Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/22/1993 01:00 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
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.