03/11/2011 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB14 | |
| HB127 | |
| HB76 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 11, 2011
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 14
"An Act authorizing state agencies to pay private legal fees and
costs incurred by persons exonerated of alleged Alaska Executive
Branch Ethics Act violations; allowing certain public officers
and former public officers to accept state payments to offset
private legal fees and costs related to defending against an
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act complaint; and creating
certain exceptions to Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act
limitations on the use of state resources to provide or pay for
transportation of spouses and children of the governor and the
lieutenant governor."
- MOVED CSHB 14(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 127
"An Act relating to the crimes of stalking, online enticement of
a minor, unlawful exploitation of a minor, endangering the
welfare of a child, sending an explicit image of a minor,
harassment, distribution of indecent material to minors, and
misconduct involving confidential information; relating to
probation; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 127(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 76
"An Act relating to costs and fees for stalking and sexual
assault protective orders."
- MOVED HB 76 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 14
SHORT TITLE: EXEC ETHICS: LEGAL FEES/FAMILY TRAVEL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GRUENBERG
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/25/11 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/25/11 (H) Heard & Held
01/25/11 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/01/11 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/01/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/01/11 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/02/11 (H) STA RPT 3DP 2NR 1AM
02/02/11 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, SEATON, PETERSEN
02/02/11 (H) NR: JOHANSEN, LYNN
02/02/11 (H) AM: P.WILSON
03/11/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 127
SHORT TITLE: CRIMES INVOLVING MINORS/STALKING/INFO
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/26/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/11 (H) JUD, FIN
02/07/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/07/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/07/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/09/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/09/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/09/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/11/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/11/11 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/23/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/23/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/25/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/25/11 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/28/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/28/11 (H) Heard & Held; Assigned to a
Subcommittee
02/28/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/04/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/04/11 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/08/11 (H) JUD AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 120
03/08/11 (H) Subcommittee Meeting
03/11/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 76
SHORT TITLE: STALKING/SEXUAL ASSAULT PROTECTIVE ORDERS
SPONSOR(S): HOLMES
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/14/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) JUD, FIN
03/07/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/07/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/11/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
GRETCHEN STAFT, Staff
Representative Max Gruenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 14 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Gruenberg.
JUDY BOCKMAN, Assistant Attorney General
State Ethics Attorney
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 14.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of proposed amendments to HB 127,
Version M.
GRETCHEN STAFT, Staff
Representative Max Gruenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 127, Version M,
explained Amendment 4.
TONY NEWMAN, Social Services Program Officer
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
Amendment 4 to HB 127, Version M.
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Assistant Revisor
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as the drafter, offered his belief
that HB 76 would not effect a court rule change.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:34 PM
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Gatto, Thompson,
Gruenberg, Lynn, and Keller were present at the call to order.
Representative Pruitt arrived as the meeting was in progress.
Representative Holmes was excused.
HB 14 - EXEC ETHICS: LEGAL FEES/FAMILY TRAVEL
1:06:27 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 14, "An Act authorizing state agencies to pay
private legal fees and costs incurred by persons exonerated of
alleged Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act violations; allowing
certain public officers and former public officers to accept
state payments to offset private legal fees and costs related to
defending against an Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act
complaint; and creating certain exceptions to Alaska Executive
Branch Ethics Act limitations on the use of state resources to
provide or pay for transportation of spouses and children of the
governor and the lieutenant governor."
1:07:11 PM
GRETCHEN STAFT, Staff, Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Gruenberg, explained that HB 14 would set forth in statute the
substance of the administration's recently-enacted regulations
establishing standards for the reimbursement of legal fees and
costs for exonerated executive branch employees accused of
ethical violations, and for the payment of certain travel
expenses for the families - spouse and children - of the
governor and lieutenant governor. Placing these standards in
statute rather than just in regulations would address concerns
that the regulations were enacted outside the scope of the
administration's authority, and would remove any appearance of
impropriety - that the executive branch created regulations that
would specifically benefit the executive branch. However, the
regulations and HB 14 differ in two ways. Under the
regulations, only the travel expenses of minor children could be
reimbursed, whereas under the bill, the travel expenses of any
dependent child - including, for example, a mentally or
physically disabled child - could be reimbursed even if he/she
were not still a minor; and under the regulations, the legal
fees and costs could be reimbursed before the executive branch
employee was exonerated, whereas under the bill, reimbursement
couldn't occur until after he/she was exonerated. She relayed
that the sponsor considers this latter difference to be a better
policy choice and safer for the State.
CHAIR GATTO observed that they wouldn't want to have paid the
legal fees and costs of someone who was never exonerated.
MS. STAFT concurred.
1:11:02 PM
MS. STAFT then went on to explain that specifically, Section 1
of HB 14 - in addition to making a minor stylistic change in AS
39.52.120(b)(6) to the term, "for partisan political purposes" -
would delete the definition of that term from that paragraph.
That definition [along with stylistic changes] would then be
included in Section 3's proposed AS 39.52.120(h). Section 2
would make a similar stylistic change to AS 39.52.120(f).
Section 3 would add two new paragraphs to AS 39.52.120:
proposed paragraph (g), and, again, proposed paragraph (h);
specifically, proposed paragraph (g) would authorize the use of
state resources to pay the travel costs of the spouse and
children of the governor or lieutenant governor to an event that
meets certain criteria. Under those criteria, the event cannot
have a partisan political purpose, and must be of benefit to the
state, as enumerated in proposed AS 39.52.120(g)(2)(A)-(D).
MS. STAFT, in response to a question, paraphrased Section 3's
proposed definition of the term, "partisan political purpose",
which read:
(h) In this section, "partisan political purpose"
(1) means a purpose intended to differentially
benefit or harm a
(A) candidate or potential candidate for
elective office; or
(B) political party or group;
(2) does not include a purpose intended to
benefit the public interest at large through the
normal performance of official duties.
MS. STAFT offered her understanding that this definition has
been interpreted clearly in the past.
1:13:48 PM
MS. STAFT, in response to comments and further questions,
paraphrased a portion of Section 3's proposed subsection
(g)(2)(A)-(D) to illustrate that under certain circumstances, a
physically or mentally disabled family member's travel costs
could be paid by the State; that proposed paragraph (2) reads:
(2) the person's attendance is a benefit to the state;
under this paragraph, a benefit to the state is
presumed when
(A) the person's attendance at the event is
required for official action of the state;
(B) the event is state-sponsored and the person's
attendance has been customary at similar events;
(C) the person is attending as an officially
designated representative of the state; or
(D) the person is invited by the sponsor of the
event before the transportation occurs, the event is
related to issues important to the state, the governor
or lieutenant governor attends, and
(i) the event is a family or youth event at
which the person's attendance is particularly
appropriate; or
(ii) the invitation and the person's
attendance have been customary for similar events.
MS. STAFT added that the sponsor thought it was fair to pay the
travel costs of a governor or lieutenant governor's mentally or
physically disabled dependent child regardless of his/her age,
and predicted that such probably wouldn't occur very often.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a comment, and speaking
as the sponsor of HB 14, pointed out that the aforementioned
regulations already include a provision authorizing the payment
of a governor or lieutenant governor's minor child's travel
costs to certain events, adding that he felt such should also be
authorized for a disabled dependent child, otherwise the
governor or lieutenant governor, as a parent attempting to
conduct state business, could be put in a very difficult
position. He, too, predicted that this probably wouldn't occur
very often, particularly if the governor or lieutenant
governor's child is severely physically disabled.
1:18:15 PM
MS. STAFT went on to explain that Section 4 - proposed AS
39.52.470 - addresses the payment of legal fees and costs for an
exonerated executive branch employees accused of ethical
violations. Again, the difference between the aforementioned
regulations and the bill is that under the regulations, the
legal fees and costs could be paid before the executive branch
employee is exonerated, whereas under the bill, payment couldn't
occur until after he/she is exonerated, thereby precluding the
need for the State to recoup its payments in the event that the
executive branch employee is never exonerated. In response to
comments and questions, she pointed out that the language of
proposed AS 39.52.470(e)(2) stipulates that only the reasonable
and necessarily-incurred fees and costs for private legal
representation could be reimbursed by the State. She noted that
Rule 82 of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure outlines a lot of
the various factors the court would consider in determining
whether fees and costs were indeed reasonable and necessarily
incurred. Furthermore, proposed AS 39.52.470(a) stipulates that
if the executive branch employee is accused of multiple
violations, he/she could only be reimbursed for the fees and
costs associated with the charges he/she is exonerated of.
MS. STAFT, in response to questions, reiterated that the sponsor
feels it would be safer for the State, in terms of it protecting
its resources, to wait until after the executive branch employee
actually is exonerated and then reimburse him/her for associated
legal fees and costs, rather than to pay his/her legal costs and
fees in an ongoing case and then seek recoupment of those
payments when he/she isn't exonerated of ethical violations.
Waiting until a person is exonerated is also in keeping with the
laws pertaining to paying [legal] fees and costs incurred by
judicial branch employees. She noted that Legislative Legal and
Research Services was asked to research whether there were any
states that allowed for the payment of ongoing legal fees and
costs in advance of exoneration, but was unable find any in the
time allotted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG - noting that Section 4 of the bill
applies to all executive branch employees, not just the governor
and lieutenant governor - explained that under Rules 79 and 82
of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, a case has to be finally
disposed of before costs and fees are apportioned. He
characterized the regulations' alternative approach regarding
the payment of legal fees and costs as constituting a very
dangerous practice. It would be very difficult and problematic
for the State to seek reimbursement from a person who is
ultimately found to be guilty of embezzlement, for example,
particularly if he/she goes on the run after being found guilty.
MS. STAFT, in response to a comment, clarified that because it
would be the State bringing the charges against the executive
branch employee, the State couldn't pick who would represent the
employee, because doing so would be a conflict of interest. It
would be up to the employee to choose his/her own legal
representation.
1:32:50 PM
JUDY BOCKMAN, Assistant Attorney General, State Ethics Attorney,
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law (DOL), in response to a question and comments,
clarified that the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act provides
confidentiality for a complaint and all materials collected in
the investigation, and so once the complaint is filed, it is the
department's policy, as mandated by statute, to keep the matter
completely confidential - not commenting even on its existence
or its status. Although sometimes complainants publicly
announce that they have filed a complaint, there is no penalty
for doing so under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, and
to assess a penalty against complainants who speak out would
raise constitutional problems because the First Amendment allows
citizens to express concerns and complaints about their
government.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to earlier comments,
assured the committee that proposed AS 39.52.470(e)(2) was
written very carefully, with language very similar to that found
in the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, so as to ensure that the
legal fees and costs that could be reimbursed by the state would
be controlled.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 14.
MS. STAFT, in response to questions, offered her belief that
moving the definition of the term, "partisan political purpose"
from AS 39.52.120(b)(6) to AS 39.52.120(h) wouldn't result in
any substantive change to AS 39.52; and relayed that she isn't
aware of what the rationale was for providing a maximum
threshold of 10 percent in existing AS 39.52.120(f).
1:39:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER [made a motion] to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, to insert on page 3, line 26, the word, "oriented"
after the word, "youth". There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:40:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report HB 14, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 14(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:41 p.m. to 1:42 p.m.
HB 127 - CRIMES INVOLVING MINORS/STALKING/INFO
1:42:41 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 127, "An Act relating to the crimes of stalking,
online enticement of a minor, unlawful exploitation of a minor,
endangering the welfare of a child, sending an explicit image of
a minor, harassment, distribution of indecent material to
minors, and misconduct involving confidential information;
relating to probation; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 127, Version 27-GH1840\M, Gardner, 2/24/11, which was
adopted as the work draft on 2/28/11 and amended; left pending
from that meeting on 2/28/11 was the motion to adopt Amendment 1
to Version M.]
CHAIR GATTO referred to Amendment 1, labeled 27-GH1840\M.1,
Gardner, 2/24/11, which read:
Page 1, line 2, following "minor,":
Insert "criminal impersonation,"
Page 2, following line 31:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 11.46.565(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person commits the crime of criminal
impersonation in the first degree if
(1) the person
(A) [(1)] possesses an access device or
identification document of another person;
(B) [(2)] without authorization of the
other person, uses the access device or identification
document of another person to obtain a false
identification document, open an account at a
financial institution, obtain an access device, or
obtain property or services; and
(C) [(3)] recklessly damages the financial
reputation of the other person; or
(2) the person violates AS 11.46.570 and
the crime intended is a sex offense; in this
paragraph, "sex offense" has the meaning given in
AS 12.63.100."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 16:
Delete "Sections 1 - 12 and 15"
Insert "Sections 1 - 13 and 16"
Page 11, line 18:
Delete "Sections 13 and 14"
Insert "Sections 14 and 15"
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, having made the motion to adopt Amendment 1
on 2/28/11, offered his belief that Amendment 1 has great
potential for benefit without causing harm, and expressed strong
support for HB 127.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting the previous debate on
Amendment 1, surmised that the question at this point is really
whether Amendment 1's proposed change to AS 11.46.565(a) belongs
in HB 127 specifically. Essentially, should criminal
impersonation during the commission of a sex crime be inserted
into the statutes dealing with property crimes?
1:45:01 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), relaying
that the DOL has concerns about including Amendment 1 in HB 127,
opined that its proposed change isn't necessary, and that
adopting Amendment 1 could instead result in problems.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn voted in favor
of Amendment 1. Representatives Keller, Pruitt, Thompson,
Gruenberg, and Gatto voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1
failed by a vote of 1-5.
[Amendment 2 to Version M was adopted on 2/28/11; Amendment 3 to
Version M was moved, discussed, and withdrawn on 2/28/11.]
1:47:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 4,
labeled 27-GH1840\M.3, Gardner, 3/3/11, which read:
Page 4, line 2:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 4, lines 3 - 4:
Delete "three or more people"
Insert "another person"
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected.
1:48:10 PM
GRETCHEN STAFT, Staff, Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska
State Legislature - noting that Amendment 4 addresses [proposed
AS 11.61.116,] which establishes the crime of sending an
explicit image of a minor - relayed on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Gruenberg, that [in part,] Amendment 4 would
remove language in proposed AS 11.61.116(c) stipulating that it
would be a violation to send an explicit image of a minor to one
or two people.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected to note that members'
packets contain two memorandums dated March 10, 2011, that
address proposed AS 11.61.116(c) and Amendment 4.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:49 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.
MS. STAFT, continuing with her explanation of Amendment 4,
indicated that it would also alter the language of AS
11.61.116(c) such that it would then be a class B misdemeanor to
send an explicit image of a minor to another person - regardless
of how many other persons. Amendment 4 addresses a concern that
as currently written, proposed AS 11.61.116(c) would make
sending an explicit image of a minor to only one or two people a
lesser crime - a mere violation - than that of sending an
explicit image of an adult, which is currently a class B
misdemeanor under AS 11.61.120(a)(6). It was felt that it would
be inappropriate to make such a crime involving a minor less
severe than one involving an adult. However, Amendment 4 would
not change the language in proposed AS 11.61.116(c) stipulating
that it would be a class A misdemeanor to send an explicit image
of a minor to an Internet website accessible to the public.
MS. STAFT, in response to a question, confirmed that in the
original version of HB 127, it would have been a class C felony
to send an explicit image of a minor to an Internet website
accessible to the public.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to another question, explained that
it was felt by some that making that behavior a class C felony,
as the original bill proposed, constituted a pretty major change
in existing law, and it would therefore be better at this point
in time if that behavior constituted a class A misdemeanor
instead.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT removed his objection to the adoption of
Amendment 4.
1:55:35 PM
TONY NEWMAN, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health & Social Services
(DHSS), relayed that he'd written one of the aforementioned
memorandums. That memorandum [additionally] explains how
juvenile offenders who commit violations are managed compared to
how juvenile offenders who commit misdemeanor crimes are
managed. Specifically, juveniles who commit violations are
managed via district court, not via the juvenile justice system
(JJS). By making all crimes of sending an explicit image of a
minor misdemeanors, as Amendment 4 proposes, all juveniles who
commit that crime would fall under the purview of the JJS.
CHAIR GATTO, ascertaining that there were no further objections,
announced that Amendment 4 was adopted.
1:57:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 5,
labeled 27-GH1840\M.4, Gardner, 3/9/11, which read:
Page 9, lines 15 - 16:
Delete ", consistent with regulations adopted
under (i) of this section,"
Page 9, line 24, following "(d)":
Insert "Service of a subpoena issued under (b) of
this section may be by any method authorized by law or
acceptable to the Internet service provider."
Page 9, line 26:
Delete "setting aside"
Insert "quashing"
Page 10, lines 12 - 13:
Delete all material and insert:
"(i) For purposes of this section, the attorney
general's designee must be in the Department of Law."
CHAIR GATTO objected for the purpose of discussion.
MS. CARPENETI explained that the DOL is requesting Amendment 5,
which would in part delete language in proposed AS 44.23.080
regarding the adoption of regulations pertaining to the issuance
of an administrative subpoena. After researching various other
statutory provisions pertaining to administrative subpoenas, it
was determined that none of them provided for regulations to be
adopted. As an alternative, Amendment 5 would then add language
stipulating that service of a subpoena may be made by any manner
authorized by law or acceptable to the Internet service
provider. Amendment 5 would also replace the term, "setting
aside" with the term, "quashing" - which is the more common term
used when discussing subpoenas - and would clarify that the
attorney general's designee must be [another employee within]
the DOL. This latter change would address a concern that
proposed AS 44.23.080 didn't specify who could be the designee.
CHAIR GATTO removed his objection, ascertained that there were
no further objections, and announced that Amendment 5 was
adopted.
2:00:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 6,
labeled 27-GH1840\M.5, Gardner, 3/9/11, which read:
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "distribution of indecent material to
minors,"
Page 4, line 22, through page 5, line 10:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 16:
Delete "Sections 1 - 12 and 15"
Insert "Sections 1 - 11 and 14"
Page 11, line 18:
Delete "Sections 13 and 14"
Insert "Sections 12 and 13"
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that amendment 6 would delete
Section 9, which is proposing to alter AS 11.61.128(a), which
pertains to the crime of distribution of indecent material to
minors.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to comments, clarified that a
[federal district court] judge has issued an injunction against
enforcing the provisions of AS 11.61.128 that were adopted last
year; that the state has submitted a motion [to that court]
asking that the case be removed to state court; and that each
side has submitted a motion asking for summary judgment. She
went on to explain that Section 9 - addressing subsection (a) of
AS 11.61.128 - was initially included in the bill to clarify
what culpable mental state was required for the crime of
distribution of indecent material to minors, and both parties in
the aforementioned lawsuit thought that doing so would be
helpful. Currently, it's the rest of [AS 11.61.128] that is
under judicial review.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his recollection that at one
point, some had thought that including Section 9 in the bill
might help resolve that litigation, but because it's since
became clear that it wouldn't, the thought now is that it would
be simpler to just delete proposed Section 9, as Amendment 6 is
proposing to do.
MS. CARPENETI relayed that it's the DOL's position that it would
instead be better to retain Section 9 because it wouldn't affect
the litigation and retaining it would clarify the law, which,
again, both parties in the litigation have agreed would be a
good idea. She added, though, that she did not think it would
be worthwhile to hold the bill up [over this issue].
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that there were no longer any
objections to Amendment 6, announced that Amendment 6 was
adopted.
[Due to technical difficulties, the recording did not capture
several seconds' worth of dialog during which the chair informed
committee members that the bill as amended was now before them
and that he would entertain a motion.]
2:08:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 127, Version 27-GH1840\M, Gardner,
2/24/11, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 127(JUD) was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:08 p.m. to 2:13 p.m.
HB 76 - STALKING/SEXUAL ASSAULT PROTECTIVE ORDERS
2:13:24 PM
[CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 76, "An Act relating to costs and fees for
stalking and sexual assault protective orders."
CHAIR GATTO mentioned that at the bill's last hearing, a
question was raised regarding whether the bill's proposed
changes warranted the inclusion of a court rule change
provision.]
2:13:45 PM
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Assistant Revisor, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), speaking as the drafter, said that after reviewing
the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, he doesn't see any need to
include such a provision, because the bill wouldn't be making
any changes to those court rules. He indicated that he'd also
provided the committee with a memorandum, dated March 10, 2011,
to that effect.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that he was satisfied with Mr.
Luckhaupt's explanation.
2:14:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report HB 76 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 76 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:15:32 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.