231 (H) NR: ROKEBERG, MASEK
02/03/95 231 (H) AM: KUBINA
02/03/95 231 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, LABOR)
02/15/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/15/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 153
SHORT TITLE: BONDS FOR JUDGES
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/03/95 236 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/03/95 236 (H) JUDICIARY
03/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/03/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 151
SHORT TITLE: MAGISTRATE PRESUMPTIVE DEATH JURISDICTION
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/03/95 236 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/03/95 236 (H) JUDICIARY
03/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/03/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 150
SHORT TITLE: RECEIPTS FOR BAIL FORFEITURES
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/03/95 236 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/03/95 236 (H) JUDICIARY
03/03/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/03/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 25
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL DISCOVERY RULES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PARNELL, Porter, Green, Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 27 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 27 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 27 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/18/95 75 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
01/19/95 89 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
01/27/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/27/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/30/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/30/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/01/95 (H) FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/06/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/06/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/08/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/08/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/13/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/13/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/15/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-30, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:09
p.m. on Wednesday, March 15, 1995. All members were present except
for Representative Bunde, who arrived at 1:50 p.m. CHAIRMAN BRIAN
PORTER stated that the following bills would be heard: HB 115, HB
153, HB 151, and HB 150.
HJUD - 03/15/95
HB 115 - DAMAGE AND ATTY FEES FOR UNPAID WAGES
CHAIRMAN PORTER called Representative Pete Kott to come forward and
introduce HB 115.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, sponsor of HB 115, introduced the bill.
This is an act related to the Alaska Wage and Hour Act as it
relates to minimum wage and overtime compensation, and subsequent
awarding of liquidated damages. Until recently, aggrieved
employees seeking to enforce their rights to overtime compensation
for minimum wage had several avenues to obtain redress. They could
settle the matter directly with their employers, they could file a
complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL), or they could take
their employers to Superior Court and sue them. Employees who
elected to settle their claims directly with their employers had
the option of waiving all or part of their liquidated damages.
This is a key part of this proposal. There was some flexibility
built into statute prior to the 1991 Kinney court case. At that
point in time, the Supreme Court of Alaska interpreted the law to
cause a significant change to the way we were doing business. Part
of the decision was that full liquidated damages would be required
in all settlements, even when the employer acted in good faith.
This is a significant component of what we are trying to change
here. Measure HB 115 seeks to cure a couple of deficiencies.
First, the bill grants to the court, in actions filed pursuant to
the Alaska Wage and Hour Act the discretion to award less than full
liquidated damages. It also may decline to award liquidated
damages at all. This is a good feature of this proposal as it
allows some discretion. But even if the court has the discretion,
and the burden of proof is met by the employer by showing they
acted in good faith and with reasonable grounds, the court still
has the discretion to award full or partial liquidated damages. It
is not a guarantee. There is still a lot of discretion that rests
with the court.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said, secondly, what this legislation attempts
to do is to allow the DOL the opportunity to negotiate with the
employer on behalf of the employee. They also can omit all or part
of the liquidated damages. That is if the employee agrees to the
settlement that is negotiated by DOL. Third, we are trying to
institute the provision whereby employees may directly settle with
their employers, providing that the employer meets certain
safeguards, laid out in the bill, that are granted to the employee.
If the employer does in fact, provide those safeguards, and the
employee is in agreement, then they can promulgate the settlement,
thereby, preventing this measure from going back to DOL, or into
court. Finally, the last significant component of the bill changes
existing law with respect to the award of attorney fees and costs.
As the law now stands, reasonable attorney fees and costs are
awarded to the prevailing party. This measure would award attorney
fees and costs to whichever party prevails under existing court
rules. Those are the major four components of the bill. We are
primarily trying to take ourselves back to the "pre-Kinney" days,
allowing for some flexibility and discretion within the system.
When we look at it from a rational approach, those opportunities
for discretion and flexibility should curb the amount of litigation
in our courts.
Number 170
PAM NEIL, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, spoke in
support of HB 115, and provided written testimony as follows:
"As Alaska law now stands, an employer who is in violation of the
state's minimum wage and overtime compensation laws is
automatically liable for liquidated damages, regardless of the
circumstances.
"In federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the court may waive
liquidated damages in whole or in part if it can be shown that the
employer acted reasonably and in good faith. An Alaska Supreme
Court interpretation of Alaska's Wage and Hour Act prevents the
courts and the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Labor from
applying this standard of fairness.
"Under the provisions proposed in HB 115, employees will still be
fully protected under the law, but the courts and the Commissioner
will be allowed to consider the circumstances of a case in
determining the awarding of liquidated damages.
"The Alaska State Chamber of Commerce believes that HB 115 will
bring fairness to this section of the law, and we urge passage of
this legislation."
Number 200
SHERRI GOLL, Lobbyist, Alaska Women's Lobby, spoke in opposition to
the bill. We are trying to return to the days before the court
decided on a case where the employer settled with numerous
employees for 30 cents on the dollar. Take into consideration the
position of a minimum wage or hourly wage worker, in relationship
to the employer, and what kind of a level playing field they have.
We called that settlement over-reaching and contrary to the
policies and purposes of the Federal and State Wage an Hour Acts.
Referring to the FLSA, the changes proposed today are contrary to
the protections of the federal level, and the protections that have
been provided here in Alaska. Alaska has a long history of
protecting its workers. That is why we have things like mandatory
liquidated damages. It is not really an accident. It is a stiff
penalty for people who violated the wage and hour laws. Think
about a person who is an employee, making minimum or hourly wage.
When they have a claim, the laws are not so complex that an
employer cannot become familiar with these laws, and then provide
the appropriate overtime or wages that are appropriate under the
law. When one of these workers has a claim, they should have
access to the courts, to have the employer be able to say, "Well,
if you take me to court, I'll put every lawyer that I can think of
on this case, and when you lose, you will have to pay for all of my
lawyers." The fact is that the FLSA says that the prevailing
plaintiff will receive the attorneys fees. It does not provide for
the defendant to recover attorney fees. We are not talking about
people of equal bargaining power. The reason this is a women's
lobby issue is the fact that many people who are in these
categories of work are women, and it is going to be very difficult
for a woman who is not paid properly to go up against an employer
and risk losing her home in order to collect a couple of thousand
dollars that is fairly owed to her. We are tipping the balance,
and making it far more difficult for low wage earning people to
have a fair hearing.
Number 300
REED STOOPS, delivered a letter on behalf of Lynden, Incorporated:
"Lynden, Inc. is one of Alaska's major employers. We have reviewed
the bill through our counsel, Bogle and Gates, and believe that is
a fair and reasonable mechanism to settle compensation claims in
good faith disputes with employees.
"Thank you for considering this legislation and we urge legislative
approval this session."
Number 315
C.J. ZANE, Past Director, Community Relations and Government
Affairs, Holland America Lines, explained he currently is a
contractor representing Holland America, Alyeska Pipeline, and a
service company in Washington D.C. He said he has been working on
this legislation for two years. Mr. Zane explained the committee
substitute before is the result of some good faith negotiations and
compromises between employers, the State Chamber of Commerce, and
others who support this legislation. They had many meetings with
Commissioner Cashen of the DOL, and his assistant, Ed Flannigan.
Tireless effort was put into reaching a compromise. To summarize,
this bill is nothing more than an attempt to restore some balance
and fairness in the way that employers deal with overtime claims.
The bill does four things. It allows for, in very restrictive
instances, the employer or defendant to recover, possibly, some
attorney's fees from the plaintiff, but only in the most egregious
situations. This committee substitute would allow only those
attorney's fees to be collected by the employer/defendant, only in
a case where they have: 1. outright won the case; 2. where there
has been a previous offer of judgment; and 3. they can show by
clear and convincing evidence that they acted in good faith. It is
a very restrictive category of cases whereby the defendant/employer
would be able to collect those fees. The other thing the bill does
is allow for private settlements. The current bill, as opposed to
the committee substitute, does not. It compromises further,
inasmuch as the department wished to be able to supervise and to
review those private settlements. The employers agreed to that
provision, so it is currently in the committee substitute. The
bill also allows for a good faith and reasonable belief defense
against the automatic doubling or litigated damages. In previous
versions, preponderance of evidence was the standard required, and
in this committee substitute, the standard used is clear and
convincing evidence, a tougher standard, to prove that the employer
operated in good faith and reasonable belief.
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER asked Mr. Bob Blasco to describe changes made
in the committee substitute since he had worked on it.
Number 400
BOB BLASCO, Attorney, Roberts, Monagle and Eastaugh, began to speak
in favor of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN stopped Mr. Blasco and asked him
what his firm's interest was in this legislation. He asked which
participant his firm represents.
MR. BLASCO answered that he was hired by Holland America, as a
consultant, and so forth.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Mr. Flannigan was present to keep Mr.
Blasco honest.
MR. BLASCO noted the committee substitute is attempting more
compromises. First, the committee substitute applies only to
overtime compensation claims, whereas the original bill applied to
all minimum wage and overtime compensation claims. The next major
change, 3(d), is that portion requiring that any court application
of anything other than full damage, and liquidated damages,
requires the employer to make a clear and convincing evidence show
of good faith. That is a change from the preponderance of evidence
requirement in the original bill. The next two portions, under
(e), as Mr. Zane had pointed out, the other bill would have just
applied court rules as they apply now - whoever is the prevailing
party then gets whatever costs and fees they are entitled to. This
committee substitute has compromised that considerably to where,
first the clear and convincing evidence standard would continue to
apply, and the circumstances would be such where the employer has
made an effort to settle the case by making a reasonable offer of
judgement; which, in fact, has been refused by the employee; and
then the employee recovers either nothing or less than the offer
that has been made by the employer. In those circumstances, we get
to sections 1 and 2, and eventually to Section (f), where either
there is no award of attorney fees, or if we have all of those
situations existing, where the employer, as a defendant, has
prevailed entirely, meaning nothing has been awarded to the
employee, and had made an offer anyway; which, obviously was an
effort to settle, even though there was no liability at all, and
the plaintiff employee is unable to demonstrate to the court that
the case was brought in good faith to begin with; then in those
circumstances the court may award attorney fees according to court
rule, as it now exists. Section (j) gives the ability to have a
private settlement between an employer and employee, if the DOL has
reviewed it.
Number 490
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what Section (j) was trying to
resolve.
Number 495
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered there are three areas mentioned here that
he will be offering amendments on. These amendments would
basically return the language to what was originally agreed upon.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY wanted to know why anyone felt that version
F was superior. He thought it was a step backwards.
MR. BLASCO said Version F was the result of a good faith effort by
a number of parties working closely with DOL, to come up with
agreeable language.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if the sponsor had reviewed the
committee substitute, and if he agreed with it.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT did agree with the changes in the committee
substitute, and understood there would be a couple of amendments
which he would probably support also.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN offered "Work Draft F" as the committee's
working document. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 540
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Mr. Flannigan about the idea of
having the settlement review be automatically approved, when not
disapproved. What will this mean in practice, for the department?
Will there be time to review these?
ED FLANNIGAN said that issue, as well as the 30 day time frame,
should be addressed. This was one of their major concerns. They
do not want to have these private settlements that the department
never sees. When they asked their Wage and Hour people if this was
something they could do in 60 days, they replied they could do it
within 30 days.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the minimum would be that a
plaintiff would get out of this.
MR. FLANNIGAN answered they would get the minimum owed to them, and
attorneys fees by court rule, rather than reasonable attorneys
fees; assuming employers met the good faith standard.
Number 735
CHAIRMAN PORTER said he had three amendments to offer. He asked
Anne Carpeneti to describe the first one.
ANNE CARPENETI, Judiciary Committee Aide, Alaska State Legislature,
described the first amendment. In Work Draft Version F, on page 2,
line 16, eliminate paragraph 1, and continue with subsection (e),
to read, "unless the defendant shows by clear and convincing
evidence that the act or omission giving rise to the action was
made in good faith, and that the defendant had reasonable grounds
for believing that the act or omission was not in violation of AS
23.10.060, in which case, (1), the court may award attorneys fees
to the plaintiff in accordance with court rules; or (2), if the
defendant would be entitled to attorneys fees if the action were
subject to the standards under court rule offers of judgment, in
which case, neither the plaintiff or the defendant is entitled to
attorneys fees."
CHAIRMAN PORTER said basically what they are doing is just taking
the parentheses away from line 16, number 1, making lines 15 and 16
flow together without the "(1)" in between. Then we are putting a
(1) between the words "case" and "the", on line 19, and continuing
on then with (2). The effect of that basically is to establish for
sure that the standard of clear and convincing evidence applies to
both (1) and (2), and not to just (1). This makes the intent
clear. He offered his amendment. Hearing no objection, the was
adopted.
MS. CARPENETI explained Amendment Number 2: On page 2, subsection
(g), beginning on line 31, instead of the language in that
subsection in work draft "F", the following language would be
inserted:
TAPE 95-30, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. CARPENETI continued. "Failure to inquire into Alaska law is
not consistent with a claim of good faith under this subsection."
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was objection. Hearing none, it was
so ordered.
Number 036
MS. CARPENETI explained Amendment Number 3: On page 3 of Work
draft "F" on line 17, the sentence beginning, "If the Department
does not act within 30 days after receiving the agreement, the
agreement is considered approved." That language would be omitted,
and the following would be inserted, "The Department will approve
or deny an agreement within 30 days of receipt."
Hearing no objection, the amendment was adopted.
Number 080
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment Number 4:
To: CSHB 115(JUD) "C" version dated 3/14/95
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "and attorney fees"
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "; and amending Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 68 and
82"
Page 1, line 10, through page 2, line 4:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, lines 13 - 30:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "(d) - (f)"
Insert "(d) and (e)"
Page 3, line 19:
Delete "AS 23.10.110(i), added by sec. 3"
Insert "AS 23.10.110(g), added by sec. 2"
Page 3, line 21:
Delete "AS 23.10.110(j), added by sec. 3"
Insert "AS 23.10.110(h), added by sec. 2"
Page 3, lines 25 - 31:
Delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained the obvious rationale. These
are not the salaried employees of the state. These are, generally
speaking, people who are having a tough time, and because we are
only talking about prevailing cases, these are only cases where
they were right, and the employer was wrong. They did not get paid
overtime when they deserved it. We ought to let them come out of
the process with at least the money they should have been paid, and
their attorney fees. That is reasonable.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Finkelstein and Davis
voted yes. Representatives Toohey, Vezey, Bunde, Green, and Porter
voted no. Amendment Number 4 failed on a vote to two to five.
Number 200
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment Number 5: It
basically returns all attorneys fees to Amendment Number 4, version
"C.1".
CHAIRMAN PORTER objected and asked for a roll call vote.
Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes. Representatives
Toohey, Vezey, Bunde, Green, and Porter voted no. Amendment Number
5 failed on a vote of two to five.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 115(JUD), as
amended, with individual recommendations, out of committee.
Hearing no objection, CSHB 115 moved out of committee.
HJUD - 03/15/95
HB 153 - BONDS FOR JUDGES
Number 350
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel, Judicial Branch, Alaska Court
System, presented HB 153. At the present time we have a 1959
statute that provides that a district judge and magistrate shall
execute and file a surety bond, which the state will pay for. The
purpose of the surety bond for government officials is to guarantee
that the judge or any other official will well and faithfully
perform the duties of the office. Unlike insurance, which only
provides coverage for negligent acts, the surety bond basically
protects the public in the event that a public official commits
intentional misconduct, as well as simple acts of negligence. The
state law, written in 1959, required district judges and
magistrates to provide a surety bond, but not Supreme Court
Justices, or Superior Court Judges. The court system discontinued
the practice of providing special bonds for these two classes of
judges about two decades ago, when the Division of Risk Management
and the Department of Administration began purchasing a blanket
bond to cover all state employees, including all judges, all
legislators, all bureaucrats in all three branches. At the present
time, Risk Management obtains a surety which provides about
$20,000,000 worth of coverage per occurrence. They have only had
one or two claims in the last 14 years, and those were for
misconduct by state contractors, not for misconduct by state
employees. The premiums for this bond are very small, given the
coverage amounts, because of the lack of claims. Because AS
22.15.260 is obsolete, it does not reflect the way the state
currently provides bonds for judges; HB 153 simply proposes its
repeal. Some other statutes on the books date back to the same
subject for Executive Branch employees. This bill does not touch
those, but they are handled basically the same way.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HB 153, with a zero
fiscal note and individual recommendations. Hearing no objection,
HB 153 was passed from committee.
HJUD - 03/15/95
HB 151 - MAGISTRATE PRESUMPTIVE DEATH JURISDICTION
Number 410
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN explained that this bill is also a technical
change, a cleanup, as it were. AS 20.215.120 purports to set forth
the complete jurisdiction of magistrates. However, over the years,
a new statute may be added someplace else, increasing the
jurisdiction of magistrates, and the bill drafters forget to cross
reference this statute. A review of the presumptive death statutes
which are in Title 9, indicates that magistrates do have
jurisdiction in presumptive death cases. These are cases where an
interested person alleges that someone has disappeared, and after
diligent search, cannot be found. If it appears to the
satisfaction of the district judge or the magistrate that the
circumstances surrounding the disappearance afford reasonable
grounds that the person has suffered death from accidental or other
violent means, it will be presented to a six person coroner's jury.
If a unanimous jury finds sufficient evidence to presume that the
missing person is dead, and the judge or magistrate approves the
finding, then after a period of six months have elapsed, then the
person would be presumed deceased. Essentially, Title 9 gives
magistrates this authority. They have been doing it now, for
decades. To clean up the language, we would like to make it clear
by adding the same language to AS 22.15.100, since that is where
people normally look when they want to see what a magistrate can
do.
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to move HB 151 out of
committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
HJUD - 03/15/95
HB 150 - RECEIPTS FOR BAIL FORFEITURES
Number 450
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN explained as money becomes shorter and the state
is trying to ratchet down its activities a little bit, we are
constantly looking for ways, perhaps to decrease the judicial case
load and the clerical work load. That is the motivation for this
piece of legislation. Back in the 1970s, the legislature enacted
a system by which a person cited for a traffic offense, instead of
showing up in court, wasting everybody's time, could simply mail in
a certain amount, and that would take care of the ticket. The
Supreme Court was authorized to determine which particular traffic
offenses could meet this without a court appearance, and they
established a fine for each offense. The bill continually refers
to "bail". He was not sure why they call it "bail," it is really
a fine, not bail. So do not confuse this with what we normally
think of as bail. Initially, the statute required the court system
to provide a receipt to any person who paid their fine by mail.
There are roughly 45,000 or 50,000 of these people a year. You can
imagine how much it costs to have clerks type up a receipt, put it
in an envelope, and mail it out 50,000 times. It was so costly, we
developed a receipt stamp which we would put on the back of a
person's check. Since even this costs money when you do it that
many times a year, the legislature repealed a receipt requirement
back in 1987. However, even though we are no longer an obligation
to provide receipts to people who mail in traffic tickets, we
always will do that if requested. Over the years, a number of
other mail in bail statutes have been passed, authorizing the
payment of fines by mail. This bill concerns itself with those
citations in the area of birth defect warning signs, fish and game
violations, smoking in public violations, parks and recreational
facilities violations, and oversized vehicle violations. There are
roughly 10,000 citations issued each year in these areas that you
are allowed to pay by mail, if you are ticketed. The problem is,
the court system has been getting complaints from banks, telling
them they are not supposed to be putting stamps on the backs of
checks. Accordingly, HB 150 amends these five statutes to require
the court system to provide a receipt, if requested. This is the
same requirement the legislature imposed for violations of the
alcohol/beverage title a few years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted it is commonly accepted in the real
world that a cancelled check is a receipt.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to move HB 150 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the zero fiscal note.
Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|