Legislature(1993 - 1994)

03/22/1993 01:00 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         March 22, 1993                                        
                            1:00 p.m.                                          
                                                                               
                                                                               
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
                                                                               
  Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                        
  Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair                                   
  Representative Gail Phillips                                                 
  Representative Joe Green                                                     
  Representative Pete Kott                                                     
  Representative Cliff Davidson                                                
                                                                               
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative Jim Nordlund                                                  
                                                                               
                                                                               
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
                                                                               
  HB 4      "An Act adding as an aggravating factor at                         
            sentencing that a victim was elderly or disabled;                  
            and relating to failure to report harm or assaults                 
            of the elderly or disabled."                                       
                                                                               
            CSHB 4 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH INDIVIDUAL                            
            RECOMMENDATIONS                                                    
                                                                               
  HB 3      "An Act relating to public home care providers;                    
            and providing for an effective date."                              
                                                                               
            PASSED OUT WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS                         
                                                                               
  HB 112    "An Act relating to limited partnerships; and                      
            providing for an effective date."                                  
                                                                               
            PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION                           
                                                                               
                                                                               
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE                                                  
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol                                                                
  Court Building, Room 602                                                     
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  Phone:  465-4925                                                             
  Position Statement:  Prime sponsor of HB 4 and HB 3                          
                                                                               
  MARGOT KNUTH                                                                 
  Assistant Attorney General                                                   
  Department of Law                                                            
  Criminal Division                                                            
  P. O. Box 110300                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                    
  Phone:  465-3428                                                             
  Position Statement: Provided information related to HB 4                     
                                                                               
  ART SNOWDEN                                                                  
  Administrative Director                                                      
  Alaska Court System                                                          
  303 K Street                                                                 
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                      
  Phone:  264-0547                                                             
  Position Statement: Voiced concerns and suggested amendment                  
                      to HB 4                                                  
                                                                               
  WALTER MAJOROS                                                               
  Older Alaskans Commission                                                    
  P. O. Box 110209                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                         
  Phone:  465-3478                                                             
  Position Statement: Supported HB 3                                           
                                                                               
  PAT O'BRIEN                                                                  
  Department of Health and Social Services                                     
  Division of Family and Youth Services                                        
  P. O. Box 110630                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                         
  Phone:  465-2145                                                             
  Position Statement:  Discussed HB 3                                          
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES                                                    
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 204                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  Phone:  465-4451                                                             
  Position Statement:  Prime sponsor of HB 112                                 
                                                                               
  ART PETERSON                                                                 
  Uniform Law Commissioner                                                     
  National Conference of Commissioners                                         
   for Uniform State Law                                                       
  One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 202                                                
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  586-4000                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported HB 112                                        
                                                                               
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 4                                                                  
  SHORT TITLE:  PROTECT ELDERLY AND DISABLED ADULTS                            
  BILL VERSION: CSHB 4(JUD)                                                    
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACKIE                                       
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to failure to report harm or                         
  assaults of the elderly or disabled."                                        
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/04/93        25    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                 
  01/11/93        25    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/11/93        25    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                          
  03/04/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/08/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/08/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  03/10/93       586    (H)   HES RPT  4DP 1DNP 3NR                            
  03/10/93       586    (H)   DP: TOOHEY, B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA,                   
                              BRICE                                            
  03/10/93       586    (H)   DNP: VEZEY                                       
  03/10/93       586    (H)   NR: B.DAVIES, G.DAVIS, BUNDE                     
  03/10/93       586    (H)   -2 FISCAL NOTES (DCED, CORR)                     
                               3/10/93                                         
  03/10/93       586    (H)   -3 ZERO FNS (DHSS, ADM, ADM)                     
                              3/10/93                                          
  03/22/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 3                                                                  
  SHORT TITLE:  REGULATION OF HOME CARE PROVIDERS                              
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACKIE,Ulmer                                 
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to public home care providers; and                   
  providing for an effective date."                                            
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/04/93        25    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                 
  01/11/93        25    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/11/93        25    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                          
  03/04/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/08/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/08/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  03/10/93       585    (H)   HES RPT  7DP  2NR                                
  03/10/93       585    (H)   DP: BUNDE, G.DAVIS, TOOHEY,                      
                              OLBERG                                           
  03/10/93       585    (H)   DP: B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA, BRICE                     
  03/10/93       585    (H)   NR: KOTT, VEZEY                                  
  03/10/93       585    (H)   -2 FISCAL NOTES (DHSS)  3/10/93                  
  03/10/93       586    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE  (ADM)                         
                              3/10/93                                          
  03/22/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 112                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  UNIFORM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT UPDATE                         
  BILL VERSION: HB 112 AM S                                                    
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES                                        
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to limited partnerships; and                         
  providing for an effective date."                                            
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/01/93       199    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/01/93       199    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY                      
  03/02/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  03/02/93              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  03/03/93       517    (H)   L&C RPT  6DP                                     
  03/03/93       517    (H)   DP: PORTER, SITTON, MULDER,                      
                              WILLIAMS                                         
  03/03/93       517    (H)   DP: GREEN, HUDSON                                
  03/03/93       517    (H)   -2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DCED,                      
                              LAW) 3/3/93                                      
  03/22/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-39, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to                 
  order at 1:08 p.m., on March 22, 1993.  A quorum was                         
  present.  Chairman Porter announced that the committee would                 
  take up HB 4 first.                                                          
                                                                               
  HB 4:  PROTECT ELDERLY AND DISABLED ADULTS                                   
                                                                               
  Number 021                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 4, said                     
  that the bill would add, as an aggravating factor at the                     
  time of sentencing, that a victim was elderly or disabled.                   
  He stated that his bill would serve as a deterrent against                   
  crimes against elderly and disabled individuals.  He                         
  indicated that HB 4 would amend the Code of Criminal                         
  Procedure, which allowed presumptive sentences to be                         
  aggravated, by adding a new paragraph to include victims                     
  aged 65 or over, or with a disability which limited major                    
  life activities.                                                             
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE commented that HB 4 would amend the                    
  elderly and disabled adult protection laws to provide a                      
  penalty of a class B misdemeanor for conviction of or                        
  failure to report a crime under those statutes.  He said                     
  that the bill would also require the court to report                         
  convictions to licensing or regulatory entities.  Conviction                 
  of a professional, licensed person for a crime against an                    
  elderly or disabled person could result in disciplinary                      
  action or sanctions.                                                         
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE noted that elderly and disabled                        
  persons were more vulnerable to and disproportionately                       
  damaged by crimes against them.  He added that these people                  
  took longer to recover from the impacts of financial,                        
  emotional, or physical abuse.  He mentioned the rapid growth                 
  of the senior citizen population in Alaska.  He stated that                  
  28 states had adult protection statutes.  He said that about                 
  200 reports of elder abuse were made in Alaska every year.                   
  He asserted that HB 4 would provide an incentive to report                   
  abuse and a deterrent to crimes against the elderly.                         
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE pointed out that bills identical to                    
  both HB 4 and HB 3, Regulation of Home Care Providers, had                   
  passed the House the year before.  He mentioned the                          
  Chairman's interest in deleting section 2 from the bill,                     
  because a similar aggravator already existed in present law.                 
  He expressed his support for deleting that section.                          
                                                                               
  Number 136                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER commented that Margot Knuth, from the                  
  Department of Law (DOL), had brought the redundancy of                       
  section 2 to the committee's attention.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 144                                                                   
                                                                               
  MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,                 
  DOL, stated that the proposed new aggravator substantially                   
  overlapped an existing aggravator.  She expressed the DOL's                  
  opinion that it would make the most sense to simply leave                    
  the aggravator statutes the way they were.  She noted that                   
  there was a slight difference between a defendant who knew                   
  or reasonably should have known that a victim was vulnerable                 
  or incapable of resistance due to advanced age, and a                        
  defendant who knew or reasonably should have known that a                    
  victim was at least 65 years old.                                            
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH believed it would be difficult to apply an                         
  absolute cut-off point at the age of 65, as defendants would                 
  not often know exactly how old a victim was.  She said that                  
  the existing framework of "advanced age" was used by                         
  prosecutors without any apparent problems.                                   
                                                                               
  Number 180                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE mentioned that the intent of placing                   
  the 65-year-old cut-off in HB 4 was to help the DOL get                      
  appropriate sentences in these cases.  However, he commented                 
  that if the DOL was not having any difficulty in proving                     
  that defendants knew or reasonably should have known that a                  
  victim was 65 years old or older, then he saw no reason to                   
  change the existing aggravator.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 198                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a MOTION to DELETE section 2                   
  of HB 4 and renumber subsequent sections accordingly.                        
                                                                               
  Number 210                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE commented that the proposed change                     
  would probably result in a change to HB 4's title.                           
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he would consider the change                  
  to the title as a friendly amendment to his motion.                          
                                                                               
  Number 230                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON asked Ms. Knuth to explain the                 
  effect of the amendment.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 234                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH mentioned that there was currently an aggravating                  
  factor for defendants who knew, or reasonably should have                    
  known, that a victim was particularly vulnerable or                          
  incapable of resistance due to advanced age, disability, ill                 
  health, or extreme youth, or who was for any other reason                    
  substantially incapable of exercising normal physical or                     
  mental powers of resistance.                                                 
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH commented that the addition proposed in HB 4 would                 
  largely overlap the existing aggravator.  She said that the                  
  DOL believed it would be best to continue using the existing                 
  aggravator.  She noted that having both aggravators on the                   
  books would likely confuse the courts.  She mentioned the                    
  large degree of success the DOL has had with using the                       
  existing aggravator.  She expressed concerns about the                       
  language contained in the aggravator proposed in HB 4.                       
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH noted that the proposed amendment to HB 4 would                    
  delete the new aggravator and leave the state with its                       
  existing, similar aggravator.  There being no objection to                   
  the amendment, IT WAS ADOPTED.                                               
                                                                               
  Number 283                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 4                    
  (JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations.  She                 
  then REMOVED HER MOTION.                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER called for an "at ease."                                     
                                                                               
  Number 297                                                                   
                                                                               
  ART SNOWDEN, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,                   
  mentioned a small concern with HB 4.  He said that the bill                  
  provided that the court system would notify licensing or                     
  regulatory entities if a professional, licensed person was                   
  convicted of a crime against an elderly or disabled person.                  
  He said that the bill's language was overly broad, and                       
  requested an amendment indicating that the court should                      
  notify the primary licensing or regulatory entity.                           
                                                                               
  Number 318                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested adding the word                            
  "appropriate" instead of "primary."                                          
                                                                               
  MR. SNOWDEN approved of Representative Phillips' proposed                    
  language.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 328                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to ADD the word                        
  "appropriate" to page 2, line 4 and line 10 of HB 4.                         
                                                                               
  Number 335                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE expressed his support for                              
  Representative Phillips' motion.  There being no objection                   
  to the amendment, IT WAS ADOPTED.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 342                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 4 (JUD)                   
  out of committee, with individual recommendations.  There                    
  being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                                       
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 3 was the next item of                     
  business before the committee.                                               
                                                                               
  HB 3:  REGULATION OF HOME CARE PROVIDERS                                     
                                                                               
  Number 352                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 3, stated                   
  that his bill would restrict the ability of a home care                      
  provider to assume powers of attorney, and required criminal                 
  history background checks for home care providers being paid                 
  with public funds.  He said that HB 3 would provide a                        
  measure of protection for elderly and disabled persons from                  
  those responsible for their care.  He said that these people                 
  were particularly vulnerable to abuse, due to age, illness,                  
  disability, and the isolation of being alone in their home                   
  with a care giver.                                                           
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE commented that Alaska was on the brink                 
  of an explosion in home care services.  He mentioned the                     
  rapid expansion of Alaska's senior citizen population, and                   
  said that the state had just received approval for Medicaid                  
  waivers for home- and community-based services, as an                        
  alternative to institutionalization.  He said that once the                  
  Medicaid waiver program was in effect, the home care                         
  services industry would see rapid growth.                                    
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE commented that HB 3 would also require                 
  criminal history records' checks for home care providers                     
  paid by Older Alaskans Commission (OAC) grants and respite                   
  care providers paid by the Division of Family and Youth                      
  Services (DFYS).  He noted that HB 3 would require the                       
  Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) to implement                 
  regulations identifying actions to be taken upon receiving                   
  reports of harm by home care providers.                                      
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE mentioned an incident in his district                  
  which had given rise to the introduction of HB 3.  He said                   
  that in that incident, a home care provider had walked off                   
  with approximately $500,000 of an elderly person's money.                    
  He noted that similar situations had occurred across the                     
  state.  He said that elderly persons, due to their                           
  vulnerability, were being targeted for exploitation.  He                     
  mentioned that the state Pioneers Homes were full, with long                 
  waiting lists to get in.                                                     
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said that more and more elderly people                 
  would be cared for in their own homes, making it important                   
  for the state to regulate home care providers.  He said that                 
  the Department of Public Safety (DPS) had informed him that                  
  30% of criminal history background checks run on school                      
  teachers, day care providers, and others revealed criminal                   
  histories.  He said that a bill similar to HB 3 had passed                   
  the House the year before.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 428                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that HB 3 seemed like a very                     
  good bill.  However, he did not see representatives of the                   
  senior citizen community present, and asked Representative                   
  Mackie if he had spoken with members of that community.                      
                                                                               
  Number 433                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied that the OAC was on record in                  
  support of the bill.  He added that he was not aware of any                  
  opposition to either HB 3 or HB 4.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 453                                                                   
                                                                               
  WALTER MAJOROS testified on behalf of the OAC in support of                  
  HB 3.  He noted that the OAC would like to see section 1,                    
  relating to powers of attorney, strengthened.  He                            
  recommended that powers of attorney for publicly-paid home                   
  care providers be prohibited, except in certain                              
  circumstances, or alternatively stipulating that the person                  
  with whom the power of attorney was shared could not be a                    
  person who had either a financial or a personal relationship                 
  with the home care worker.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 479                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked what incentive a third party                   
  might have to become a partner in a power of attorney                        
  situation.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 485                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MAJOROS did not feel prepared to answer Representative                   
  Davidson's question.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 492                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said that when a person took a job                   
  as a home care provider, that person took on a certain                       
  amount of risk and liability.  He expressed concern that a                   
  person could unknowingly become involved in a messy                          
  situation.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 507                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative Davidson if he was                      
  referring to an additional signer, in addition to the home                   
  care provider, on the power of attorney.  He thought of the                  
  third party as being a relative of the person receiving the                  
  home care, co-signing with the home care provider as a                       
  convenience.                                                                 
                                                                               
  MR. MAJOROS expressed the OAC's position that those two                      
  people should share the power of attorney to ensure there                    
  was no abuse.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 524                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Majoros if he had any proposed                     
  language to offer.                                                           
                                                                               
  MR. MAJOROS had no language to offer at this time.                           
                                                                               
  Number 527                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON commented that his question had been                 
  prompted by a situation in which an elderly person had no                    
  remaining relatives.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 531                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that surviving relatives sometimes                 
  lived far away from an elderly person receiving home care                    
  services.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 539                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE noted that home care providers were                    
  sometimes relatives of those for whom they cared.  He                        
  commented that not every situation could be covered by                       
  statute.  He said that the main purpose of HB 3 was to not                   
  allow a home care provider to also have sole power of                        
  attorney.  He said that at least one other person should be                  
  involved in the relationship, to prevent a home care                         
  provider from abusing the position.  He commented that HB 3                  
  would only apply in cases where public funds were being                      
  used.                                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 567                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES mentioned that the                            
  legislature could not solve every problem that existed                       
  through statute.  Sometimes, she said, the legislature                       
  passed laws to solve one problem, and created even more                      
  problems in the process.  She commented that the job of a                    
  home care provider was not an easy one.  She supported                       
  criminal history background checks for home care providers.                  
  She was of the opinion that powers of attorney could affect                  
  more than just financial transactions.  She did not see why                  
  a home care provider would need to have a power of attorney                  
  for a person in his or her care.                                             
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern that putting two                      
  people on a power of attorney would create an impediment to                  
  making quick decisions.  She preferred that a power of                       
  attorney be held by one individual, someone other than the                   
  home care provider.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 595                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said that in some instances, a home                    
  care provider was the only person caring for a particular                    
  individual.  In that case, he said, the home care provider                   
  would do all of the shopping, banking, and bill paying                       
  transactions.  In that situation, he said, it would be                       
  convenient for a home care provider to have a power of                       
  attorney.  House Bill 3 would allow for that to happen, as                   
  long as a third party co-signed on the power of attorney.                    
  He noted that he had tried to focus HB 3 on those areas with                 
  the greatest potential for abuse.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 615                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that HB 3 only affected home care                  
  providers whose services were paid for by the state.  She                    
  commented that if a person had a great deal of money to                      
  steal, that same person probably would not be eligible for a                 
  publicly-funded home care provider.  She expressed her                       
  opinion that HB 3 should be expanded to include all home-                    
  care providers, not just those who received public funds.                    
                                                                               
  Number 627                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said that Representative James had                     
  made a good point.  However, he noted that there were                        
  constitutional problems involved in regulating privately-                    
  funded home care providers.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 643                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Representative Mackie why he                   
  chose to apply the provisions of HB 3 only to publicly-                      
  funded home care providers.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 647                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE reiterated his point that people could                 
  spend their own money in any manner they saw fit.  However,                  
  when public funds were involved, he did not feel that home                   
  care providers should be allowed to exercise a great deal of                 
  control over the affairs of elderly or disabled persons.                     
                                                                               
  Number 666                                                                   
                                                                               
  PAT O'BRIEN, on behalf of the DHSS, commented that the year                  
  before, the DHSS had suggested language to tighten up who                    
  could have a power of attorney.  She said that the House                     
  Health, Education, and Social Services (HESS) Committee had                  
  raised the issue of the cumbersomeness of requiring two                      
  signatures on every transaction.  Also, she said that the                    
  HESS committee had mentioned the difficulty of finding home                  
  care providers in the first place, due to the heavy                          
  responsibility associated with the job.  If too many                         
  restrictions were placed on the profession, she noted, it                    
  would become even harder to find people willing to serve as                  
  home care providers.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 680                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. O'BRIEN said that although the HESS Committee had                        
  considered tightening up the requirements for powers of                      
  attorney, they had eventually agreed that that was not a                     
  good idea.  The result was the language now contained in HB
  3, she added.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 687                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. O'Brien if she saw HB 3 as                    
  being a burden on home care providers.                                       
                                                                               
  Number 702                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. O'BRIEN replied in the negative.  She said that a home                   
  care provider would not be required to accept a grant of                     
  power of attorney, and might choose not to accept such a                     
  designation.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 709                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE noted that HB 3's provisions might                     
  help to weed out those home care providers with bad                          
  intentions.  He said that powers of attorney could take many                 
  different forms.  He admitted that the provision in question                 
  could not be easily enforced.  The intent behind the                         
  provision was simply to create a condition of employment and                 
  a vehicle for disciplinary action or termination.                            
                                                                               
  Number 726                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to MOVE HB 3 out of                       
  committee with individual recommendations and an                             
  accompanying fiscal note.  There being no objection, IT WAS                  
  SO ORDERED.                                                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 112 was the next item of                   
  business before the committee.                                               
                                                                               
  HB 112:  UNIFORM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT UPDATE                              
                                                                               
  Number 741                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 112,                          
  mentioned that the year before, Alaska's Uniform Limited                     
  Partnership Act was amended so as to conform with                            
  recommendations of the National Conference of Commissioners                  
  for Uniform State Laws.  He noted that one significant                       
  component had been omitted from the bill which was enacted                   
  the year before.                                                             
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said that section 1 of HB 112 placed                    
  the notice form into statute and replaced the "long" notice                  
  form with a shorter one.  He said that this would reduce                     
  current cumbersome registration requirements.  He noted that                 
  the effective date of HB 112 would coincide with the                         
  effective date of last year's SB 193, allowing the entire                    
  body of amendments to become law on July 1, 1993.  He stated                 
  that the bill would result in no fiscal impact to the state.                 
                                                                               
  Number 770                                                                   
                                                                               
  ART PETERSON, UNIFORM LAW COMMISSIONER, STATE OF ALASKA,                     
  testified in strong support of HB 112.  He said that Alaska                  
  had enacted the Uniform Limited Partnership Act in 1917, and                 
  left it in place, unamended, until 1990, when one small                      
  portion was updated.  He said that in 1976, the Uniform Law                  
  Commissioners came out with a thorough revision of the Act.                  
  Additionally, amendments to the 1976 revision had come out                   
  in 1985, he noted.  He commented that part of the 1985                       
  amendments appeared in HB 112.  He mentioned that all of the                 
  provisions of HB 112, with the exception of section 1, were                  
  compatibility amendments.                                                    
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON stated that the gist of HB 112 was to change                    
  the current long form of limited partnership certificates to                 
  a shorter form, or "notice form."  He stated further that                    
  the partnership agreement, not the certificate, formed the                   
  heart of the business entity of partnerships.  All the                       
  certificate needed to show, he said, was the name of the                     
  partnership, and the names of the general partners involved.                 
  Additionally, he said that the certificate showed the five                   
  items listed on lines 8-13, on page 1 of HB 112.                             
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON indicated that the certificate did not need to                  
  show the name and address of all of the limited partners,                    
  and the amount of capital contribution of each limited                       
  partner.  He said that the problem was that as the use of                    
  limited partnerships had developed over the decades, many                    
  had grown to include hundreds and thousands of limited                       
  partners.  He commented that it was no longer feasible,                      
  given the number of partners involved in many partnerships,                  
  to meet the requirements of the current Uniform Limited                      
  Partnership Act.  He noted that one requirement was that a                   
  certificate be signed by all partners, general and limited.                  
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON said that when the Uniform Limited Partnership                  
  Act was written in 1917, partnerships were very much small,                  
  local entities.  Now, however, partnerships were used                        
  primarily as financing, capital acquisition structures, and                  
  were no longer local in nature.  By retaining the old                        
  version of the Uniform Limited Partnership Act, he said,                     
  Alaskans were being hindered in two respects:  the ability                   
  of outside partnerships to deal with Alaskans, and the                       
  ability of Alaskans to participate in partnerships.                          
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-39, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON said that HB 112 would enhance the business                     
  climate in Alaska.  He mentioned that the reason that the                    
  provisions of HB 112 were not included in the bill that                      
  passed the year before was that one California law professor                 
  preferred the old-fashioned notice requirements.  That                       
  professor had convinced the sponsor of the year before's                     
  SB 193 that he should not include the notice provisions of                   
  the 1985 amendments in his bill.                                             
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON noted that as SB 193 made its way through the                   
  legislative process, the sponsor became convinced that he                    
  should amend it to include the notice requirement changes.                   
  However, time ran out, and it was passed the way it had been                 
  introduced.  House Bill 112 fixed the "glitch" contained in                  
  last year's SB 193, he said.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 044                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked Mr. Peterson what was lost and                 
  what was gained in changing the notice form from the long                    
  form to the shorter form.  Also, he asked Mr. Peterson to                    
  address the 1985 amendments to the Uniform Limited                           
  Partnership Act, in light of the deregulation that occurred                  
  in the 1980s, and its resulting problems.                                    
                                                                               
  Number 072                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON replied that HB 112 had nothing to do with                      
  deregulation, which was a popular idea in the federal                        
  government during the 1980s.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 080                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked if the deregulation climate of                 
  the 1980s drove the 1985 amendments to the Uniform Limited                   
  Partnership Act.                                                             
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON did not think so.  He felt that the source of                   
  the change contained in HB 112 was not the philosophical                     
  climate of the 1980s, but rather the change in the use of                    
  limited partnerships.  He said that some state legislatures                  
  had already amended their uniform limited partnership acts                   
  to provide for a short form certificate requirement.  He                     
  said that the information which used to be required on the                   
  long form was now required to be kept available by a                         
  partnership, just not on the certificate form.                               
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON reiterated his point that limited partnerships                  
  had developed using the partnership agreement as the vehicle                 
  that explained which partner held which number of shares.                    
  The certificate was no longer an appropriate place to put                    
  all of that information, he added.  He mentioned three                       
  categories of people who might be interested in who held                     
  limited partnerships:  potential investors, potential                        
  lenders, and the partners themselves.  All of those people,                  
  he stated, would still have access to the information they                   
  desired to review.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 164                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON mentioned Individual Fishing Quotas,                 
  or IFQs.  He said IFQ laws held that no one individual could                 
  hold more than 1% of those fishing shares.  He asked if                      
  HB 112 would make it more or less difficult for regulatory                   
  agencies to track ownership of shares.                                       
                                                                               
  Number 181                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON did not see HB 112 as making it more difficult                  
  for regulators to know who had invested in which                             
  partnership.  He asked Representative Davidson if he was                     
  assuming that a limited partnership held an IFQ.                             
                                                                               
  Number 185                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON wanted to ensure a wide-open                         
  process, so that no individual could, through clever                         
  manipulation of corporate or partnership laws, hold more                     
  than 1% of the shares of a fishery.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 193                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON did not view HB 112 as posing any difficulties                  
  to regulators.                                                               
                                                                               
  Number 199                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked if HB 112 would result in it                   
  being easier or more difficult for the public or regulators                  
  to know who was involved in limited partnerships.                            
                                                                               
  Number 209                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON stated that in his opinion, HB 112 did not                      
  change the availability of information on partnerships.  He                  
  explained that he also should have listed regulators among                   
  those categories of people who would need to know who was                    
  involved in limited partnerships.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 217                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that if a person wanted to                         
  preclude disclosure of hidden investments, there were                        
  mechanisms for doing that.  Currently, he said, public                       
  disclosure of corporate shareholders was not a part of the                   
  articles of incorporation.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 226                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON said that limited partnerships were the only                    
  entity in which persons with a limited role in that entity                   
  were extensively listed on a certificate or similar                          
  document.  He noted that corporations and other types of                     
  partnerships did not have a similar requirement.                             
                                                                               
  Number 241                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why the 1985 amendments were                   
  being acted on by the Alaska Legislature eight years later.                  
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON responded that he was the most active Uniform                   
  Law Commissioner in Alaska, and had just never gotten around                 
  to putting the 1985 amendments before the legislature until                  
  recently.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 252                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if SB 193, from the year before,                  
  had passed.                                                                  
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON replied in the affirmative, but mentioned that                  
  one piece of the 1985 amendments had been omitted.  House                    
  Bill 112 remedied that omission, he noted.                                   
                                                                               
  Number 261                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON referred to a letter from the law                    
  firm of Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe in the members'                  
  bill packets.  (A copy of that letter may be found in the                    
  House Judiciary Committee Room, Capitol Room 120, and after                  
  the adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska                     
  State Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.)                    
  He asked to what "deviations" the letter referred.                           
                                                                               
  Number 274                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON responded that the "deviations" referred to in                  
  the letter were the omission in SB 193 of the provisions now                 
  contained in HB 112.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 280                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER reiterated that HB 112 contained a provision                 
  of the 1985 amendments to the Uniform Limited Partnership                    
  Act which had been omitted from SB 193.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 286                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. PETERSON concurred.  He added that 33 states had already                 
  adopted the 1985 amendments to the Uniform Limited                           
  Partnership Act.                                                             
                                                                               
  Number 296                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to MOVE HB 112 out of                     
  committee, with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal                 
  note.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                          
                                                                               
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 2:10 p.m.                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects