Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/12/1999 01:52 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
May 12, 1999
1:52 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 213
"An Act relating to the medical use of marijuana; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 213(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 11(JUD)
"An Act relating to good time credits for prisoners serving
sentences of imprisonment for certain murders."
- MOVED CSSB 11(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the repeal of regulations by the legislature.
- MOVED SJR 3 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 110(RLS) am
"An Act relating to liability for the release of hazardous
substances involving certain property acquired by a governmental
entity; relating to making a determination as to when a hazardous
substance release has occurred; relating to liability of a party
other than the party responsible for the initial release of a
hazardous substance; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS SB 110(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 219
"An Act relating to the rule against perpetuities, nonvested
property interests, and powers of appointment; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 219 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 4(FIN)
"An Act relating to victims' rights; relating to establishing an
office of victims' rights; relating to compensation of victims of
violent crimes; relating to eligibility for a permanent fund
dividend for persons convicted of and incarcerated for certain
offenses; relating to notice of appropriations concerning victims'
rights; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure,
Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency Rules, and Rule 501, Alaska Rules of
Evidence; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 4(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 213
SHORT TITLE: MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/27/99 1026 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/27/99 1027 (H) HES, JUD
5/03/99 (H) HES AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 106
5/03/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
5/04/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
5/04/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 213(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
5/05/99 1177 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 3NR 2AM
5/05/99 1177 (H) NR: DYSON, WHITAKER, BRICE; AM:
COGHILL,
5/05/99 1177 (H) KEMPLEN
5/05/99 1177 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DHSS)
5/05/99 1177 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
5/05/99 1177 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
5/11/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
5/11/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
5/12/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 11
SHORT TITLE: PRISON TIME CREDITS FOR MURDERERS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY, Leman, Taylor
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 16 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/8/99
1/19/99 16 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 16 (S) JUD, FIN
2/17/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
2/17/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
2/17/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
2/22/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
2/22/99 (S) MOVED CS (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/22/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
2/23/99 337 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 1NR NEW TITLE
2/23/99 337 (S) DP: HALFORD, DONLEY; NR: TORGERSON
2/23/99 338 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (COR)
2/24/99 350 (S) INDETERMINATE FN TO SB & CS (ADM)
3/11/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/11/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
3/18/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/18/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/07/99 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/07/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/08/99 (S) RLS AT 11:40 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/08/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/08/99 821 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 1DNP 2NR (JUD) CS
4/08/99 821 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,
4/08/99 821 (S) PETE KELLY, LEMAN, DONLEY;
4/08/99 821 (S) NR: GREEN, WILKEN; DNP: ADAMS
4/08/99 821 (S) PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN (ADM)
4/08/99 821 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (COR)
4/09/99 846 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 4/9/99
4/09/99 849 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/09/99 849 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/09/99 849 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
4/09/99 849 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 11(JUD)
4/09/99 850 (S) PASSED Y16 N3 E1
4/09/99 850 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/12/99 884 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
4/12/99 885 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/13/99 786 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/13/99 786 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
4/21/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/21/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/22/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/22/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/22/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
5/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
5/07/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
5/12/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SJR 3
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Kelly Tim, Phillips;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Harris
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/21/99 43 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/21/99 44 (S) STA, FIN
1/28/99 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
1/28/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
1/28/99 (S) MINUTE(STA)
2/01/99 125 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1DNP
2/01/99 125 (S) DP: WARD, PHILLIPS, MACKIE;
DNP: ELTON
2/01/99 125 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S. STA)
2/05/99 164 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
2/11/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/11/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
2/11/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
2/11/99 227 (S) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
2/16/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/16/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/16/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
2/16/99 256 (S) FIN RPT 2DP 4NR 1DNP
2/16/99 256 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL; NR: GREEN,
2/16/99 256 (S) PETE KELLY, WILKEN, LEMAN; DNP: ADAMS
2/16/99 256 (S) PREVIOUS FN (GOV)
3/15/99 (S) RLS AT 1:40 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/15/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/16/99 564 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/16/99
3/16/99 570 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/16/99 571 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD
Y14 N4 E2
3/16/99 571 (S) THIRD READING 3/17 CALENDAR
3/17/99 585 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 3
3/17/99 585 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TIM KELLY, PHILLIPS
3/17/99 586 (S) PASSED Y14 N4 E2
3/17/99 586 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
3/17/99 587 (S) RECON TAKEN UP SAME DAY UNAN CONSENT
3/17/99 587 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 3/23
CALENDAR
3/23/99 650 (S) BEFORE THE SENATE ON RECONSIDERATION
3/23/99 651 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N5
3/23/99 652 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/24/99 544 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/24/99 544 (H) STA, JUD, FINANCE
3/24/99 562 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): HARRIS
4/08/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/08/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/08/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/08/99 687 (H) STA RPT 4DP 2DNP 1NR
4/08/99 687 (H) DP: JAMES, COGHILL, WHITAKER, OGAN;
4/08/99 687 (H) DNP: SMALLEY, KERTTULA; NR: HUDSON
4/08/99 687 (H) SENATE FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/11/99
4/26/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/26/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/26/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/28/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/28/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/28/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
5/12/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 110
SHORT TITLE: HAZARDOUS SUBST. RELEASE: GOVT ENTITY
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WILKEN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/18/99 601 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/18/99 601 (S) JUD
4/12/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
4/12/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
4/23/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
4/23/99 (S) MOVED CS(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/23/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
4/29/99 (S) RLS AT 11:50 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/29/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/29/99 1169 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 2NR 1DNP NEW TITLE
4/29/99 1169 (S) DP: TAYLOR; NR: TORGERSON, DONLEY;
4/29/99 1169 (S) DNP: ELLIS
4/29/99 1169 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DOT, DEC)
5/04/99 (S) RLS AT 3:15 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
5/04/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
5/05/99 1249 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR W/CS 1 OR 5/5
SAME TITLE
5/05/99 1249 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DEC, DOT)
5/05/99 1251 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
5/05/99 1252 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED Y11 N9
5/05/99 1252 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
5/05/99 1252 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 110(RLS)
5/05/99 1253 (S) PASSED Y17 N3
5/05/99 1253 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
5/05/99 1253 (S) TAYLOR NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
5/06/99 1277 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
5/06/99 1277 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR RESCIND MOTION UC
5/06/99 1277 (S) MTN TO RESCIND ACTION IN ADPTNG
RLS CS
5/06/99 1278 (S) ACTION RESCINDED ADPTNG RLS CS Y11 N9
5/06/99 1279 (S) HELD IN 2ND W/QUESTION PENDNG TO
5/7 CAL
5/07/99 1299 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
5/07/99 1299 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
5/07/99 1300 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 1 UNAN CONSENT
5/07/99 1300 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED
5/07/99 1300 (S) AM TO AM 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
5/07/99 1300 (S) AM NO 1 AS AMENDED ADOPTED Y20 N-
5/07/99 1302 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
5/07/99 1302 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y20 N-
5/07/99 1303 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
5/07/99 1308 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
5/08/99 1256 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/08/99 1256 (H) CRA, JUD
5/11/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
5/11/99 (H) MOVED CSSB 110(RLS)AM OUT OF
COMMITTEE
5/11/99 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
5/11/99 1315 (H) CRA RPT 5NR 1AM
5/11/99 1316 (H) NR: DYSON, JOULE, MORGAN, HARRIS,
5/11/99 1316 (H) HALCRO; AM: MURKOWSKI
5/11/99 1316 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (DEC)
5/11/99 1316 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
5/12/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 219
SHORT TITLE: RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
5/04/99 1158 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/04/99 1158 (H) JUDICIARY
5/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
5/07/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
5/10/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
5/10/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
5/10/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
5/12/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 4
SHORT TITLE: OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD, Donley, Green, Leman, Taylor,
Wilken, Kelly Tim, Lincoln, Ellis, Parnell, Mackie, Miller, Kelly
Pete, Ward; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Porter
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 13 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/8/99
1/19/99 14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 14 (S) JUD, FIN
1/22/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
1/22/99 (S) MOVED CS (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
1/22/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
1/25/99 77 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 1NR SAME TITLE
1/25/99 77 (S) DP: TAYLOR, HALFORD, ELLIS;
NR: TORGERSON
1/25/99 77 (S) FNS TO SB & CS (LAA, DPS, COR)
1/25/99 77 (S) INDETERMINATE FN TO SB & CS (LAW)
1/25/99 77 (S) ZERO FNS TO SB & CS (ADM-2, DPS)
3/30/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/30/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/30/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/30/99 740 (S) COSPONSOR(S): WILKEN
4/22/99 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/22/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
4/27/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/27/99 (S) MOVED CS (FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/27/99 1130 (S) FIN RPT CS 7DP 1NR NEW TITLE
4/27/99 1131 (S) LETTER OF INTENT WITH FIN REPORT
4/27/99 1131 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,
GREEN
4/27/99 1131 (S) PETE KELLY, DONLEY, WILKEN; NR: ADAMS
4/27/99 1131 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM-2, DPS)
4/27/99 1131 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (COR, DPS)
4/27/99 1131 (S) PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN (LAW)
4/28/99 (S) RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/28/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/28/99 1148 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DPS)
4/29/99 1170 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/29/99
4/29/99 1171 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/29/99 1172 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/29/99 1172 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
4/29/99 1172 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 4(FIN)
4/29/99 1172 (S) (S) ADOPTED FIN LETTER OF INTENT
4/29/99 1172 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TIM KELLY, LINCOLN,
ELLIS,
4/29/99 1172 (S) PARNELL, MACKIE, MILLER, PETE KELLY,
4/29/99 1172 (S) WARD
4/29/99 1173 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
4/29/99 1173 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/29/99 1173 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/29/99 1175 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/30/99 1101 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/30/99 1101 (H) JUD, FIN
5/03/99 1145 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): PORTER
5/10/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
5/10/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD SUBCMTE APPOINTED
5/10/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
5/12/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
AL ZANGRI, Chief
Vital Statistics
Division of Public Health
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110675
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0675
Telephone: (907) 465-3392
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided clarification of Amendment 8.
MIKE PAULEY, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 155
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2095
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Senator Leman's view on various
aspects of HB 213 and amendments before the
committee.
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered the Department of Law's opinion on
various aspects of HB 213 and amendments
before the committee.
DAVID FINKELSTEIN
Alaskans for Medical Marijuana
P.O. Box 102320
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: (907) 277-2567
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 213 and amendments.
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney
Legislative Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Alaska State Legislature
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered opinions on HB 213 and amendments.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4322
POSITION STATEMENT:
JOHN KIMMEL, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4906
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 3 on behalf of Senator Taylor.
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4906
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of SJR 3.
ELIZABETH HAGEVIG, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Senator Gary Wilken
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 514
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3018
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 110 on behalf of Senator Wilken.
LARRY DIETRICK, Acting Director
Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-5250
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 110.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 115
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-5149
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 110.
VIRGIL NORTON
P.O. Box 141796
Anchorage, Alaska 99514
Telephone: (907) 776-5481
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 110.
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant
to Representative Pete Kott; and
Committee Aide, House Judiciary Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4990
POSITION STATEMENT: As committee aide, explained rule of
perpetuities, relating to HB 219.
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 214
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6791
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 4.
BRETT HUBER, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Rick Halford
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 121
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4958
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed changes encompassed in HCS CSSB 4,
Version K.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-66, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:52 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Kott, Rokeberg, James, Murkowski, Croft and
Kerttula. Representative Green joined the meeting at 5:22 p.m.
HB 213 - MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is HOUSE BILL
NO. 213, "An Act relating to the medical use of marijuana; and
providing for an effective date." Chairman Kott noted that the
next amendment before the committee would be Amendment 5. In
response to Representative Croft, he confirmed that at the last
hearing Amendment 4 was adopted without objection.
Number 0081
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt Amendment 5
which reads as follows:
Page 11, line 10, following "possess":
Insert "in the aggregate"
There being no objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt Amendment 6
which reads as follows:
Page 3, line 6, following "investigation"
Insert "of an individual suspected of a
violation of AS 11.71. AS 17.30. or this
chapter"
There being no objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
The committee took a brief at-ease from 1:55 p.m. to 1:56 p.m.
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the sponsor of Amendment 7 has
withdrawn Amendment 7, labeled M2.
Number 0312
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to adopt Amendment 8, labeled G.13,
which reads as follows:
Page 5, line 8, following "marriage"
Insert ". Notwithstanding this limitation,
upon the written request of a patient, the
department may list a person as the primary
caregiver for more than one patient if
(1) that listing would avoid
unnecessary hardship to the patient;
or
(2) the patient's care is being
provided in a hospice program
licensed under AS 18.18"
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 8 would provide the
department discretion to allow a primary caregiver to be other than
a relative if under a hardship or a hospice program.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that there is a syntax problem in
subsection 2. When hospice enters into a patient's care there can
be various scenarios such as joint care. He did not mind the
concept, but did not like the structure of the language which seems
singular. Is the intention to allow the hospice caregiver the
ability to obtain the marijuana?
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied no. Amendment 8 speaks to the patient
illustrating hardship and that he/she is being cared for in a
hospice program.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated concern with a primary caregiver
having more than one patient. Is the idea to have a professional
caregiver with multiple patients?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES interjected that is like the hospice program.
Number 0570
AL ZANGRI, Chief, Vital Statistics, Division of Public Health,
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), explained that the
intent with Amendment 8 is to allow a licensed hospice program to
provide a primary caregiver for more than one patient in such a
setting. Mr. Zangri noted that the licensing apparatus for hospice
programs should preclude establishing group marijuana distributors.
This is identical to the current regulations under the initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to how the marijuana would be
provided to a patient with a hospice program as the primary
caregiver.
MR. ZANGRI said that he believed, in this case, that the hospice
program would be allowed to provide medical marijuana to the
patients.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that would be a group. Will a
blanket provision be given to do that?
MR. ZANGRI explained that the individual patient has to have a
card. He expected this to work such that the hospice program would
be limited in its ability to possess or distribute medical
marijuana to the aggregate amount of the number of ounces or number
of plants that the patients under the program's care had the right
to.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern that a Rastafarian group
could establish a hospice program.
MR. ZANGRI stressed that the Rastafarian group would have to meet
the necessary qualifications.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that if all qualifications are met,
the nationality of the group would not be relevant.
MR. ZANGRI clarified that a patient, under Amendment 8, would have
to illustrate a hardship "or" that the patient is receiving hospice
care, but not both.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to what DHSS would define as
"unnecessary hardship to the patient."
MR. ZANGRI acknowledged that the language is currently not defined,
but noted it will be defined in regulation by DHSS. Mr. Zangri
said, "It's currently in regulation, but the hardship that will be
looked at, in terms of each individual case, the commissioner won't
be making those decisions. And we're talking about situations
where you have one primary caregiver or -- a couple of patients,
..., that don't have any relatives in the area, that don't know of
any source, that no way of obtaining medical marijuana and an
individual says, I'll grow it for you or whatever." Mr. Zangri
believed it would be extremely rare that such a hardship exemption
would be granted. However, it is an option for those with no other
alternative.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if there is anything in the
regulations that would prevent an individual acting as a primary
caregiver to 26 different patients because the aforementioned
requirements can be demonstrated. How can this be monitored?
MR. ZANGRI stated that this would have to be a judgement call under
the current structure by the commissioner. In further response to
Representative Murkowski, Mr. Zangri said the department has not
reviewed limiting the number of patients that one caregiver can
service. He indicated that the Department of Public Safety and the
Department of Law do not like this provision.
Number 0999
MIKE PAULEY, Legislative Assistant to Senator Leman, Alaska State
Legislature, informed the committee that he had faxed Amendment 8
to Mr. Dean Guaneli, Department of Law, who indicated that the
Department of Law is opposed to Amendment 8. The Department of
Law's primary concern is the maintenance of the one-to-one
relationship between the patient and the primary caregiver in order
to avoid those circumstances eluded to by Representative Murkowski.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if discussions of the Senate's
companion bill spoke to limitations on the number of patients a
caregiver could serve.
MR. PAULEY said this issue was discussed in earlier hearings.
There is concern with Amendment 8 because, if adopted, it would
also impact possession limits. In a worst case scenario, a primary
caregiver serving numerous patients could have a greenhouse full of
plants using the argument that each patient is allowed an aggregate
of one ounce usable marijuana and six plants.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed that to be a legitimate point and said
that he did not mind placing an upper limit in this section with
regard to how many patients one primary caregiver could serve.
Representative Croft moved to amend Amendment 8 by inserting "but
not more than four patients" before "if" on line 4 of the printed
Amendment 8.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was objection to the amendment to
Amendment 8, There being no objection, the amendment to Amendment
8 was adopted. Therefore, Amendment 8 as amended would read as
follows:
Page 5, line 8, following "marriage"
Insert ". Notwithstanding this limitation,
upon the written request of a patient, the
department may list a person as the primary
caregiver for more than one patient but no
more than four patients if
(1) that listing would avoid
unnecessary hardship to the patient;
or
(2) the patient's care is being
provided in a hospice program
licensed under AS 18.18"
MR. PAULEY said that Senator Leman would be opposed to this
amendment. Through the process of this legislation, Senator Leman
has been reluctant to make changes without consensus from DHSS, the
Department of Public Safety, and the Department of Law. He
reiterated that the Department of Law opposed Amendment 8 in its
original form.
Number 1354
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, commented
that the notion of limiting the number of patients a primary
caregiver can serve grew out of California's experience. When one
person supplies marijuana to multiple people, fairly large growing
operations result. From the experience of law enforcement
officials with growing operations in Alaska, Mr. Guaneli informed
the committee that in small basements growing operations can net
over $100,000. The average grown plant (obtained by state
troopers) that has been trimmed, leaves and seeds dried, produces
four ounces of marijuana which is worth a couple thousand dollars.
When that potential for profit making is injected into a
humanitarian/medical operation, problems ensue. Furthermore,
police officers could find those with more than one ounce which
could result in a dispute regarding how many patients are being
cared for. Mr. Guaneli did not see a need for one person to be the
supplier for a group.
MR. GUANELI turned to the issue of hospice programs. There must be
a distinction between a primary caregiver, which is defined in
statute as someone who supplies a person with marijuana, and that
person's nurse who provides care. Mr. Guaneli explained, "If a
terminally ill patient in a hospice situation, is there with some
marijuana in the nightstand and every four hours smokes a little
bit. The person who possesses that marijuana is the patient and
... that person can legally do it. It's not the hospice worker's
or the janitor, it's not anybody else. I mean, if the hospice
worker takes it out the drawer and gives it to the patient, that's
not illegal. ...they are not possessing it for purposes of the
criminal law, they are simply assisting the patient in taking it
just as they would do with if it were narcotic pain pills; and they
don't have to be a licensed physician to assist the patient in
taking those pills." Therefore, Mr. Guaneli did not view the
hospice situation as a problem nor did he believe these changes
necessary to make the program work. He viewed the changes as
potentially creating some confusion with law enforcement officers
and additional inappropriate amounts of marijuana.
Number 1643
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA understood that with the registration
requirements anyone listed as a caregiver would have to be
registered.
MR. GUANELI agreed with Representative Kerttula's understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested that it would be easier to have
less people carrying the marijuana or being the caregiver. The
possession would not be as spread out if one caregiver served four
patients.
MR. GUANELI commented that could be taken to an extreme, having one
caregiver for 10 patients or one caregiver for an entire city.
However, the more patients being served increases the potential for
profit motivation and the situation getting out of control.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that this is not our place to plan.
She indicated that a caregiver serving more than one patient
already seems to be allowed in the legislation. It seemed that
this would be dictated by the ill person needing marijuana.
MR. GUANELI expressed the need to return to the goals which was to
limit the spread of marijuana with regard to who could have the
marijuana and how much. Beyond those specifics, Mr. Guaneli
guessed that it was up to the patient to make those arrangements.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that although the departments have
concerns that we want to try to meet, these are people with
debilitating conditions.
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted in
favor of Amendment 8 as amended and Representatives Rokeberg,
James, Murkowski, and Kott voted against Amendment 8 as amended.
Representative Green was not present. Therefore, Amendment 8 as
amended failed to be adopted with a vote of 2-4.
Number 1872
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved the following conceptual amendment,
labeled Amendment 9:
Page 5, line 8, following "marriage"
Insert "or a bonafide member of a hospice
program licensed under AS 18.18, prior to
November 1, 1998"
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained, in response to Representative
Kerttula, that the November 1, 1999 date was chosen because the
program had not been established prior to voter approval of the
ballot initiative. Upon review of AS 18.18 regarding licensure of
hospice programs, Representative Rokeberg felt that it would be
relatively easy to establish a marijuana club under the current
licensing law. Representative Rokeberg commented that he is a
strong supporter of hospice programs.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI objected for discussional purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that in statute
there is a standard hospice program and a volunteer hospice program
which has lower limits for membership. Therefore, he believed that
current statutes could allow the establishment of a hospice program
of the aforementioned problematic type.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that this legislation is getting
more complicated. She asked if a caregiver referred to only
providing the marijuana or would other services be provided for the
patient. She was confused as to why a patient would need hospice
services unless the patient is receiving other hospice services
besides the receipt of marijuana.
Number 2083
DAVID FINKELSTEIN, Alaskans for Medical Marijuana, said that the
amendment is great, although it is only a small portion of what was
originally intended. He noted that the original intention, "was
that anyone could end up with more than one patient per
caregiver..." Therefore, any improvement is welcomed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to how many people a hospice
person could serve marijuana.
MR. FINKELSTEIN stated that he was not very familiar with hospice
programs. He believed that limiting availability to pre-existing
hospices would eliminate the possibility of abuse. He reminded the
committee that these patients will be in a set circumstance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that in Anchorage
there are very large inter-disciplinary teams that operate under
hospice. However, there is generally only one or two registered
nurses on duty, who are licensed to administer pain medications.
Therefore, there would be a limited number of people to administer
a drug such as morphine.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI returned to Mr. Guaneli's comments that
the caregiver's role is to provide the patient with marijuana.
Therefore, we are placing the hospice in a situation of being a
grower and a supplier with which she is not comfortable. She
believed placing the hospice program in the situation of being the
supplier is problematic.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stressed that the hospice program would not
be growing the marijuana. The hospice program would merely be the
conduit for the administration of the marijuana. Representative
Rokeberg commented that the hospice program usually only comes into
play during the last few days of a person's life. He envisioned
the primary caregiver giving the marijuana to the nurse. The issue
of possession should be addressed in order to provide the hospice
program comfort with regard to handling marijuana. The hospice
program should be provided some statutory relief from handling the
marijuana.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that Representative Rokeberg's
amendment does not seem to achieve his intent.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further objection to Amendment 9.
REPRESENTATIVES JAMES and MURKOWSKI objected.
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Rokeberg, Croft, and
Kerttula voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 9 and
Representatives James, Murkowski, and Kott voted against the
adoption of Amendment 9. Representative Green was not present.
Therefore, Amendment 9 failed to be adopted with a vote of 3-3.
Number 2369
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee adopt Amendment 10,
labeled G.11, which reads as follows:
Page 11, line 7, following "except that":
Insert
"(A)"
Page 11, line 9, following ","
Insert "and
"(B) if the patient does not receive
any compensation in any form in exchange for the
marijuana, a patient may give marijuana to another
patient who is registered under AS 17.37.010 and who
is in physical possession of a registry
identification card;"
CHAIRMAN KOTT objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 10 would allow one
patient to give marijuana to another patient who physically
possesses a registry identification card.
MR. GUANELI reminded the committee that a person is prohibited from
smoking marijuana in a place open to the general public, so a
person could smoke marijuana in an Elk's Club, a private club.
Therefore, Mr. Guaneli said that patients could form their own
private club and under this provision, patients could give
marijuana to other patients. He likened this to the marijuana
clubs that sprang up in California which is the danger. If that
were to happen, law enforcement officials probably cannot do much
beyond obtaining a search warrant to enter the club. The proposed
provision would allow the use of marijuana in a club setting which
would again create the danger of someone profiting from marijuana.
TAPE 99-66, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the language addressed providing
marijuana without compensation. He inquired as to how that would
expand the places or context in which a person could use marijuana.
MR. GUANELI reiterated that combining the two provisions results in
the ability to create a private club where marijuana can be used
and marijuana can be exchanged. He did not believe that to be the
purpose of the initiative which he thought was to allow the private
use of marijuana for those needing it for medical purposes, but not
in a collective group setting.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that this is a fox-hole amendment
to which he is opposed.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked, "Would this mean that if one were suffering
from excruciating pain, and you had a neighbor who was also in the
same state, ... the neighbor came over. They're both card
carrying, registered members to use marijuana that the person --
either one of those individuals then couldn't give to the other?"
Number 0103
MR. GUANELI said that he believed the statutory scheme established
in this bill requires that a person be listed as a primary
caregiver for someone else, that is the mechanism. If patients are
allowed to freely give marijuana, then the number of people who can
supply marijuana is greatly expanded. Mr. Guaneli thought the
intent was to limit the scope or at least have it clear in the
registry who is giving marijuana to whom. Under Chairman Kott's
scenario, the neighbor could be designated as the primary or
alternate caregiver for purposes of supplying marijuana.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked then if the neighbor was a patient and
a caregiver, could that patient possess two ounces and 12 plants of
which six could be flowering.
MR. GUANELI said that he believed that would be the result with
cross-designation as a patient and a caregiver. He agreed with
Chairman Kott that would be under the current statutory scheme.
Perhaps, that is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted in
favor of the adoption of Amendment 10 and Representatives Rokeberg,
James, Murkowski, and Kott voted against the adoption of Amendment
10. Therefore, Amendment 10 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-4.
Number 0228
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee adopt Amendment 11,
labeled G.12 which reads as follows:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "Affirmative defense"
Insert "Defense"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "an affirmative"
Insert "a"
Page 8, line 14:
Delete "an affirmative"
Insert "a"
CHAIRMAN KOTT objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that a distinction in the law is
between a defense and an affirmative defense; under one the
individual must prove while the other the state has to prove
against the individual. Amendment 11 changes the affirmative
defense to a defense. Although this sounds minimal, it is a big
difference that is an important principle of criminal justice.
With regard to those stating their belief as to the intent, only
those who passed the initiative really know the intent.
Originally, it was clear that this was something the government had
to prove against an individual.
CHAIRMAN KOTT withdrew his objection.
MR. PAULEY expressed Senator Leman's opposition to Amendment 11
which is viewed as a drastic departure from the current structure
of the bill. The intent of the affirmative defense provisions was
to follow the model of Alaska's concealed carry permit law. Mr.
Pauley distributed copies of that law which provides an affirmative
defense. In talking with owners of firearms and law enforcement,
it is apparent that this process has worked well. It is difficult
for Senator Leman to understand how it would work differently under
the medical marijuana registry.
Number 0431
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal
and Research Services, Alaska State Legislature, agreed with
Representative Croft's explanation of Amendment 11. Under an
affirmative defense, once evidence is placed on that subject the
burden falls on the defendant to establish that by a preponderance
of the evidence. However, with a defense, once some evidence is
placed to support the defense the burden falls on the prosecution
to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt. He noted that
information in the possession of the defendant sometimes involves
information that could be privileged. Traditionally, legislatures
place the burden for defense, involving such evidence, upon the
defendant. If the evidence can be proven, it would constitute a
complete defense to the charge. The information here seems to fit
some of those criteria in that it must be proven that the person
has been diagnosed by a doctor to have a debilitating medical
condition. That information could be considered privileged. Mr.
Luckhaupt noted that the legislature has not used defenses often;
there have only be a few limited cases. For the most part, when a
defense is provided it has been an affirmative defense.
MR. LUCKHAUPT commented that the initiative is a bit confusing. He
pointed out that the initiative in Section 17.37.030(a) says that
no person may be convicted for medical use of marijuana when the
listed criteria are proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
That appears to be a sort of affirmative defense due to the
language, "proved by a preponderance of the evidence", which would
mean that it is not necessarily placed on the prosecution who is
required to prove elements of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
Perhaps, that was a mistake and the intention was to place the
burden on the prosecution. However, there are conflicting
provisions in the initiative as the next provision, subsection (b)
provides immunity. Mr. Luckhaupt agreed with Mr. Pauley's earlier
statement that when the legislature has acted in similar areas, the
legislature has provided the defense as an affirmative defense.
Number 0703
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA recognized that the initiative does seem to
include immunity in Section 17.37.030(b). She asked if that was
the conflict to which Mr. Luckhaupt just referred.
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied yes. He believed that was an incentive to
get people to register so as to have complete immunity.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA understood that the legislation, as it is,
would eliminate immunity and maintain the affirmative defense; is
that correct?
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that the legislation currently provides for
mandatory registration and an affirmative defense is provided
instead of immunity.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that proven by a preponderance
of the evidence is also used in Section 17.37.020 of the initiative
and therefore, would provide an affirmative defense in regard to
quantities of marijuana.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that the initiative had an
affirmative defense for possession of marijuana in excess of the
amount established which she was not sure has been maintained in
the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that Amendment 12 would address that
concern.
Number 0824
MR. FINKELSTEIN emphasized that the initiative clearly says that if
a person registers with the state and meets the other conditions,
that person would not be subject to arrest. According to testimony
to date, that would mean that the burden of proof falls on the
prosecution. The initiative includes a fall-back provision for
persons who do not register with the state. Such individuals are
not provided as much protection and the burden of proof lies with
that individual, an affirmative defense. The comments that the
affirmative defense is only about those who carry the card is not
correct because Section 1 of the legislation references the entire
legislation. He said, "The burden of proof under number (3), at
the top of the page 2, applies to the entire bill .... The burden
of proof will be on the patient to show they complied with the
requirements of [AS] 17.37 as it applies to use in public which, of
course, that's obviously a case where it ought to be the
prosecution's burden. The patient can't show that they didn't use
it in public. It's the kind of issue where if the prosecution can
show it, they have a witness showing it. The patient can't show
that all their use was within the one ounce limit other than just
stating it. The prosecution can; they can say they found over an
ounce. These are just classic provisions that fit the way, I
certainly understand our legally system: you're innocent until
you're proven guilty and the prosecution needs to make the case.
... I understand the arguments on mandatory registration, but if
you're going to go to that and you're going to preclude all these
other folks who might not do it, you certainly want them to sign
up. And if you want them to sign up, it's better to give them at
least the standard that the prosecution has to make the case, not
the patient. I just think that's a minimum to expect, if people
are going to sign up with the state. Again, it isn't just the
intent of the initiative, the initiative's actual language states
that you get that protection when you sign up with the state."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the location of the burden
of proof in the initiative.
MR. FINKELSTEIN said it is located in Section 17.37.030(b).
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recognized that as the immunity clause to
which Mr. Luckhaupt spoke.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT posed an example in which the police allege
that an individual was smoking marijuana in public; it must be
proven that the individual was smoking marijuana in public. If the
individual is charged with use of medical marijuana in public and
the defense nor the prosecution says anything, the individual has
not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she was not
smoking medical marijuana in public. Representative Croft
emphasized that it should be the burden of the state which is the
reasoning behind Amendment 11.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to how that would work,
practically.
Number 1050
MR. GUANELI echoed Mr. Pauley's comments that the affirmative
defense with concealed handguns has worked which is the case in
other provisions as well. Alaska's drug offenses specify that it
isn't necessary for the state to negate any exemption or exception,
but rather the defendant has the burden to prove beyond a
preponderance of the evidence any exemption or exception claimed.
If an officer sees a bottle of pills in someone's purse, that
person could, technically, be charged with an offense.
Furthermore, that individual would have an affirmative defense,
under current Alaska law, to prove that the individual has a
prescription for the pills. This particular provision has existed
in Alaska law since 1982. Mr. Guaneli believed that the intent of
the legislation was to bring the medical marijuana provisions into
conformity with other provisions of Alaska law that dealt with
individuals having prescriptions, recommendations, et cetera from
doctors for controlled substances. Regardless of the intent and
language of the initiative, the legislation intends to be
consistent with Alaska's drug laws.
MR. GUANELI posed the example in which an officer stops an
individual who claims to be an alternate caregiver. The officer
requests the individual's card to which the individual does not
respond. At trial, the state would be required, per the amendment,
to prove that the individual did not have a card. Mr. Guaneli was
not certain how that could be accomplished. Under the legislation,
the individual would have to prove that he/she did possess the card
which would be in the individual's power to prove.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Guaneli if he had a debilitating
condition as defined by this.
MR. GUANELI replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT recalled that Mr. Guaneli said that it would
have to be proven that the individual did not have the card on
them. However, page 1, line 11 of the legislation says, "the
patient was registered" which would seem to indicate that it would
be as easy as reviewing the registration.
MR. GUANELI specified that his example was in reference to an
alternate primary caregiver, a person that must have the card. He
said that affirmative defenses set out specific criteria for people
to follow in order for them to be covered. These are guidelines
for conduct which is how it works for the concealed handgun law.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed concern that moving away from
immunity completely would also move away from the original
initiative. She asked if immunity and affirmative defense are two
completely separate items under criminal law.
MR. GUANELI answered that is correct, but noted that the
legislature has the authority to amend initiatives as long as the
basic thrust and purpose of the initiative remains. The
legislature has broad discretion to change some of the policy
choices of the voters.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA surmised, under the current legislation
which requires registration, that immunity for a registered
individual would not be allowed. That individual would have to
utilize the affirmative defense.
MR. GUANELI agreed, but noted the practical use of the concealed
handgun law under which officers view an individual's concealed
handgun permit and let the individual proceed. He indicated that
in reality, an officer would ask if an individual is registered
which would be checked on the DHSS computer system and if listed,
the individual would be left to go on their way. Mr. Guaneli
believed that the cases that would be prosecuted would be those in
which individuals are abusing the system. In his view, it would be
fair to place the burden of proof on such an individual.
Number 1404
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern with the practical
application of this. He posed a situation in which a registered
individual was outside smoking marijuana and an officer arrived and
inquired as to whether the individual was registered, but the
individual had forgotten his/her card. Would the officer check the
DHSS list?
MR. GUANELI indicated that would be the practical impact. He
believed that it's the intent of DHSS to have that list available
to police officers to receive an immediate answer, although he was
unaware as to how that would work technically.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG posed the same situation, but the
individual being reviewed was the caregiver.
MR. GUANELI responded that the registry would be checked for the
caregiver's name as well as the patient's name. However, the card
would be necessary because there could be an alternate caregiver.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the caregiver would not be
smoking the marijuana.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that the caregiver would be in
possession of the marijuana. He commented that the police officer
will be doing a field affirmative defense type of routine.
MR. GUANELI said he believed that to be true, in a way. It will
not be a problem, if the individual provides valid information that
checks out.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated that with an affirmative defense,
she believed one would err on the other side which was not the
intent of the initiative.
MR. GUANELI responded that he did not believe such a history of
riding rough-shot over people's rights exists in Alaska. This
should be tried out; it has been designed to work and will work.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT emphasized that the legislation is a drastic
departure from the initiative and Amendment 11 is a drastic
departure back toward the initiative. The amendment is more
analogous to immunity than the current legislation. More justice
is accomplished by returning the legislation to reflect the
people's will.
CHAIRMAN KOTT reminded the committee that the motion before it was
the adoption of Amendment 11.
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Croft, Kerttula, and Kott
voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 11 and Representatives
Rokeberg, James, and Murkowski voted against the adoption of
Amendment 11. Representative Green was not present. Therefore,
Amendment 11 failed to be adopted by a vote of 3-3.
Number 1808
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee adopt Amendment 12
which reads:
Page 12, line 1, after "bus"
Insert "(e) For quantities of marijuana in
excess of the amounts in (a)(4) of the
section, a patient or his or her primary
care-giver must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that any greater amount was
medically justified to address the patient's
debilitating medical condition."
CHAIRMAN KOTT objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 12 would restore the
initiative's language which would allow the possession of more
medical marijuana than the specified limit if there is a proven
medical need for more. The language is clear that it is the
patient's burden and that it must be medically justified. He
pointed out that the committee has only had one person testify as
to the amount of marijuana that individual needed which was more
than the allowable amount. Furthermore, the farther away an
individual lives from an urban area the more reasonable for that
individual to possess more marijuana.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to what "medically justified"
would entail. One of the benefits to medical marijuana, as has
been discussed, is that it allows the patient to self-dose. Would
that language entail a doctor's recommendation for dosage? She
indicated that a doctor would be unlikely to recommend dosage.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested on page 4, a paragraph (D) could be
inserted to require in the original application, if one requires in
excess of the allowable amount, to specify why more is necessary
and what amount would be necessary. He acknowledged that the
administrative concern is legitimate. He said that he was willing
to craft language to speak to this concern.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented that this is the problem with
marijuana which has different THC contents and patients with
different needs. She reiterated that she did not know if a doctor
would commit to such a recommendation.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stressed that an individual could receive a
month's supply of codeine and would not be second-guessed at all
due to a continuous condition. Furthermore, having such an
individual have to refill their prescription every 10 days is
almost punitive. The Department of Public Safety will not
second-guess that individual's ability to receive a month or two
months worth of codeine. However, that individual can only receive
a 10 day supply for marijuana, a drug that works better for that
individual. Why are these people being made to jump through such
hoops?
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that more activity will be
created if one is required to come in every 10 days.
TAPE 99-67, SIDE A
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted a case in Florida in which an
individual went to court with her doctor and expert testimony. The
judge ruled in that individual's favor. So, there is precedence
for proving, under our law, an affirmative defense.
Number 0064
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
stressed that it is not up to him to determine the amount of
marijuana that someone would need. However, it is up to him and
those that work for him to determine how much someone can possess
in a street situation. He emphasized the need to set an amount
that is not open-ended. This is open-ended. From the beginning
law enforcement has wanted the following: "How much can you have,
are you registered, and who is your primary caregiver?" Mr. Smith
commented that if an individual has more than an ounce and six
plants, then the individual will be charged unless another limit is
established. Officers need guidance in order to be able to apply
this law and not tie up the courts.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if it is problematic for an individual to be
able, by a preponderance of the evidence, to carry more.
MR. SMITH agreed that is problematic. It cannot be determined
whether the marijuana is medically justified on the weekend or in
the middle of the night. He assumed that it will be decided in an
affirmative defense or hearing. He reiterated that an officer will
not make a decision as to whether a person possessing in excess of
the limit is medically justified in doing so, that individual will
be charged. It is too vague.
Number 0339
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that it may be appropriate to arrest
someone that has in excess of the limit, but the question is now
does that individual go to jail and spend a year in jail. Under
Amendment 12, that individual would have the ability to prove
before a judge that he/she should not be held in jail for a year
and this is why it is medically necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that it becomes more and more
problematic as individuals attempt to obtain marijuana for this
use. He suggested that it would be easier for everyone, if these
individuals could stay at home and grow an appropriate amount for
their use. He discussed scenarios in which an individual could end
up with more marijuana than specified thus far. Representative
Croft emphasized that if more certification is desired that could
be placed in the registry.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to where the limitation in amount
of one ounce and six plants, of which three could be flowering was
drawn.
MR. FINKELSTEIN answered that the amount came from the initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thought the goal was to keep the
initiative as it was.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT interjected that Amendment 12 would return the
legislation to the initiative with that exception. He believed
that a low level of possession was chosen, knowing that there was
an ability to prove the need for more marijuana. The legislation
maintained the low level of possession, but eliminated the ability
to prove the need for more marijuana.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further discussion or objection to
Amendment 12.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI maintained her objection.
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted in
favor of the adoption of Amendment 12 and Representatives James,
Murkowski, and Kott voted against the adoption of Amendment 12.
Representatives Green and Rokeberg were not present. Therefore,
Amendment 12 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-3.
Number 0774
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HB 213 as amended out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. He stated that the last amendment
is the heart of the problem with this. All the departments have
testified as to the convenience of this law with respect to their
duties, but this legislation is forgetting the medical needs of
those involved. Representative Croft expressed concern that
although the establishment of a "bright line" would make it easier
for law enforcement, it will not meet the proven medical needs of
some people.
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed and indicated the need to come up with a
specific amount.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with some of Representative Croft's
concerns, but did not believe Amendment 12 achieved what was
desired. She commented that she did not know how much marijuana
costs and furthermore, she was not convinced that everyone using it
will be growing it. Perhaps, the cost would be prohibitive to
having more than the specified amount. Representative James
stressed that the general underlying principle of the initiative
was good, but problems were created.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI reminded the committee that marijuana is
nothing more than a weed which can vary tremendously. She
indicated the need for the Federal Drug Administration to do
research as that being done in the demonstration project in
Mississippi so that it is clear how much is enough which would
provide some control over this. "I don't think that we can sit
here and try to give the accommodation not only to the patients to
address their needs, but to also recognize that you are still
dealing with a controlled substance and that law enforcement needs
some guidelines. I think we've done as good a job as we can do
with what we've got right here." She believed the committee made
the appropriate decision with Amendment 12.
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that he didn't disagree with Representative
Murkowski's comments. He agreed with her comment regarding the
variance in marijuana, specifically the strengths. Chairman Kott
announced that he would be willing to work on an amendment with
Representative Croft regarding the last issue.
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives James, Murkowski, and Kott
voted in favor of reporting HB 213 as amended from committee and
Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted against reporting HB 213
as amended from committee. Representatives Green and Rokeberg were
not present. Therefore, HB 213 as amended failed to be reported
from committee.
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the meeting to the call of the chair at
3:48 p.m
TAPE 99-68, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN KOTT called the meeting back to order at 5:27 p.m.
Representatives Kott, Murkowski, Green and Rokeberg were present.
CSSB 11(JUD) - PRISON TIME CREDITS FOR MURDERERS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is CS FOR SENATE
BILL NO. 11(JUD), "An Act relating to good time credits for
prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for certain murders."
Number 0059
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report CSSB 11(JUD) out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 5:31 and called the
committee back to order at 5:33.
HB 213 - MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee will continue the hearing on
HB 213, "An Act relating to the medical use of marijuana; and
providing for an effective date."
[The committee waited briefly for the arrival of members.]
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to rescind the committee's action on
HB 213. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report CSHB 213(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SJR 3 - REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next item of business is SENATE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 3, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to the repeal of regulations by the
legislature.
Number 0359
JOHN KIMMEL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Robin
Taylor, Alaska State Legislature, noted that SJR 3 proposes to
repeal regulations that are contrary to their enabling statutes.
This language is very focused and is not as broad as previous
legislation.
Number 0456
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, Alaska State Legislature, came before the
committee noting it is difficult to repeal a regulation that has
been passed by an agency. The issue that was previously presented
to the public was that any regulation could be repealed by
resolution and it did not have any qualifying language. This
language, SJR 3, actually qualifies it and says you can only repeal
a regulation that fails to meet the intent of the legislation upon
which the regulation is based. He said, "It actually is quite a
bit narrower, we did that on purpose because we were hoping to
focus the real issue to the public better. And I think in the
past, one of the reasons the public has rejected it is that it
looked like just a power grab by the legislature and one without a
basis and I think this language actually speaks to the reason why
the legislature might find it necessary to repeal a regulation and
that's why the language is a little different."
CHAIRMAN KOTT requested the years that the previous ballot
propositions were put before the voters.
KIMMEL replied 1980, 1984 and 1986.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether these propositions were put forward
based on a democratic majority.
SENATOR TAYLOR replied yes.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that he wants the public to know that this is
a bipartisan issue.
Number 0704
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report SJR 3 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There
being no objection, it was so moved from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 5:40 p.m. and called
the committee back to order at 5:41 p.m.
CSSB 110(RLS) AM - HAZARDOUS SUBST. RELEASE: GOVT ENTITY
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next item of business is CS FOR SENATE
BILL NO. 110(RLS) am, "An Act relating to liability for the release
of hazardous substances involving certain property acquired by a
governmental entity; relating to making a determination as to when
a hazardous substance release has occurred; relating to liability
of a party other than the party responsible for the initial release
of a hazardous substance; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0840
ELIZABETH HAGEVIG, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator
Gary Wilken, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee
and read the following sponsor statement:
Senate Bill 110 will assist municipalities in performing
their statutory duty to enforce liens for delinquent
property taxes. Tax foreclosure is a mandatory process
leading to the taking of a tax deed that places the title
to a tax delinquent property in the municipality's name.
Some properties with delinquent taxes are contaminated.
Municipalities are concerned that they may be held liable
for preexisting contamination of foreclosed land with
significant environmental remediation costs.
The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) exempts by
definition state and local governments who acquire
property through "bankruptcy, foreclosure, tax
delinquency, abandonment, or similar means." However,
the state law which addresses liability for damage caused
by the release of hazardous substances, AS 46.03.822,
does not precisely mirror the federal law. Senate Bill
110 will amend AS 46.03.822 to ensure that federal and
state laws are similar in this respect. The municipality
may therefore have title to the contaminated property
without involuntary exposure or cleanup.
Changes in the Senate also recognized the need to extend
this courtesy to innocent land owners who are not
directly responsible for contaminating the property that
they have acquired.
MS. HAGEVIG provided and distributed copies of proposed Amendment
1:
Page 2, line 19, following "entity":
Insert "A hazardous substance release shall be determined
to have occurred as provided in this section."
Page 2, line 21, following "leaching":
Insert "or migration"
Page 3, lines 4-10:
Delete all material.
Insert "costs under this section, a person who acquires
a facility and who, upon discovering a release or
threatened release on, in, or at the facility that
occurred before acquisition of the facility, who had no
reason to know that a hazardous substance was disposed of
on, in, or at the facility, and who, upon discovering the
release or threatened release, acted in accordance with
(b)(2) of this section to begin operations to contain and
clean up the hazardous substance, may not be held liable
under this section unless the person has caused or
contributed to the release or threatened release of the
hazardous substance, in which case, the person is subject
to liability under this section in the same manner as any
other person. For purposes of this subsection, 'caused
or contributed to the release or threatened release of
the hazardous substance'
(1) does not include the failure to prevent the
passive leaching or migration at or from a facility
of a hazardous substance in the air, land, or water
that had first been released into the environment
by a person other than the person that acquired the
facility;
(2) after the ownership or control of the facility
has been acquired by the person includes
(A) the spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring,
emptying, injecting, escaping, or dumping of a
hazardous substance from barrels, tanks,
containers, or other closed receptacles; or
(B) the abandonment or discarding of barrels,
tanks, containers, or other closed receptacles
containing a hazardous substance."
Number 1011
LARRY DIETRICK, Acting Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation, came before the
committee to testify. He thanked the sponsors, and the "folks"
from Fairbanks, for their assistance in clarifying the language.
He said both the Department of Environmental Conservation and the
Department of Law support the proposed language in the amendment
and the legislation.
Number 1061
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether this is going to cause people to
find this as a way out of their obligations.
MR. DIETRICK replied the department doesn't believe so. The number
of superfund sites have to be ranked high nation wide to be dubbed
a superfund site on the national list. For example, Alaska Pulp in
Sitka, in which case the state intervened to take over, was closed
out of that site so the state wouldn't have to deal with the EPA
[Environmental Protection Act]. The department is comfortable with
that.
Number 1118
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Let's back off from the superfund site,
something real serious though."
MR. DIETRICK asked Representative Green is his question whether or
not there is a potential loophole here.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied in the affirmative.
MR. DIETRICK added that they are comfortable with the language and
that a loophole has not been created.
Number 1156
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to page 1, lines 9 and 10, of the
proposed amendment, and asked Mr. Dietrick whether he is confirming
that the release had to occur before an innocent third party came
into ownership of property.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she is troubled with the language in the
proposed amendment which refers to a person who acquires a facility
and finds that there was a release or threatened release, and that
person had no reason to know about that beforehand. She read the
following text and inquired as to the location of (b)(2).
...and who upon discovering the release or threatened release,
acted in accordance with (b)(2) of this section to begin
operations to contain and clean up the hazardous substance,
may not be held liable under this section unless the person
has caused or contributed to the release or threatened release
of the hazardous substance...
Number 1286
MS. HAGEVIG replied, "We're not letting them off the hook to say,
'Well, just because you know it's there, and if the barrels are
continuing to leak on the property it doesn't mean you don't have
to take action to try and stop it."
Number 1335
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said what further disturbs her is that it
continues to say, "may not be held liable under this section unless
the person has caused or contributed to the release or threatened
release of the hazardous substance," and in the effort to clean up,
that might happen. She added that seems to discourage somebody
from cleaning it up because that might happen. It's like a trap of
some sort.
Number 1380
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant, to Senator Loren Leman,
Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to testify. She
noted that when the bill left the Senate, they thought there was
agreement with all the parties who were concerned with it and then
Craig Tillery, Assistant Attorney General [Environmental Section,
Civil Division, Department of Law] reviewed the bill and alerted
DEC to some concerns. She noted that they have been working with
all the parties including Virgil Norton [private citizen from
Kenai] to craft something that satisfies all the parties. She
further explained the language in proposed Amendment 1, directly
correlates with the language that protects the municipalities so
basically, everybody is in the same boat.
MS. KREITZER directed the committees' attention to page 1, line 17,
and read the following text:
For purposes of this subsection, "caused or contributed to the
release or threatened release of the hazardous substance" does
not include the failure to prevent the passive leaching or
migration at or from a facility of a hazardous substance in
the air, land, or water that had first been released into the
environment by a person other than the person that acquired
the facility...
MS. KREITZER further stated their goal was to try to meet the
concerns of DEC, Mr. Norton's concerns and the concerns of Senators
who already voted on this bill as well as the Department of Law.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether Mr. Norton's concerns were
addressed.
MS. KREITZER replied yes. Although he would have preferred the
other language, he indicated that he can live with this language.
Number 1499
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 1,
LS0360\SA.3, Cook, 5/12/99. There being no objection, it was so
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the title needs to be
amended.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI added that did come up in discussion and
deferred the question to Ms. Hagevig.
MS. HAGEVIG noted that she spoke with Tam Cook [Director, Legal and
Research Services Division, Legislative Affairs Agency] who
indicated that although this has not been tested in court, in her
opinion these changes will not change the title of the bill.
Number 1589
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the amendment is extending it
to other people that are not [indisc.--simultaneous speech].
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS unanimously replied private folks.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether this meets EPA standards.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER replied yes.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called an at-ease at 5:55 p.m. and called the
committee back to order at 5:56 p.m.
Number 1621
VIRGIL NORTON testified via a cell phone from Kenai. He said:
I'm testifying to draw your attention to the very heart
of the innocent land owner defense as it currently is set
out in AS 46.03.822. This is a strict liability statute
in that it affects every property owner in Alaska, and
strict liability is no-fault liability created by statute
because it defines obligations and responsibilities to
escape liability for someone taking the innocent land
owner defense. And my interest in SB 110 is really
threefold. Number 1, I wanted to prevent any
misinterpretation of the existing innocent land owner
defense or to color the statute because my in-laws are
going to court and I think they're going to be the test
case of the statute as it exists so I don't really oppose
what the local government entities are trying to do to
obtain total immunity but I didn't want the existing
statute (indisc.) colored it - if it worked as to effect
the statute as it's written today. And number 2. I
wanted to, in the work that I helped do over on the
Senate side, my intention was to clearly define the word
'relief' and thereby strengthen the innocent land owner
defense. And number 3. I wanted to always make sure that
we're establishing liability relating to cost recovery
issues squarely on the person responsible for the spill
or the release into the environment. And in short, I
support the version that's already crafted that the
Senate - after several days finally passed 20-yeas and
0-nays. But the current definition of 'relief' contains
key words 'into the environment'. An example of that is,
once a person introduces a contaminate into the
environment this person is liable to all others who would
be affected and all others have a liability to stop or
attempt to stop the spread or migration of a contaminant
but they would direct their cost recovery efforts to the
liable person as the person that was responsible for the
spill...
[Mr. Norton's cellphone was inadvertently disconnected.]
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked who submitted Amendment 1 and whether
the committee can add to it.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied all parties involved.
Number 1777
MR. NORTON continued. "Anyway, the issue here is liability both in
cost recovery and the obligations that are obligatory in the
statute to act responsibly to avoid incurring a liability for
someone taking the innocent land owner to defense and that's why I
support the version as it currently exists in the Senate version of
SB 110. I will reluctantly support the House Judiciary's version
if that's the only way it's going to go..." [Mr. Norton was
disconnected again.]
CHAIRMAN KOTT told Mr. Norton that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee has reviewed the amendment and has adopted it as part of
the package.
MR. NORTON continued. "If you've done that then so be it. I
actually like what was already there because - but we'll have to
revisit this I suppose at another date, but I like the way it was
originally wrote [written] because we defined 'relief' and it's an
issue that concerns every property owner in Alaska. I wanted the
liability directed only to the person that commits the act not just
somebody that has a deep pocket."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether adopting an amendment to
include that definition would work.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied no.
MR. NORTON added, "I don't mean to offend the Alaska Department of
Law but they're not exactly world-renowned for their legal
opinions."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the amendment and asked how can
there be a threatened release on something before an acquisition.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that there could be a barrel of
something with a hole at the top and nothing has leaked out yet.
Number 1996
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSSB 110 (JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so moved from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 219 - RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next item of business is HOUSE
BILL NO. 219, "An Act relating to the rule against perpetuities,
nonvested property interests, and powers of appointment; and
providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested a refresher from Mr. Winchell on
the rule of perpetuities.
Number 2088
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete
Kott; and Committee Aide, House Judiciary Standing Committee,
Alaska State Legislature, said one must have an interest that vests
within the lifetime. In this case, the trust must vest within the
lifetime of the beneficiary. He noted that there are caveats and
exceptions to the rules. Mr. Winchell said this allows charitable
lead trusts to occur. "They aren't an entity or a person," he
explained, "so it vests without a person's life, and then we're
allowing the abolition of the rule against perpetuities - which,
too, a growing minority of jurisdictions are doing - in order to
allow our jurisdiction to be a basically good forum, forum shopping
for estate planning purposes, where the abolition of the rule
against perpetuities -- that's where the bill stands."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed his understanding that the rule
against perpetuities had already been abolished in Alaska. [Other
members concurred.]
Number 2137
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, amid simultaneous discussion, made a
motion to move HB 219 from committee with individual
recommendations and any fiscal notes.
CHAIRMAN KOTT, noting that there was no objection, announced that
HB 219 was so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
[Some loose discussion followed about members' uncertainty about
abolishing the rule of perpetuities, the lack of testimony, and
that some members hadn't even heard the motion to move the bill.]
MR. WINCHELL clarified that the rule against perpetuities came into
being during the Age of Reason, when thinkers didn't like the idea
of monarchies or aristocracies which transferred property, through
primogeniture, to the eldest son all the way through. That became
a custom of setting up property trusts or just bequeathing property
in that direction. Mr. Winchell added, "So, when we came to
America, Thomas Jefferson and that crowd right there liked the idea
of dispersing the properties, and they just went ... on and on and
on and on. So, the rule against perpetuities came in that way.
It's an ancient, archaic term. I don't know what else I can say
about it. ... We want to be able to bequeath properties in the
fashion that we want to." [HB 219 was moved from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.]
CSSB 4(FIN) - OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is CS FOR SENATE
BILL NO. 4(FIN), "An Act relating to victims' rights; relating to
establishing an office of victims' rights; relating to compensation
of victims of violent crimes; relating to eligibility for a
permanent fund dividend for persons convicted of and incarcerated
for certain offenses; relating to notice of appropriations
concerning victims' rights; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency Rules, and Rule 501,
Alaska Rules of Evidence; and providing for an effective date."
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green,
Alaska State Legislature, noted that the committee substitute (CS)
was being drafted. The changes of the subcommittee can be
discussed without the CS.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that there are quite a few changes.
Number 2287
BRETT HUBER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Rick Halford, Alaska
State Legislature, informed the committee that it has before it the
Senate Judiciary Committee version which is what the subcommittee
version will look like. Mr. Huber commented that the subcommittee
probably spent most of its time determining where to put the
office. The forthcoming CS will place the office in the
legislative branch. He reviewed specific areas resulting from the
placement of the office back in the legislative branch which
include the nomination of the victims' advocate. The victims'
advocate would be nominated by a selection committee comprised of
three members of the House and three members of the Senate
appointed by their presiding officers, including one minority
member from each body. A two-thirds vote of a joint session to
confirm the victims' advocate would be required. The term of
office for the victims' advocate would be five years with a maximum
of three terms served. Each additional term would require the
two-thirds reappointment vote. If the advocate had to leave the
office during the term, the acting victims' advocate would have to
fulfill the remainder of the term which would go through an
appointment cycle. Mr. Huber pointed out that there is a removal
provision which, with a two-thirds vote, could remove the victims'
advocate for neglect of duty, misconduct, or disability to perform
the duties. Compensation is specified in the forthcoming CS.
There is a staffing delegation section as well as a section
describing the office and facilities which are made available in
the Legislative Affairs branch. There is also the budget process
which would go through Legislative Council. All those would be
additions that can be seen in the Senate Judiciary Committee
version.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI directed the committee to the removal
clause and inquired as to what was meant by "disability." She
understood an individual's "inability" to perform a job.
MR. HUBER deferred to the drafter who was on his way to the
hearing. He noted that it was taken from the ombudsman's statutes.
CHAIRMAN KOTT returned to appointment and the ability for an acting
advocate to complete the term of an advocate who has left office
for whatever reason.
MR. HUBER agreed. He explained that the victims' advocate must
name an acting advocate.
TAPE 99-68, SIDE B
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the acting advocate would finish the
remainder of the victims' advocate's term without legislative
confirmation.
MR. HUBER replied that is correct. In response to Representative
James, he noted that the acting advocate would be an attorney.
Number 0033
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that the subcommittee felt that at
least one attorney position is necessary, but this discussion is
regarding having an alternative victims' advocate. She assumed
that would be someone who would be working in the office which
would mean two attorneys.
MR. HUBER explained that the staffing levels envisioned in the
fiscal note from the Department of Public Safety, which is
identical to the previous fiscal note submitted by the Legislative
Affairs Agency, would have a victims' advocate and two additional
attorneys, one paralegal, and three secretaries.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to the meaning of the subcommittee
saying that at least one attorney was necessary for the victims'
advocate to be effective.
MR. HUBER noted that one of Chairman Kott's questions to the
subcommittee was regarding whether the victims' advocate needed to
be an attorney. He recommended that the question be directed to
the subcommittee chair, Representative Murkowski.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN informed the committee that originally, there
was the possibility of reducing the office to one location.
Currently, three locations are envisioned. He indicated that the
committee [subcommittee] felt that there is a critical mass to make
this work. In response to Representative James, Representative
Green stated that this is being funded from those losing their
permanent fund dividend.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that the funding is taken from
the Department of Corrections.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that the group that would be
involved has been expanded. "That delta between what was and what
is, that'll pay for it."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reiterated that the funding is taken from
the Department of Corrections. He emphasized that he had some real
problems with this advocate being in the legislature as well as the
consumer price index (CPI) clause in the legislation. The CPI used
is the Anchorage CPI which is only published annually.
MR. HUBER stated that provision does not actually apply to the
Office of Victims' Rights, but applies to the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board per that board's request. That addition was
made by Senator Donley in the Senate Finance Committee. He
explained that the amount allowed to be awarded is increased and
allowed the Violent Crimes Compensation Board, by regulation, to
index those increases annually, if they choose, with the Anchorage
CPI.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said his argument is the same; it is the
wrong index to use.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted another change in which the report is
not merely submitted annually, but also is available to the public.
Number 0245
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to why the subcommittee decided
to place this office within the legislature. He said that it seems
to inflate the legislature's budget with no benefit to the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that there were problems with
placing this office in the Department of Public Safety and the
Department of Law. This issue was probably more time consuming
than any other.
MR. HUBER informed the committee that he had talked with Ms.
Carpeneti, Department of Law, and Mr. Smith, Department of Public
Safety. Both Ms. Carpeneti and Mr. Smith indicated that it makes
better sense to place this office in an entity that can review the
functions of those agencies at an arm's length, as is the case with
the ombudsman.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented, laughingly, that this extra
money should be placed in the Ombudsman's Office. He pointed out
that the Public Defender and the Office of Public Advocacy are in
the Department of Administration in order to avoid conflict. This
is an administrative function which has nothing to do with the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN interjected that the discussion drifted around
the fact that this should be a technically trained person, an
attorney, who can be at an arm's length.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that it could have been put out to
bid to some nonprofits.
MR. HUBER acknowledged that was discussed in the House Judiciary
Subcommittee as well as the Senate Finance Committee. The Victims
for Justice group said that it would prefer a new office versus
money because they believed there is more assistance with an
office.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented, "Well, they know how to grow
organizationally and bureaucracy."
MR. HUBER noted that Representative Kerttula had suggested that
language requested by the Department of Law stating, "(c) The
victims' advocate may not advise, counsel, or advocate on behalf of
a victim in a way that would, (1) prevent or discourage a victim
from cooperating with law enforcement authorities in a criminal
investigation; (2) encourage a victim to withhold evidence from law
enforcement authorities in a criminal investigation;" should be
changed. She suggested that "with law enforcement authorities" be
deleted which provides broader discretion.
MR. HUBER said that he believed the forthcoming CS will include
language which reflects when the office was located in the
Department of Public Safety. During that time, the Office of
Victims' Rights was allowed to administer grants to nonprofit
victims' agencies. Administering of grants is an executive branch
function and therefore, that language in the forthcoming CS should
be eliminated. This language is located under the "Staff and
delegation" section of the Senate Judiciary CS. There is also
corresponding language under the lists of allowable uses of the
permanent fund ineligibility dollars which should also be
addressed.
The committee took an at-ease from 6:44 p.m. to 6:54 p.m.
Number 0520
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt HCS SB 4, Version K dated
5/12/99, as the working document before the committee. There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed the need to delete Section 4 in
its entirety or change the language to refer to the U.S. City
Averages CPI.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES preferred deletion of Section 4 in its
entirety.
MR. HUBER reiterated that the language refers to the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board. Mr. Huber said that the sponsor would not
object to removal of Section 4.
Number 0618
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to delete Section 4 in its entirety
in the Version K CS. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
MR. HUBER directed the committee to page 6, lines 24-25 regarding
the grant language where subsection (b) would need to be deleted as
well as paragraph (5) page 13, lines 21-22. Those are the sections
which allow the office of victims' rights to receive and administer
grants.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she so moved Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected and inquired as to why this is
necessary.
MR. HUBER explained that, generally, the administering of grants is
an executive branch function.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection to Amendment 2.
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0740
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HCS CSSB 4 as amended out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He announced that he could not
support this legislation on the floor. He removed his objection.
There being no objection, HCS CSSB 4(JUD) was reported out of
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved that the committee adjourn. There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|