Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/19/2002 02:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 2002
2:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 472
"An Act relating to persons who buy and sell secondhand articles
and to certain persons who lend money on secondhand articles."
- MOVED CSHB 472(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 499
"An Act relating to the sale, lease, exchange, or other
disposition of business property and assets."
- MOVED CSHB 499(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 271
"An Act relating to recovery of punitive damages resulting from
an aviation accident; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 489
"An Act relating to cruelty to animals."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 269
"An Act establishing employment protections for certain
employees in the aviation industry relating to safety issues."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 472
SHORT TITLE:PAWNBROKERS/SECONDHAND DEALERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GREEN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2315 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2315 (H) L&C, JUD
03/04/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/04/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/02 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/01/02 (H) Moved CSHB 472(L&C) Out of
Committee
04/01/02 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/02/02 2752 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 5NR 1AM
04/02/02 2752 (H) NR: MEYER, HAYES, KOTT,
HALCRO,
04/02/02 2752 (H) MURKOWSKI; AM: ROKEBERG
04/02/02 2753 (H) FN1: ZERO(DPS)
04/03/02 2788 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MCGUIRE
04/05/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/05/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/08/02 2840 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MEYER
04/10/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/10/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/02 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 499
SHORT TITLE:DISPOSITION OF BUSINESS ASSETS
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/27/02 2407 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/27/02 2407 (H) JUD
03/15/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/15/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/02 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/05/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/05/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(JUD)
04/17/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/17/02 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/02 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/02 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 271
SHORT TITLE:CAP ON AVIATION ACCIDENT PUNITIVE DAMAGES
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
05/04/01 1532 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/04/01 1532 (H) L&C, JUD
05/06/01 1617 (H) PRIME SPONSOR CHANGED
04/10/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/10/02 (H) Moved CSHB 271(L&C) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(L&C)
04/11/02 2881 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 2DP 2NR 3AM
04/11/02 2881 (H) DP: HAYES, HALCRO; NR:
CRAWFORD,
04/11/02 2881 (H) MURKOWSKI; AM: ROKEBERG,
MEYER, KOTT
04/11/02 2881 (H) FN1: ZERO(ADM)
04/11/02 2881 (H) FN2: ZERO(CED)
04/19/02 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 489
SHORT TITLE:CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CHENAULT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2319 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2319 (H) JUD
02/22/02 2370 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT
03/01/02 2450 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT
03/06/02 2497 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES, FOSTER
03/15/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/15/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/02 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/02 2564 (H) COSPONSOR(S): LANCASTER
03/20/02 2628 (H) COSPONSOR(S) REMOVED: JAMES
04/19/02 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
LAURA ACHEE, Staff
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 403
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Green, provided information regarding the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 472 and responded to questions.
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
House Judiciary Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions regarding the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 499.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW HALCRO
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: As chair of the subcommittee on aviation
insurance, presented HB 271, which was sponsored by the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, Staff
to Representative Andrew Halcro
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 271.
KIP KNUDSON, President
Alaska Air Carriers Association (AACA).
6160 Carl Brady Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
271 and responded to questions.
BOB LOHR, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED)
3601 C Street, Suite 1324
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5948
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
271.
SARAH McNAIR-GROVE, Actuary P/C
Central Office
Division of Insurance
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED)
PO Box 110805
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 271.
JOHN L. GEORGE
3328 Fritz Cove Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
271.
SHARALYN "SUE" WRIGHT, Staff
to Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 489 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Chenault.
ETHEL CHRISTENSEN, Director
Alaska Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)
549 West International Airport Road, SuiteB-2
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 489.
SHANNA ANDERSON; Animal Control Officer; Manager
Valdez Animal Shelter
City of Valdez
PO Box 307
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
489.
BILL GODEK, Chief Animal Control Officer
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Suite 200
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 489.
BRETT REID, Animal Control Assistant
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Suite 200
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 489.
SUE CARTER
PO Box 212
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 489.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 489 and
responded to questions.
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator/Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner - Juneau
Department of Corrections (DOC)
431 North Franklin Street, Suite 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the discussion
of HB 489.
MARIE RILEY, Staff
to Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 489 on
behalf of the sponsor, Representative Chenault.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-51, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Representatives
Rokeberg, Coghill, Meyer, and Berkowitz were present at the call
to order. Representatives James and Kookesh arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 472 - PAWNBROKERS/SECONDHAND DEALERS
Number 0037
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 472, "An Act relating to persons who buy and
sell secondhand articles and to certain persons who lend money
on secondhand articles." [Before the committee was CSHB
472(L&C).]
Number 0099
LAURA ACHEE, Staff to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, on behalf of Representative Green, said
that a proposed committee substitute contains the requirement
that any retailer who takes in an item with the intent of
selling it or holding it as collateral for a loan shall provide
a report biweekly to his/her local police agency. There is also
a requirement that pawnbrokers, but not secondhand dealers, hold
items for 30 days. A third change notes that the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) is responsible for establishing the form or
format of the report made to the local police agencies.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that the latter change is intended to
provide for a consistent method of communication between law
enforcement agencies.
Number 0191
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 472, version 22-LS1519\O, Bannister,
4/18/02, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version O
was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, referring to Section 1, asked what
would happen if the pawnbroker or secondhand dealer doesn't
record all the items listed, one of which is the eye color of
the person selling/pawning the item.
MS. ACHEE indicated that a person who is guilty of "knowingly"
violating [Section 1-3] of Version O would be subject to a class
A misdemeanor. She mentioned that the language used in Section
4, regarding that penalty, was recommended by the drafter.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned he'd received comments from
someone who had concerns about the 30-day holding period.
MS. ACHEE, after acknowledging that those concerns did come up a
lot, relayed that law enforcement's position is: What's the
point of having a reporting requirement if an item could be
taken in on one day and sold the next day. She noted that the
position of the business owners is that it costs them to hold
items. The compromise proposed by Version O requires only
pawnbrokers to hold items for 30 days, which is something they
already do with pawned items.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to Section 6, which contains
the language regarding the 30-day holding period. He pointed
out that are no exceptions to that holding period, even if law
enforcement were to acknowledge that a particular item was not a
stolen item.
MS. ACHEE said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that this could lead to an
inequitable situation because the pawnbrokers would be stuck
holding inventory for no legitimate purpose. "As I understand
[it], the purpose of this bill is to make sure that you're not
purveying stolen goods, and if you know that the goods aren't
stolen, what's the object of requiring them to hold it for 30
days?" he asked.
MS. ACHEE replied that the object would be to allow time for law
enforcement to correlate the reports of stolen goods with the
reports of received goods.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ posited: "So, on day 10, law
enforcement comes back and says 'This is totally legitimate
goods ...,' and yet the broker still has to hold it for an
additional 20 days."
Number 0452
MS. ACHEE said that unfortunately, that's not the way it usually
works. She opined that police departments would not be able to
clear an item in that short a period of time simply because they
would not yet have a record of stolen items. She noted that
under the existing Municipality of Anchorage ordinance,
pawnbrokers currently hold items for 30 days regardless of
whether the police have received a report of particular items
being stolen.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned that he, too, has concerns
regarding the requirement that items "purchased or acquired" be
held for 30 days. He noted that many [of these businesses] buy
[wholesale] merchandise for retail sale. He asked if Section 6
would apply to this sort of item as well.
MS. ACHEE said that at this time, the language in Section 6
would apply to all items. She offered that there is room to
specify that Section 6 only apply to items purchased from
individuals, which would exempt items purchased from other
dealers or licensed wholesalers. She said that another option
would be to "look directly at the 30-day provision". This
provision was modeled after Anchorage's municipal ordinance, but
other states use different holding requirements, ranging from 24
hours up to 30 days, she explained.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that his concern, rather than
being with the 30-day holding period itself, pertains to the
fact that the holding period would also apply to items purchased
wholesale.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised, then, that Representative
Coghill's concern pertains to pawnbrokers who might purchase
items at Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco"), for example,
and then resell those items for a slight markup; according to
the current language in Section 6, those pawnbrokers would have
to hold those items for 30 days before reselling them.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL confirmed that that is his concern.
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested decreasing the holding period.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ questioned whether doing so would serve
a legitimate purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said he agreed with Representative
Coghill. He opined that a distinction should be made between
items purchased wholesale and items purchased from individuals,
since the purpose of HB 472 is to assist law enforcement in
recovering stolen goods. There should be a distinction between
what the pawnbroker does as a pawnbroker and what he/she does as
a merchant, he added; it's not fair to have to hold items for 30
days if, acting as a merchant, one purchases items wholesale.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ added that such items might be
perishable.
Number 0742
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, which would change the language on page 3, line 29
to read: "shall hold pawned items purchased or acquired".
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that sometimes items [brought in by
individuals] are not "pawned"; sometimes the pawnbroker
purchases those items outright.
CHAIR ROKEBERG added that it is more likely that stolen goods
would be sold outright rather than pawned.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recounted that she'd had something stolen
from her, and when she went to [a pawnshop] three days later to
search for it, it had already been [sold].
Number 0853
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, after noting that he still has concern
about requiring items purchased wholesale to be held for 30
days, withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1.
CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that one option would be to delete
Section 6.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that one of the problems with the
30-day holding requirement in Section 6 is that it doesn't
provide for any exceptions for items that have "a chain of
legitimate custody" established.
Number 0939
CHAIR ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt a new Conceptual Amendment
1 to page 3 [line 29-30]: "shall hold a purchased or acquired
item for 30 days if purchased or acquired from an individual,
but not from a retail or wholesale business".
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she may have a conflict of interest.
Number 0995
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that there were no objections to the new
Conceptual Amendment 1. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether there is anything in HB
472 that would prohibit or encourage public access to the
information that pawnbrokers have. How does the public get at
this information?
MS. ACHEE said that that issue is not specifically addressed in
HB 472. She added that other states do have statutory
provisions that specifically state that for the purposes of the
Freedom of Information Act, "these are not considered public
records." In response to another question, she said that if
someone has something stolen, it is the responsibility of the
local law enforcement agency to search pawnbroker records.
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that [Section 3] says, "A pawnbroker
or secondhand dealer shall make all records required by this
chapter, whether entered by handwriting or in a computer,
available for inspection by a law enforcement officer at all
reasonable times". He added that according to his
understanding, this information is not available to the general
public.
MS. ACHEE relayed that the Anchorage Police Department does not
consider these records public.
Number 1133
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 472, version 22-LS1519\O, Bannister,
4/18/02, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There
being no objection, CSHB 472(JUD) was reported out of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 499 - DISPOSITION OF BUSINESS ASSETS
Number 1141
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be, HOUSE BILL NO. 499, "An Act relating to the sale, lease,
exchange, or other disposition of business property and assets."
[Before the committee was committee substitute (CS) for HB 499,
version 22-LS1490\S, Bannister, 4/5/02, which was adopted as a
work draft on 4/5/02.]
Number 1162
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 499, version 22-LS1490\B, Bannister,
4/19/02, as a work draft.
Number 1181
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for the purpose of discussion.
Number 1190
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg,
House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that Version B has been tailored to more specifically
address the issues raised by the Savage Arms, Inc. v. Western
Auto Supply Co. case. Version B specifically rejects the
"continuity of enterprise" theory, and places in statute the
generally accepted law - from the [American Law Institute's
Restatement (Third) of the Law of Torts ("Third Restatement of
Torts")] - regarding successor liability.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that [the provisions] of Version B are
retroactive.
MS. NOBREGA confirmed that.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said:
So what we're doing here is, by slimming this thing
down, we're overcoming some of the objections that
were raised by the trial attorneys as to the general
applicability (indisc.) other areas of contract law
and so forth that went further afield [and] might have
some unintended consequences we weren't ... [able to]
specifically identify at this juncture. And because
of the need for speed, I felt is was wise to take this
route. Also, because of the briefs provided by all
parties, I think that we're on ... very sound
foundation as to the applicability provisions in the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked for an explanation of why the
title was changed.
MS. NOBREGA said she had not requested a title change, and
surmised that the drafter must have decided to change the title.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Representative Berkowitz if he is concerned
that the new title is "too loose."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "Let me just put it this way:
I'm suspicious of titles at this time of year."
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that [the title] is a little too broad.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said: "It doesn't specify that what
we're doing now is a fairly narrow modification to the
"continuity of enterprise" exception to the doctrine of
successor liability."
Number 1316
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, to "tighten this title so tight that no blowtorch,
that no crowbar can get into it."
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that Version B must first be adopted as a
work draft.
Number 1339
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that Version B was before the
committee.
Number 1348
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ restated his motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1
was adopted.
Number 1362
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 499, version 22-LS1490\B, Bannister,
4/19/02, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHB 499(JUD) was reported out of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 271 - CAP ON AVIATION ACCIDENT PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Number 1389
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 271, "An Act relating to recovery of punitive
damages resulting from an aviation accident; and providing for
an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 271(L&C).]
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 2:24 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.
Number 1442
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 271, version 22-LS0741\L, Ford, 4/19/02,
as a work draft. There being no objection, Version L was before
the committee.
Number 1445
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW HALCRO, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the chair of the subcommittee on aviation insurance, said
that the concept of HB 271, which was sponsored by the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, originated last year. He
elaborated:
We've heard ... many stories about increasing
insurance premiums and the effect that that has had on
a state that really, seriously, depends on aviation.
As you know, many of our rural communities you can
only access by air.... The trend in the last five or
six years has become very alarming, and one that has
caused a number of aviation providers to go out of
business and communities that rely on vital air links
to suffer. This is a very difficult conversation to
have; ... as we all know, ... whenever you talk about
affecting somebody's right to sue for damages, I think
you need to be very careful, but I think in this case
it is well warranted and there still certainly are
avenues out there.
... We're all very aware of the fact that aviation in
this state is a very dangerous and risky business. I
believe the fact that we found out during our
subcommittee research was that there is one death
every nine days in the aviation industry.... It is
... just a very risky proposition, but one that is ...
really important to the success of this state and
certainly access to and from these communities. ...
We found out in our subcommittee [that] there [were]
... three areas where we could improve. One was
education for aviation companies; and combining
certain industry changes with educational programs
such as the [Five Star] Medallion Program [and] the
... Capstone Program, we can start to make some
inroads into safety in the aviation industry.
The second thing we discovered was the ... problem
where aviators are being forced to fly - feeling
pressure to fly. And we introduced a subsequent piece
of legislation - HB 269 - which actually at this point
in time we've kind of let sit for a while because in
our further discovery, there [are] enough protections
under OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health
Administration] Department of Labor standards to
provide whistleblower protection for airline employees
... and more particularly pilots. The third ... area
that we identified that could help this industry is
tort reform for "aviation insurance accidents." There
was one case, the Hageland case, where the insurance
policy was for an "X" amount per seat, there was an
unfortunate plane crash, and in subsequent settlements
the judge ruled that the per-seat limitation was not
the true exposure that the insurance company had.
Number 1617
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO continued:
Now, I would simply say to you ... that regardless of
what type of insurance business you're in, it's all
predicated on risk. And if you go into an
understanding - or the assigning of a policy - whereby
you ... are under the legal impression that you are
liable for "X" amount of dollars, and at the end of
the day you find out you're liable for "Y" or "Z," ...
I think it's understandable why they have pulled back.
And we have seen not only an increase - a tremendous
increase - in the amount of premiums being paid, but a
real lack of coverage to begin with.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that he is interested in pursuing, with the
insurance industry and the Division of Insurance, issues
regarding "per-seat-mile limitations," noting that he would like
to add "that" to the bill, if at all possible. He opined that
doing so would avoid some of the problems that surround "tort
reform, per se," by limiting the causes of action and how much
can be paid out. He noted that he has heard testimony in the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee regarding the [Five
Star] Medallion Program. He added:
In my conversations with you on this, and your staff,
it indicates that you're of the believe and of the
opinion that we cannot create any kind of an incentive
to grant any of these limitations to a [Five Star
Medallion Program] plan member even though it's a
[Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)] approved type
of a program for safety. Could you comment on that?
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO replied:
The [Five Star] Medallion Program was started years
ago, here in Alaska; as a matter of fact, Dick Harding
from [Peninsula Airways, Inc. ("Pen Air")] is really
one of the founders of this program and a real strong
advocate for it. And the [Five Star] Medallion
Program basically embraces ... specific areas in
aviation - your operation, maintenance, ... flight
safety techniques - and they come around and grade
you. And it's similar to a number of the chamber
programs, for instance, the "Green Star program,"
where you meet a criteria and you are awarded this
distinction.
Number 1747
The problem with interrelating what is a private
program, albeit sanctioned by the FAA, [is that] it is
a private program; and the thought that we are going
to base liability limits on a private program causes a
number of different headaches for the Department of
Law. And they did cite to us, in a number of
different cases, where this legally just would not
work, and even some hypothetical situations where you
could see that you could run into problems.
For instance, if I'm an air carrier and I think that I
have done more than enough to satisfy certain
"medallion level" criteria, and I am told that my
operation has not, ... certainly there's going to be
some confusion, there's going to be some
contradiction, and I think ... we just create work for
the court system with [regard] to this. I'd much
rather see us take an approach, as far as a public
policy standpoint, [of] just straight ahead.
Certainly, encourage those companies in this state to
participate and get involved with the [Five Star]
Medallion Program, but any cap of punitive damage or
any reduction in liability needs to stand clearly on
its face, instead of being tied to a program that
really has no governmental oversight or governmental
involvement.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "What assurances do you have
from the insurance industry that if this bill is enacted, rates
come down/coverage increases?"
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said:
We have had conversations; ... the bottom line answer
is that ... we do not have anything in writing from
insurance providers that said, "If you do this, rates
will come down." What we have found out in our
investigation of award settlements is that ... this is
one of those ... "silent but deadly" type areas as far
as insurance rates are concerned. What happens is
sometimes those that sue use the threat of punitive
damages to leverage a larger award, and usually those
awards are sealed and not public information.
So, in our discussions, in our having [Legislative
Legal and Research Services] do some investigating on
these types of accidents, ... we have found that ...
[the] influence is, as I said, in kind of a silent but
damaging way, where they are used as leverage [but]
not actually claimed on those punitive damages. And
by capping punitive damages, when these companies go
into these settlement talks, at least the insurance
carrier can eliminate one of these variables.
Number 1873
CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, Staff to Representative Andrew Halcro,
Alaska State Legislature, said:
To answer your question, ... I've talked with a number
insurance companies and I've talked with a number of
businesses that operate air carriers in Alaska, and
each one has said every time they enter into one of
these agreements - every time - a lawyer or a trial
lawyer will threaten with punitive damages. And just
the cost of defending the punitive damage case,
whether you have committed any egregious acts or not,
is huge.... The cost is so substantial that 99.9
percent of the time, these people would just rather
enter into a settlement for the compensatory damages,
and settle out at the insurance maximums. So, ... I
think what Representative Berkowitz probably really
wants is empirical evidence; we don't have it, the
courts aren't going to give it to us ....
MR. KNIGHT relayed that a representative from the Division of
Insurance has indicated that she is unable to distinguish
between premium costs and "torts," or whether there has been any
sort of correlation. Referring to a handout in members'
packets, he said that it "talks about the aviation industry and
how much is going out each year in direct losses incurred ...
and how much is earned in ... premiums." He also noted that
according to the Division of Insurance, "They don't have the
data ... to determine whether that was part of a settlement,
[or] whether that was just increased costs of insurance; they
just don't have the stuff broken down, so we really can't
distinguish with empirical data." He alledged:
Just to reiterate, every time these things go to a
court case, every time, punitive damages are
threatened. If I was a trial lawyer - and I think ...
Representative Berkowitz has probably been in a
courtroom - when you go to prosecute someone, and this
is a similar situation, ... you always threaten the
higher charges, hoping to get some sort of settlement
on a lesser charge. It saves you time, saves the
court time, and it saves everybody else ... some
money. So, it's usually how these people proceed.
Number 1982
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ countered:
First of all, you don't threaten what you cannot
prove. That's very bad practice, ... particularly in
a small bar like we have here; people sniff that out
pretty quickly.... So I would just reject that as a
premise, that people would seek punitive damages
without a grounding in the law that they have the
right to do so. But what we heard today on the
[House] floor ... is that the folks ... over at the
insurance companies could calculate whatever numbers
they plug in and [then] come up with a reason for
increasing premiums. And it would seem to me that the
state ought to have at it's disposal individuals who
have that kind of experience and can enter into their
calculator whatever formula is used and come up with
an answer to these questions.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he would agree that the Division of
Insurance works from the disadvantage of not having enough
information, and that that information is grouped together. For
example, in 1998, aviation insurance companies paid out a $1.65
for every $1 they took in, in premiums. So, that kind of
information is available at the Division of Insurance, he said,
but the more specific and particular information with regard to
suits and the correlation between "rights and payouts" is not
available to the division because most records pertaining to
awards and settlements are sealed by the courts. He added that
it would be very interesting to look at any correlation that
might exist.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said: "It seems to me that ... we're
focusing here on the punitive-damage aspect of it as a way of
driving insurance rates down, but you could also conceivably
reduce them by increasing the performance standards for pilots
and aviation companies. Is that correct too?"
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO replied:
By performance standards I would assume ... you mean
training and flight time requirements.... That is
something that is the purview of the Federal Aviation
Administration - certainly I don't believe one that
the state legislature has any purview over... To be
honest with you, ... the way we're trying to approach
this ... problem is, ... we're basically in the
position of being backseat drivers.... When you hear
testimony, you will see real Alaskans - small business
owners - that have had their going concern threatened
by ... these horrific increases in insurance premiums.
So ... I'm not quite sure how we get to the point
where we get all of this information.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "Just ... so the record's clear,
I'm very supportive of the idea of keeping as many people flying
as possible, but I just want to make sure that we're looking at
the problem completely."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES posited that HB 271 will reduce the
exposure to the insurance company, and although that may not
lower insurance rates, it will still be advantageous for
individual insureds. She acknowledged that there are a variety
of reasons that insurance rates go up. She offered that the
goal of HB 271 is not necessarily to reduce insurance rates;
rather, it is to keep rates from going higher and to reduce
exposure.
Number 2202
KIP KNUDSON, President, Alaska Air Carriers Association (AACA),
mentioned that his employer, Era Aviation, Inc. ("Era"), has a
position similar to the AACA regarding HB 271. He said:
From the industry's perspective, ... we're just as
frustrated ... that we can't put something on a piece
of paper from the insurance industry saying, "This
change will result in this decrease in rates." We are
currently, though, as an association, contacting the
underwriters and vice presidents of the underwriters
in New York and London, trying to get them to come and
at least provide some verbal testimony ... saying in
the affirmative, "Yes, this would have an impact on
rates" - a positive impact, I guess, from our
perspective. They're a little bit like herding cats,
though, unfortunately, so it's quite a business.
The empirical evidence you look at, the ... sum of the
evidence that we can refer to on this issue of
insurance and lawsuits, is that - and I've read this
legislative research and I'm not exactly sure if the
2,354 civil cases are all aviation-related or not -
but from the anecdotal evidence of our 90 members, no
case in the last three [years] has ever gone to a
jury. So there's obviously a great deal of pressure
not to go to jury, and, of course, then, we don't know
the outcome because it's all sealed, generally.
But that is one piece of empirical evidence we know
of, and the play of punitive damages - again,
anecdotal from 90 members - is, punitive [damages] are
threatened simultaneously with compensatory, in an
effort to get the insurance company to settle at the
liability limits, because most carriers in the state
are not insuring punitive damages - couldn't, even if
they tried. So the threat to a carrier, fully exposed
to the punitive side, is causing the carrier, then, to
go and negotiate with their insurance company: "Let's
get this out from under us and move on."
Number 2283
MR. KNUDSON continued:
Just in general, on the issue of insurance and
aviation services in the state, every air carrier has
watched their rates go through the roof over the last
decade, actually. And this is a big problem. I think
[the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
("9/11")] showed you a little more empirical evidence:
the air system shut down for three days, and on the
fourth day, pretty much every air carrier said, "We're
about to go bankrupt." So, it takes three days of no
income for them to be at the edge of the business
model. So, what happens when an air carrier's
insurance [rate] goes up 20 percent, 50 percent, 100
percent? All of these small carriers [that are] out
in rural Alaska are on the ragged edge of being able
to stay in business.
Two reasons for the crises ...: one, and the one
that's hardest for us to talk about, is loss
experience, and it's Alaska-specific. There are a lot
of airplanes crashing in this state, and Alaska is
generally considered as a special entity when insurers
look at the state. And, unfortunately, they look at
that unbelievably high accident rate, and that's just
sort of a general malaise in an insurer's head when
they come ... to underwriting carriers.
The second issue ... is ... the jury/settlement
experience in the state. Again, this is anecdotal,
but insurers say that Alaska is right up there as the
worst state in the union as far as settlements, and
part of it has to do with the law that doesn't allow
... the cases to be removed from certain
jurisdictions: If a plane crashes in Bethel, that's
where the case occurs and, thus - I guess - the
settlements or jury awards are quite a bit higher.
Number 2355
MR. KNUDSON went on to say:
What is the industry's response, then, to this crisis?
Well, you've heard about [the Five Star Medallion
Program] and this is something that's been hashed out
for years among the carriers; it's not something that
everybody's looking forward to, but everybody knows we
have to do it. [The Federal Aviation Association] has
very strict regulations about how to operate aircraft,
and they get more strict every year. And now the
industry is going to come in and add a higher level of
requirements on top of that, and it's a voluntary
program. It will make an impact on the loss
experience for carriers that are willing to dedicate
themselves to it.
The conundrum for the industry is that there's a great
deal of churning at the lower levels - the smaller
airplanes. Some person will say, "This is a great
industry; I want to get into it." They'll fly, they
won't meet the standards, they won't live up to the
higher expectations, they'll have problems, they'll go
out of business, [and] somebody else will jump right
back in. It's just over and over again - we see it -
there's a lot of churning in the smaller parts of the
industry. And they're the ones causing the accident
rates, in a lot of the cases. But it's different
carriers every year, because one's going bankrupt;
another one starts up, crashes, goes bankrupt; and
they just keep coming in. I don't know - something
about the industry is quite sexy, apparently.
TAPE 02-51, SIDE B
Number 2388
MR. KNUDSON, in conclusion, said that the AACA feels that HB 271
would, in the long term, go a long way towards smoothing out the
raises in insurance costs. He also mentioned that any effort to
tie any kind of punitive damage limit to participation in the
[Five Star Medallion Program] is very attractive to the AACA; by
doing so, there would be a true economic incentive for the
smaller carriers to follow the standards laid out in the [Five
Star Medallion Program].
CHAIR ROKEBERG said he agreed, adding that a legal nexus has to
be established. He asked: "Are you familiar with the Hageland
case and what occurred there as far as the different causes of
action exceeding the 'per-seat-mile limitation'?"
MR. KNUDSON said he only knew that that was the first time that
a "non-participant actually got their fingers into the money
pot." He clarified that by non-participant, he was referring to
someone who was not in the aircraft.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said:
It's a federal case that interpreted the actual real
estate policy or contract, and it allowed the 'per-
seat cap' to be breached ... on other causes of
action; so, that's one thing I think the committee's
going to look at if we can ... draft the statutory
contract language to limit that.... And in [regard]
to the amounts and the aircraft size and seating and
weight, have you had a chance to look at the CS?
MR. KNUDSON said he had, adding that although it may seem
bizarre to most people, those "dividing points" are fairly
consistent with FAA regulations, so from the standpoint of the
AACA, that is a fine division. What it will do, he explained,
is it will change the punitive cap based on the size of the
aircraft, which generally corresponds to the size of the
operator. Most small operators are not going to operate
anything over the first level indicated in HB 271; "95 percent
of the [AACA's] membership is going to fall under the first
category," he remarked.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked how many seats are in a [Douglas] DC-3.
MR. KNUDSON said 24 or 28.
CHAIR ROKEBERG inquired about a "conveyer."
MR. KNUDSON said 50, adding that Twin Otters are 19, and "Dash
8s" are 37. But most carriers in the state, he pointed out, are
19 seats or less. In response to further questions, he noted
that air carriers are held to a higher standard as evidenced by
the fact that although a DC-3 could carry 40 paratroopers with
all their equipment, air carriers are only allowed to carry "28
with cameras."
Number 2243
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that one of his concerns about
"this proposal" is that the current limit on punitive damages is
$500,000 or three times the amount of compensatory damages,
whichever is greater, and this doesn't seem like a lot more
money than is proposed in "the amendment in front of us." He
said, "I'm still a little perplexed as to how this relatively
small percentage change corresponds to a reduction of rates; it
seems that we ought to be looking ... at all the drivers, at
insurance costs, and we're not; we're just looking at one of the
drivers." He suggested that they should expand their scope and
be a little more comprehensive.
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that the committee is doing just that via
its discussions regarding the [the Five Star Medallion Program]
and possibly restricting causes of action via "contract
language" defining the "seat-limit cap." He mentioned that the
"cap of $500,000" in the Hageland case was breached.
MR. KNUDSON said that the industry would concur with
Representative Berkowitz in saying that the punitive cap should
be zero. He added, however, that he did not know that this is
realistic. The theoretical concept behind punitive is that if a
company is negligent, it should be made to pay to a point that
it damages its business plan, in order to end negligent business
practices. Unfortunately, he noted, it has turned into a
different tool in the settlement process; very few of these
cases end up showing gross negligence or negligence of any kind.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said he assumes that given the right set of
circumstances, three times compensatory damages could be
substantially higher than $500,000.
MR. KNUDSON said that in Era's case, it is, although for a lot
of the smaller air carriers, it is not.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Mr. Knudson what a typical policy is for
Era: "What do you carry per seat?"
MR. KNUDSON replied: "We carry well in excess of $1 million a
seat." He added, "We're a bit of a strange bird in Alaska
because we can actually go and get underwriting separate from
the Alaska experience." He confirmed that this is possible
because Era's parent company has greater financial strength and
has operations all over the world. A typical Alaska operator,
he noted, is completely at the whim [of insurance companies],
adding that many operators have only the statutory limit of
$150,000 per seat, which, he opined, is "an almost negligent
operational standard."
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that the director of the Division of
Insurance is available to answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether there is enough actuarial
information to calculate, with a reasonable degree of certainty,
what the impact on insurance rates would be if punitive damages
were reduced as proposed [by HB 271].
Number 2025
BOB LOHR, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Community & Economic Development (DCED), said he would prefer
that the division's actuary respond to that question. He added
that anecdotally, folks within the industry who are involved in
litigation have indicated to him their belief that "punitives
are probably undervalued in rates currently." As with the case
of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for example,
before that date, terrorism "was simply not a major rate-making
factor"; now, of course, it does have a significant effect on
"rate making" and availability of coverage. He pointed out that
to the extent that punitives are underrepresented -
underreflected - in rates currently, making the changes proposed
by HB 271 might have less of an effect on the rates than it
would on the availability of coverage. But in that regard, he
added, HB 271 would have an extremely significant effect because
"underwriters do not need to write the Alaska market"; thus, if,
on balance, underwriters feel that the risk is unacceptably
high, "we won't see them up here." To that extent, he opined,
HB 271 is an important step toward providing an incentive that
would bring insurance carriers back to the Alaska market.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what the total value of the
Alaska market is.
Number 1989
SARAH McNAIR-GROVE, Actuary P/C, Central Office, Division of
Insurance, Department of Community & Economic Development
(DCED), replied that it probably would be possible to make some
estimates, but the Division of Insurance does not have the
individual claim data with which to do that; instead, "it would
be an insurance company that would look at it." In addition,
she noted, since the Division of Insurance does not regulate
aviation rates, individual company rate filings that have
aggregates are not seen by the division. She remarked: "So,
could we do it? The answer is probably not. Could an insurer
do it? I believe they probably could make some estimates."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised, then, that the division
wouldn't have any ability to calculate what the amount of
coverage is in Alaska.
MS. McNAIR-GROVE, referring to the handout in members' packets,
said that in 2000, there were about $23 million worth of
premiums in Alaska.
CHAIR ROKEBERG, referring to what happened in the Hageland case,
said he would like the Division of Insurance and the Department
of Law to assist him in crafting statutory language that would
ensure that the "per-seat cap" is not breached. "We can't
really limit the number of causes of action," he noted, "but
what we want to do is be able to limit the awards to various
participants."
MR. LOHR remarked that he is familiar with the issue and had
reviewed the "case or cases involved," and opined that "that"
would be a very worthwhile endeavor. He said:
I do believe that the legislature, of course, can
provide guidance to the court, and I do believe the
supreme court was involved in certifying the question
in connection with one of those cases. In any case, I
think that the legislature could do a considerable
amount of damage control, so to speak, with respect to
the NIED claims, for example - negligent infliction of
emotional distress - and the unanticipated
consequences of that kind of court decision on the
costs and availability of coverage. I do think that
when insurers - insurance companies - end up paying
judgments that are substantially out of line with what
they thought they were going to be covering when they
wrote the policy, that is a serious public policy
problem, and it comes home to roost with respect to
withdrawal from the market and higher rates.
MR. LOHR, in conclusion, said he would be happy to help the
chairman draft appropriate language.
CHAIR ROKEBERG extended his request for assistance to Mr.
Knudson and to the insurance industry. He then specifically
asked Mr. George whether any of his clients could "shed some
light on this 'per-seat-mile type limitation.'"
Number 1794
JOHN L. GEORGE noted that he was not speaking on behalf of the
clients for whom he is a lobbyist. He mentioned that as a
former "risk manager" for the state and as former director of
the Division of Insurance, he has a fair understanding of the
aviation market, although he did not have direct contact with
"those companies."
MR. GEORGE said that in the case of aviation insurance, "you
really have to find an underwriter that's willing," who then
might just say, "Well, how much is worth to you," and then
charge according to whim. He mentioned that underwriters are
influenced by Civil Rule 82 [of the Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure] and various court cases, and, thus, might not
necessarily be willing to underwrite in Alaska, particularly
since other markets are more attractive. "These things, really,
are incremental in changing someone's attitude on their
willingness to participate," he remarked; "if you change five
things, you might ... change their perception 5 percent or 10
percent or 50 percent." With regard to just how much that
perception might change, however, he added that he did not think
it is possible, even by an underwriter, to "put a number on it".
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated that he is confused by this
seeming inability: "Every year, the underwriters ... write
bills to their clients, so if you say, 'If the facts were a
little bit different, what would the bill be?'" "I don't know
why it's so difficult to plug that [variable] in," he added.
MR. GEORGE replied:
As I say, there is no book they go to and say, "Ah,
your airplane's this, and your pilot's that, and
therefore your premium is this." It really is very
subjective how some of these rates are calculated.
And ... September 11 [2001] didn't affect Alaska at
all from a crash standpoint, but somebody said, "Oh,
geez, we lost a lot a lot of money; let's charge more
money."
Number 1682
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said:
But if I were to give you two side-by-side
hypotheticals, one that was the current conditions,
and one with the current conditions with one of these
tweaks - or more of these tweaks - ... I would think
that someone could give me two different quotes,
right?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Representative Berkowitz whether he
had his checkbook out.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, using that analogy, said, "The air
carriers in Alaska have their checkbooks out." He suggested
that it's a fair question to ask: "Here's one set of facts;
what's the rate here? Here's another set of facts; what's the
rate?" "I think we ought to be able to get an answer for it,"
he added.
CHAIR ROKEBERG posited that that is only one aspect of the issue
that must be addressed, the other aspect is that "insurance
underwriters are leaving the state," and thus the availability
of insurance is decreasing.
MR. KNIGHT noted that he posed Representative Berkowitz's
question to representatives of the insurance company, American
International Group, Inc. (AIG), and was told that they would
like to give him that actuarial data. Mr. Knight said: "They
have unequivocally told me that the rates will, if they don't go
down, they will stay at where they're at for at least some
time." He mentioned that according to an insurance company
representative from Ketchikan, rates may not necessarily go
down, but should maintain their current value. Rates shouldn't
go up any more if there is some sort of limitation on punitive
damages, surmised Mr. Knight. He added that as much he and
others would like the data pertaining to the calculation of
insurance rates, he is not convinced that they will ever get it.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that economists use a term
that means, "all other things being equal, what happens if you
change a variable." "All I'm asking for," he said, "is 'What
happens if I change this variable?'" He added that Mr. Knight
has given him the first glimmer of evidence that rates would
stay flat if one of the variables were changed, and surmised
that to mean that if nothing is changed, rates will go up. In
closing, he said: "So, How do we get there?... Somebody's got
a slide rule or a calculator or whatever it is they're using -
adding machine, I don't know, abacus, something - and things are
going up, and ... I'd like to know how that calculation takes
place."
Number 1544
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that HB 271 [Version L] would be held
over.
HB 489 - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Number 1540
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the last order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 489, "An Act relating to cruelty to animals."
Number 1502
SHARALYN "SUE" WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault,
Alaska State Legislature, said on behalf of Representative
Chenault, sponsor, that HB 489 increases the penalties for
animal cruelty. It staggers the penalties for a first and
second serious offense. Generally speaking, she noted, when
there is an offense, an animal control officer becomes involved,
adding that several such officers are available to testify.
Number 1474
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 489, version 22-LS1580\O, Luckhaupt,
4/18/02, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version O
was before the committee.
MS. WRIGHT referred to Section 2 of Version O, and explained
that a first-time offense would be charged as a misdemeanor, and
a second-time offense would be charged as a class C felony. She
noted that some discretionary penalties have been added as well.
She read from Version O:
... the court may (1) require a defendant convicted of
cruelty to animals to participate in psychological
counseling and treatment at the defendant's expense,
as the court determines to be appropriate; (2)
prohibit a defendant from owning or possessing an
animal for a period of not more than five years.
MS. WRIGHT offered her belief that [paragraphs] (1) and (2) can
be enforced through probationary orders/conditions from a judge.
She explained that HB 489 is event-driven:
In Sterling, in November, we [had] a lady from Texas
who has repeatedly - and this is her third offense -
taken too many dogs. And when I went out to her
property, I came upon a Bouvier that the only part of
that dog that wasn't frozen to the ground, that could
move, was its eyes. It was the most pathetic thing I
think I've ever seen. The [Alaska SPCA (Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)] rescued those
animals at a cost that they've had to absorb to the
tune of between [$40,000 and $50,000], and to the best
of my knowledge ... most of those dogs ... have found
homes....
We're here to address the situation that animal
cruelty needs to be [a] serious violation of the law.
It is a precursor to child abuse and domestic
violence. It's been pointed out that some of the
penalties for both of those two things aren't as
serious as what we're asking for in the bill today. I
wasn't aware of that until after we introduced the
bill, and the time was gone to introduce more
legislation for child abuse. Next year I promise that
my boss will work on child abuse [legislation]. And
with that, I understand that [Representative James]
may have an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that her proposed amendment is
applicable to Version O of HB 489.
Number 1313
ETHEL CHRISTENSEN, Director, Alaska Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), testified via teleconference in
support of HB 489. She said that she is in support of
strengthening the laws pertaining to this issue. She recounted
that the Alaska SPCA was involved in a 1981 case in which a
woman - Charlotte Fitzhugh (ph) - had over 40 dogs tied up on
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land at "mile 101 Glen Highway".
The Alaska SPCA rescued those dogs, although some did have to be
destroyed. Ms. Christensen relayed that this same individual
later created similar circumstances in the Fairbanks area, and
over 100 dogs had to be destroyed at that location in 1995
because they were so emaciated. Ms. Christensen stressed that
this individual, as well as others such as the woman in the
Sterling case - Carolyn Boughton - repeatedly create these
conditions. She indicated that whatever can be done to stop
this behavior would be very much appreciated because the Alaska
SPCA cannot continue to absorb the financial burden of such
large rescue operations.
Number 1200
SHANNA ANDERSON; Animal Control Officer; Manager, Valdez Animal
Shelter; City of Valdez, testified via teleconference. She
mentioned that she has been the manager of the animal shelter
for almost 13 years and is president of the Alaska Animal
Control Association. She said:
As [professionals] in the animal-welfare field, one of
our most important jobs is to protect the companion
animals in our community. Anyone who has worked in
this area for any length of time has experienced
firsthand acts of incredible cruelty and neglect to
animals (indisc.). In many cases, neglect is
ignorance on the part of the animal's owner, and can
be corrected with education on proper animal care.
When there are repeated offenses, and when the
animal's life is in immediate danger, then that
neglect becomes much more serious, and that is when
animal neglect becomes cruelty. Even in a small
community like Valdez, I placed 17 animals last year
in protective custody. Intentional cruelty or abuse
can encompass behaviors that range from knowingly
depriving an animal of food to torturing an animal.
There is strong evidence of the correlation between
animal abuse and other acts of violence. A child who
abuses animals often comes from a home where they or
another family member is being abused. Most serial
killers and mass murderers begin their acts of
violence as children by torturing and killing animals.
In cases of domestic violence, pets may be used as [a]
method to control a victim; abuse of a pet may be a
warning to the victim such as, "You are next." The
threat of harming the pets, or actual animal abuse,
may be used as a method of keeping the victim from
reporting to authorities the domestic or sexual abuse
they're experiencing. Many abused victims hesitate to
leave a violent situation for fear of what the
perpetrator may do to the pets they leave behind.
Acts of animal cruelty should never be taken lightly;
they are signs that the perpetrator may be involved in
other violent crimes. (Indisc.) acts of animal
cruelty are a threat to our communities.
MS. ANDERSON concluded:
As professionals, people in animal law enforcement
will use the law, such as the one being proposed, only
as a last resort. Educating and working with the pet
owners is always a first step. And sometimes much
more is needed to protect an animal and any future
animals that person may acquire. I ask that you take
animal cruelty [seriously] and help to strengthen the
existing laws. I also ask that you help make it
mandatory to report animal cruelty to proper
authorities. Many acts of cruelty are committed
behind closed doors and in backyards, areas that I do
not have access [to]; I rely heavily on the reports of
neighbors, relatives, veterinarians, and service
people to make me aware of possible abuse cases. With
mandatory reporting in effect, those who would be
afraid or feel uncomfortable to come forward would be
able to do so. Thank you.
Number 1020
BILL GODEK, Chief Animal Control Officer, City of Kenai,
testified via teleconference in support of HB 489. He simply
offered that it is really important to consider making repeat
offenses a felony and to allow the courts to order psychological
counseling and prohibit the offender from owning animals for a
period of up to five years.
Number 0979
BRETT REID, Animal Control Assistant, City of Kenai, testified
via teleconference. He said he concurred with previous
testimony. He opined that the most useful aspect of HB 489 is
the provision that allows the courts to order psychological
counseling. He said that in passive cruelty cases, he considers
this to be a form of mental illness known as "animal
collecting," which, he added, seems to be plaguing his
community. He noted that there has been some discussion in his
area about making a change to one of the domestic violence laws;
he pointed out, however, that animal abuse laws are much older
than child abuse laws. He indicated that it is not unusual for
individuals with abusive tendencies to first exhibit this
behavior towards animals. He encouraged members to support the
proposed changes [encompassed in HB 489] to the existing
statute.
Number 0925
SUE CARTER testified via teleconference in support of HB 489.
She said:
Unfortunately, Alaska now holds the distinction of
having the highest rate of abuse in the nation, not
only relative to people, but animals as well. This is
simply not tolerable to many of us who expect and wish
to enjoy a certain level of quality of life here in
Alaska. Animal abuse appears to be increasingly on
the rise, and some of the worst cases in recent times
[have] occurred here on the Kenai Peninsula. It
appears there will be no charges in the recent
Sterling rescue; the [Alaska] State Troopers advised
me that these persons most likely will be repeat
offenders due to the lack of effective animal cruelty
laws that provide appropriate punishment and perhaps
determent.
We should note that the state dogsled racing
association had made great strides in providing a
healthier and safer environment for their dogs. And
so that leaves the rest of us to work - to expect
responsible and appropriate requirements for shelter,
food, and care for all domestic animals in Alaska.
The first step, in my opinion, is to make stronger
animal cruelty laws and let those individuals who
cannot live within these structures know their actions
won't be tolerated by the Alaska legal system.... I
do thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak
in favor of HB 489. I've been a resident ... of
Alaska since 1966 and it appears that things are
getting worse rather than better, so I know you'll
help us, and I wish you all well in this legislative
session.
Number 0789
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said
that the DOL is in opposition to HB 489. She elaborated:
I have to oppose both the substantive law change and
the penalty change. In terms of the substantive law
change, the change to subsection (a)(2), I really
don't think this helps us prosecute animal cruelty
cases. It adds language that doesn't have a
definition, and it's hard to articulate what is the
minimal standard of care for an animal. And it also
adds language that is not only unclear, but will
require us to have expert testimony by including
"humane veterinary care".... Terms like "minimal
standard of care" and "humane veterinary care" are
really difficult for prosecutors to deal with. We
would have to have a veterinarian ... testify in terms
of what is humane veterinary care in our case in
chief. This doesn't help us, and I think the sponsor
wants to help us prosecute animal cruelty cases. And
I don't think these changes do so.
The second issue I'd like to address is the felony.
And we oppose it just on a proportionality argument.
It was in this very room in the late '70s that the
criminal-code revisors discussed this issue, ... and
it was finally decided not to have the felony-level
cruelty-to-animals crime in our state. And I know
things have changed; we try and maintain some
semblance of proportionality for ... the seriousness
of offenses - what penalty they will be. And we're
not always perfect, and we don't always ... [agree] on
what is proportional. But in this state, a domestic
violence crime is [a class] A misdemeanor - [as] ...
is the second [offense] ... - and it's hard for me to
support a cruelty to animals provision that makes that
crime a [class] C felony, under those circumstances.
Number 0651
MS. CARPENETI continued:
I did have a suggestion, however; ... and this is
something I discussed today with Dwayne McConnell, who
is our district attorney for the Kenai Peninsula. As
a matter of fact, just for a correction, I think [in]
the Sterling case there have been charges filed;
there's eight or nine counts in that case that have
been charged. I don't think the defendant has been
found yet or served with the charges, but there have
been charges filed. I would just suggest for your
consideration the possibility of saying in the statute
that harm to each individual animal can be an
individual charge against a defendant. Generally this
is true. I know in one of the Kenai cases, [however],
the judge combined 40 to 50 charges into one charge; I
think he was incorrect because statute does say "an
animal", although the title says "Cruelty to animals".
But it might be useful to make it clear that each
animal that is mistreated should be the object of a
separate misdemeanor charge, and maybe have some
provision for sentencing that for every animal that's
mistreated there should be some consecutive jail
time.... That's a possibility for you to consider - I
don't know whether that is of interest to you - but we
do think that it is simply not good public policy to
make cruelty to animals a felony, when serious crimes
to people are not.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that the Alaska Farm Bureau (AFB) also
opposes HB 489; thus the DOL is not alone in its opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how many class A misdemeanor
convictions have taken the full penalty of the law. He remarked
that if the current penalties haven't been fully applied, he
would be reluctant to increase those penalties.
MS. CARPENETI said that she would research the issue and provide
the committee with that information. She said that in one of
the cases from the Kenai area, a woman had horses, dogs, birds,
and cats, and had sort of just turned her house over to all of
them. This woman, who also had a drug problem, was sentenced to
three to six years on the underlying case, although drug charges
were also involved.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she, too, is concerned about
increasing penalties to the felony level. She mentioned that
her proposed amendment might make some of the farmers a little
happier.
Number 0402
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator/Legislative Liaison, Office
of the Commissioner - Juneau, Department of Corrections (DOC),
explained that when she compiles fiscal notes for legislation,
she usually consults with the DOL to try to determine "what is
the practice and how many convictions there have been regarding
the legislation." After acknowledging that in some years there
may be significantly more convictions than in other years, she
relayed that the DOL reported to her that during the year 2000,
there were eight people who were convicted of cruelty to
animals, with that being the most serious charge. In other
words, there may have been other convictions with more serious
charges involved, but only eight wherein the most serious charge
was cruelty to animals, and for those, the average sentence was
about ten days.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how many of those individuals
were repeat offenders.
MS. BROWER said she did not know the answer to that question.
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested making a first offense lower than a
class A misdemeanor, and then having a second offense be a class
A misdemeanor. He asked whether that would alleviate concerns
regarding proportionality.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he would object to such a change.
"A first offense just means that it's the first time you got
somebody; [a] first offense could be a pretty heinous act of
cruelty," he noted.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said he did not disagree, but indicated concern
that there have only been eight convictions with only ten days
in jail. "That's like a slap on the hand," he added.
Number 0212
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that there is a wide degree of
what constitutes cruelty to animals, and although he has not
looked at those eight cases, he said his hunch would be that a
number of them were probably in lieu of other charges. He
recounted that he'd had a case wherein a person had hung a dog
for a while, and had had another case wherein a person had tried
to dispatch a number of puppies with a hammer and with a 22-
caliber firearm and was unsuccessful with much of the litter.
He said that those were "high misdemeanors."
MS. CARPENETI said that although Chair Rokeberg's suggestion
would address some of the proportionality concerns, she would
have to agree with Representative Berkowitz that "it doesn't
hurt to have this possibility here and have a class A
misdemeanor - it seems to have been working - and leave the
particular sentences to the judge."
CHAIR ROKEBERG indicated that he is not sure it has been
working, or else HB 489 would not be before them.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he is hearing that there are
two problems. The first is the "problems of proof with the
existing statute." The second is the [propensity] to
consolidate multiple cases into a single count, which, he added,
might not always be appropriate.
MS. CARPENETI recalled that in the case of the woman with the
drug problem, "we argued against the ... decision to consolidate
it into one charge; we wanted them to be charged in separate
counts so that the judge ... [would have] the opportunity to
impose a sentence for each one, which is what he or she should
do." Hence her suggestion that the statute specify that each
instance in which an animal is abused be a separate case and
subject to some kind of consecutive sentence. She indicated
that she is not aware that there are problems with the current
statute, nor has Mr. McConnell informed her of any specific
problems with it.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that over the past few years,
others have tried to alter the existing statute, among them
Representative Ben Grussendorf. Representative Berkowitz again
mentioned "proof problems."
CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that the statute regarding cruelty to
animals was recently changed.
MS. CARPENETI added that that change occurred in 1998, and
entailed the addition of AS 11.61.140(a)(2), which pertains to
treating an animal with criminal negligence.
TAPE 02-52, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he is envisioning having to bring
into the more remote communities an expert witness who could
testify what the minimal standard of care is or what humane
veterinary care is, pointing out that according to his
experiences in the criminal system - as both prosecutor and
defense attorney - those cases fell through the cracks because
they became prohibitively expensive to prosecute. "You are not
going to fly experts out to Sand Point to work on a case ...;
the more striped down the language is, the better a case you can
make for a prosecution," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, at the request of Chair Rokeberg, turned
to her proposed amendment, hereafter called Amendment 1, which
read:
Page 1, line 8, following "care":
Insert ", that conforms to accepted animal
husbandry practices"
Page 1, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 11.61.140(b) is amended to read:
(b) It is a defense to a prosecution under
(1) (a)(1) [OR (2)] of this section that the
conduct of the defendant
(A) [(1)] conformed to accepted veterinary
or animal husbandry practice;
(B) [(2)] was part of scientific research
governed by accepted standards;
(C) [(3)] was necessarily incident to
lawful hunting or trapping activities; or
(D) [(4)] conformed to professionally
accepted training and disciplinary methods; or
(2) (a)(2) of this section that the conduct
of the defendant
(A) conformed to accepted veterinary
practice;
(B) was part of scientific research
governed by accepted standards;
(C) was necessarily incident to lawful
hunting or trapping activities; or
(D) conformed to professionally accepted
training and disciplinary methods."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Number 0077
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said Amendment 1 ensures that HB 489 did
not apply to accepted animal husbandry practices, and addresses
the conduct of the defendant. She mentioned that the
agricultural community has concerns anytime there is talk about
altering the cruelty to animal statutes; they don't want to "get
caught in the trap."
MS. BROWER mentioned that some people don't think that dog
mushing practices are humane, and asked whether Amendment 1
would give protection to dog mushing practices.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, in response, read portions of lines 9-16
of Amendment 1.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked where dog mushing fits in.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she thought it had been
included.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the language in
subsection (b) of [Amendment 1] is already in statute, noting
that he is a little confused as to what [Amendment 1] adds.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said: "It puts the identification of the
accepted animal husbandry practices up where it is part of the
charge as opposed to part of the defense."
MS. CARPENETI said she has to express concern "about that: ...
I think that this bill will make it harder for us to prove,
beyond a reasonable doubt, animal cruelty."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that according to her understanding,
that's absolutely true. She indicated that she wanted to ensure
that it be determined in the beginning that individuals are
guilty of "this" before they have to defend themselves. She
said that "this puts the burden on the prosecution, as opposed
to the defense."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that as practical matter, when a
crime is being charged, if there is a defense that the
prosecutor is able to perceive, he/she cannot ethically proceed;
"one of the ethical requirements before you can charge is that
you have to believe that you can get beyond a reasonable doubt,
and if you have a reason to think that one of the defenses is
applicable, you can't get beyond a reasonable doubt."
MS. CARPENETI added: "And I will note that these are defenses,
so the state has to disprove them beyond a reasonable doubt in
order to get a [conviction]."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that regardless of whether Amendment 1
gets adopted, she wanted to ensure that people engaged in valid
activities don't get challenged.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER remarked that Amendment 1 appears to take
HB 489 in a completely different direction.
Number 0442
MARIE RILEY, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, said that she has done considerable
research on animal cruelty legislation. She pointed out that
even before a case gets to the stage of prosecution, the
responding animal control officer and [Alaska] State Trooper
have already determined the severity of the situation. She said
that she is referring to situations of animal cruelty such that
it endangers or kills animals; intentionally causes pain,
suffering, or death; and could include neglecting to provide
food, water, or shelter. In all instances, the animal suffers,
and in some cases, clearly the perpetrator means to cause harm.
MS. RILEY said that the types of animal cruelty that HB 489 is
attempting to address are not simply situations in which someone
forgot to feed the dog. She mentioned that when animal control
officers respond to complaints, they don't just go out once;
they go out and make every effort to educate the owner so that
he/she can take care of the problem. She reiterated that HB 489
is intended to address severe cases of animal cruelty - blatant
animal cruelty.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked about the "criminal negligence" standard
referred to in Section 1(a)(2).
MS. CARPENETI explained that criminal negligence is the lowest
standard of culpable mental state, and that this language was
added to the current statute in 1998.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned that it made prosecution
easier. Prior to that language addition, he noted, the statute
only said, "knowingly inflicts severe physical pain or prolonged
suffering on an animal", which is very difficult to show. He
pointed out that one can't ask the animal, "Did that hurt you
for a long period of time?" He asked the sponsor's staff
whether they'd had a chance to see how the "model penal code"
addresses animal cruelty.
Number 0633
MS. WRIGHT replied:
There's a couple of things. First of all, we have a
state veterinarian that takes care of these issues,
that goes in and determines some of these cruelty-to-
animals [issues]. Thirty-three other states have
provisions for penalties; Alaska is sadly lagging in
their penalty for felonies. The model law is written
by the "humane society of America," and we are far
behind that. The models that we used are from
Nebraska, Michigan, Washington, Iowa - everywhere; ...
we've looked at every state. Basically, there are
thirty-three states that have provisions for felony
punishments in their animal cruelty law.
As far as the case ... in Sterling, I talked to Mr.
Wolfe from the Kenai prosecutor's office, [and] there
have been ... nine charges ... filed. Ms. Boughton,
the perpetrator in this crime, has been in court three
times since she was charged, and we have failed to
serve her with a summons to appear on animal cruelty.
When I call the District Attorneys office, it's almost
like, "Oh God, another call about animal cruelty; what
about kids?" And that's not what we're here to
address. I'm really sorry kids get abused; I don't
like it, ... but the fact of the matter is, is that we
need to address animal cruelty in Alaska. We are
behind model law in any size, shape, or form.
MS. WRIGHT mentioned that she has provided the committee with
copies of the information gathered by Legislative Legal and
Research Services, as well as a "partial petition" from
"hundreds of people" that really want to see this legislation
[adopted]. She indicated that the perpetrator in the Sterling
case, having created similar situations two prior times, is
currently looking for another piece of property upon which to
create the same conditions. Ms. Wright relayed that about a
month ago, there was a man who drug his dog behind his truck for
eight or ten miles, and the dog had to be destroyed; this man
has been charged and served, but Ms. Boughton, who had between
40 and 60 dogs, has not been served even though she has appeared
in court twice.
Number 0818
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that passage of HB 489 will
not affect the charging decision in the Sterling case. He said
that in order to correct the failure to charge, he would need to
know whether there is some obvious reason why "they're" unable
to pursue that case.
MS. WRIGHT indicated her belief that there isn't an incentive to
pursue the case. "We had to encourage prosecution of this
case," she explained; law enforcement agreed to take the dogs
and turn them over to the Alaska SPCA, but wanted to keep the
case quiet. Members of the Kenai community, however, wouldn't
stand for it. "This was a serious matter, ... these animals
were locked in a bus with no food, no water; they were laying in
feces - frozen feces," she stated, and both she and the trooper
were physically ill after seeing the conditions. "And she's
going to do it again," warned Ms. Wright.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked why the sponsor didn't take the tack of
establishing an aggravated offense that could be charged as a
felony - for example, aggravated animal cruelty - rather than
addressing a second offense as is done in HB 489.
MS. WRIGHT said: "We weren't advised that we could do that."
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that this is what Maine and Minnesota did.
MS. WRIGHT said: "Our [Legislative Legal and Research Services]
didn't like those terms; the only options that we were given
were the class A misdemeanor and then the [class] C felony."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked Ms. Wright to comment on Amendment 1.
MS. WRIGHT opined that it is a fine amendment and helps define
what the qualities of care are.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that a class A misdemeanor can
carry a $5,000 fine. He asked whether there is any data
regarding how the class A misdemeanor fine has been applied.
MS. WRIGHT said she did not have that data on hand, adding that
the animal cruelty laws in Alaska are very difficult to
prosecute. She noted that in the previously mentioned "horse
case," she knew the woman and knew that numerous complaints had
been made, but [law enforcement] did nothing until the situation
was so bad that there were animals laying dead in piles.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that before he would be willing
to increase the penalties, he would like some kind of proof that
the current penalties are being applied but are still not
sufficient to deter the behavior.
Number 1073
MS. WRIGHT said:
One of the most important features of this bill is
recognizing that there is a problem, and ordering
psychological counseling. Every ... mass murderer
that we've done research on, including Robert Hansen
from Anchorage, was guilty of animal cruelty as a
child; Jeffrey Dahmer was guilty of animal cruelty as
a child. I think what our Department of Law needs to
do is be a little bit more aggressive in prosecuting
some of these cases. There were no charges filed at
first in Ms. Boughton's case until [there was] outcry
from the community.
... I had difficulty even getting through to someone
to confirm the charges, and then trying to find out
why she hadn't been served yet when I know where she's
at - I have given them the address. Why hasn't she
been served? I don't know. There's no aggressive
[prosecution]. What's really frightening to me is
that she now has the care of a child, and if we're not
going to stop animal cruelty, what is she going to do
with that child?
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that he has concerns about
making something a felony when the state isn't even bothering to
prosecute at the misdemeanor level and make use of the those
penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented:
We have crushed the [Alaska State] Troopers' budget,
we have crushed the prosecutor's budget, we have
crushed the court budget, and ... the problem is
[that] when folks are looking at what [you're] going
to prosecute - are you going to go after domestic
violence and major felony assault, or are you going to
do an animal cruelty case - it's very tough to make
that decision, but you're going to go for [cases
involving] people. And that's the situation that
they're in; those offices are so overloaded down
there. And so you want to know about cutting the
budget? This is one of the consequences of cutting
the budget: ... these kind of cases don't get the
attention they deserve.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked for input regarding what the committee
should do to address the issues raised by HB 489.
Number 1257
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that first the goal of the legislation
ought to be determined: "Is it to punish these people that are
doing this? Is it to save the animals? Is it [to] stop it from
happening again?... There's all those different kind of
approaches as to how you deal with it." She said that
Representative Berkowitz is right; "every time we put another
law on the book, it costs us more money," as does putting more
people in prison. There is a cost associated with everything,
she noted, and people have to be willing to pay the cost
associated with a desired goal. She suggested that there ought
to be a better description of what the crime is; to just list
certain activities as being acceptable and then going after
"whatever is leftover" is not a good solution. She also
mentioned that even if HB 489 becomes law, if no one is
prosecuted, then it is questionable whether anything has really
been gained.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, referring to page 2 [paragraphs (1)
and (2)], said it seems to him that a court ought to be able to
take those actions currently. He asked Ms. Carpeneti if that is
accurate.
MS. CARPENETI opined that the court could do so, but noted that
it doesn't hurt to "say it again, under these circumstances,"
nor would it hurt to say that each animal can be "a separate
charge" requiring some consecutive time in jail for every animal
that is abused. She offered that this last suggestion is a way
of accomplishing the sponsor's goals without having to go to a
felony. She indicated that merely combining many instances of
abuse into one charge, as the judge did in one of the Kenai
cases, is problematic.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ proposed:
Deleting "provide the minimal standard of" on lines 7
and 8 - ... the new language ... [in paragraph] (2),
because I think that makes it more difficult to
prosecute the cases. I understand the intent, but I
think the practical consequences are adverse to the
intent. In fact, I would just ... eliminate the
changes in [paragraph] (2). I understand the intent,
but [you've] got to go in and prove each one of these
elements, and that compounds the case. For the sake
of moving this thing along ... to [the House Finance
Committee], I would remove the felony provision ...
[for] now. I would then ... [move] the elements ...
[found at the] top of ... page 2; I think [they] more
properly belong in Title 12 - I don't know what the
appropriate section is there, but Title 12 is the
sentencing section. I would raise those amendments,
suggest those amendments - conceptually - and then I'd
be willing to move the bill.
Number 1396
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH suggested putting Representative
Berkowitz's conceptual amendments into a committee substitute
(CS), which the committee could then review before moving out.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether the committee wanted to include Ms.
Carpeneti's suggestion regarding multiple charges.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated that he would like that
included.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked weather the CS should also include Section
3, which addresses the duty to report.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated that he would like to see
that provision included as well.
[HB 489 was held over for the purpose of developing a committee
substitute (CS).]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1442
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|