Legislature(1993 - 1994)

03/29/1993 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 29, 1993                                        
                            1:00 p.m.                                          
                                                                               
                                                                               
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
                                                                               
  Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                        
  Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair                                   
  Representative Pete Kott                                                     
  Representative Gail Phillips                                                 
  Representative Cliff Davidson                                                
  Representative Jim Nordlund                                                  
                                                                               
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative Joe Green                                                     
                                                                               
                                                                               
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
                                                                               
  HB 41     "An Act relating to civil liability for skiing                     
            accidents, operation of ski areas, and duties of                   
            ski area operators and skiers; and providing for                   
            an effective date."                                                
                                                                               
            CSHB 41 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS                            
            RECOMMENDATION                                                     
                                                                               
  HB 147    "An Act relating to the disclosure of information                  
            by an employer about the job performance of an                     
            employee or former employee."                                      
                                                                               
            CSHB 147 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS                           
            RECOMMENDATION                                                     
                                                                               
  HJR 3     Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the                    
            State of Alaska limiting tenure in the                             
            legislature.                                                       
                                                                               
            CSHJR 3 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH NO RECOMMENDATION                    
                                                                               
  HB 61     "An Act relating to the offense of operating a                     
            motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while                       
            intoxicated; and providing for an effective date."                 
                                                                               
            CSHB 61 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS                            
            RECOMMENDATION                                                     
                                                                               
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
                                                                               
  GAYLE HORETSKI                                                               
  Committee Counsel                                                            
  House Judiciary Committee                                                    
  State Capitol, Room 120                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  Phone:  465-6841                                                             
  Position Statement: Gave an overview of CSHB 41 (JUD),                       
                      CSHB 147 (JUD), and CSHJR 3 (JUD); made                  
                      suggestions regarding HB 61                              
                                                                               
  GARY MENDIVIL                                                                
  Eaglecrest Ski Area                                                          
  155 South Seward Street                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  586-5284                                                             
  Position Statement: Answered questions related to HB 41                      
                                                                               
  MITCH GRAVO                                                                  
  Alyeska Ski Resort                                                           
  2550 Denali, 17th Floor                                                      
  Anchorage, Alaska 99503                                                      
  Phone:  272-6474                                                             
  Position Statement: Discussed HB 41                                          
                                                                               
  RAGA ELIM                                                                    
  Special Assistant to the Commissioner                                        
  Department of Natural Resources                                              
  400 Willoughby Avenue                                                        
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-2400                                                             
  Position Statement: Answered questions related to HB 41                      
                                                                               
  GRETCHEN PENCE                                                               
  Special Assistant to the Commissioner                                        
  Department of Public Safety                                                  
  P. O. Box 111200                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                         
  Phone:  465-4322                                                             
  Position Statement: Provided information related to HB 41                    
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND                                                  
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol                                                                
  Court Building, Room 608                                                     
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-4968                                                             
  Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 61                                   
                                                                               
  MARGOT KNUTH                                                                 
  Assistant Attorney General                                                   
  Department of Law                                                            
  Criminal Division                                                            
  P. O. Box 110300                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                    
  Phone:  465-3428                                                             
  Position Statement: Supported .08 DWI offense, but suggested                 
                      deleting section 3 of HB 61                              
                                                                               
  JUANITA HENSLEY                                                              
  Chief, Driver Services                                                       
  Division of Motor Vehicles                                                   
  Department of Public Safety                                                  
  P. O. Box 20020                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska 99802                                                         
  Phone:  465-4335                                                             
  Position Statement: Supported .08 DWI offense, but suggested                 
                      deleting section 3 of HB 61                              
                                                                               
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 41                                                                 
  SHORT TITLE:  CIVIL LIABILITY FOR SKIING ACCIDENTS                           
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS,Hudson,Porter,                      
  Toohey,Mulder                                                                
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to civil liability for skiing                        
  accidents, operation of ski areas, and duties of ski area                    
  operators and skiers; and providing for an effective date."                  
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/11/93        34    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/11/93        35    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY,                     
                              FINANCE                                          
  01/26/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  01/26/93              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  01/29/93       183    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY                             
  02/04/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  02/09/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  02/09/93              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  02/10/93       285    (H)   L&C RPT  CS(L&C)  5DP  1DNP                      
  02/10/93       285    (H)   DP: PORTER, GREEN, MULDER,                       
                              MACKIE,HUDSON                                    
  02/10/93       285    (H)   DNP:  SITTON                                     
  02/10/93       285    (H)   -3 ZERO FNS (DNR, COURT, DCED)                   
                              2/10/93                                          
  02/10/93       285    (H)   -2 ZERO FNS (LAW, LABOR)                         
                              2/10/93                                          
  02/10/93       312    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  MULDER                            
  03/05/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/05/93              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/29/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 147                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR REFERENCE INFO                        
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACLEAN,Phillips,Porter                      
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to the disclosure of information by                  
  an employer about the job performance of an employee or                      
  former employee."                                                            
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/10/93       292    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/10/93       292    (H)   L&C, JUDICIARY                                   
  02/25/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  02/25/93              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  03/01/93       480    (H)   L&C RPT  5DP                                     
  03/01/93       481    (H)   DP: PORTER, MACKIE,WILLIAMS,                     
                              GREEN,HUDSON                                     
  03/01/93       481    (H)   -3 ZERO FNS (ADM, COURT, LAW)                    
                              3/1/93                                           
  03/08/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/08/93              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/10/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/10/93              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/29/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HJR 3                                                                 
  SHORT TITLE:  LIMITING TERMS OF LEGISLATORS                                  
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Kott                                  
                                                                               
  TITLE: Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State                 
  of Alaska limiting tenure in the legislature.                                
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/04/93        22    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                 
  01/11/93        22    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/11/93        22    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY,                        
                              FINANCE                                          
  01/26/93              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  01/26/93              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  01/26/93              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  01/26/93              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  01/26/93              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  01/30/93              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  01/30/93              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  02/06/93              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  02/09/93              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  02/09/93              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  02/11/93       317    (H)   STA RPT  CS(STA) NEW TITLE 5DP                   
                              2NR                                              
  02/11/93       318    (H)   DP: VEZEY, OLBERG, G.DAVIS,                      
                              SANDERS,KOTT                                     
  02/11/93       318    (H)   NR: ULMER, B.DAVIS                               
  02/11/93       318    (H)   -FISCAL NOTE  (GOV)  2/11/93                     
  02/09/93              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  02/11/93              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  02/11/93              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  02/13/93              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/10/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  03/10/93              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/29/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 61                                                                 
  SHORT TITLE:  LOWER ALCOHOL LIMIT TO 0.08 FOR OMVI'S                         
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) NORDLUND,Ulmer,Brown                         
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to the offense of operating a motor                  
  vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while intoxicated; and                      
  providing for an effective date."                                            
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/15/93        73    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/15/93        74    (H)   TRANSPORTATION, JUDICIARY,                       
                              FINANCE                                          
  01/27/93       169    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): BROWN                              
  02/25/93              (H)   TRA AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  02/25/93              (H)   MINUTE(TRA)                                      
  03/25/93              (H)   TRA AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  03/25/93              (H)   MINUTE(TRA)                                      
  03/26/93       779    (H)   TRA RPT  CS(TRA)  1DP 3DNP 2NR                   
  03/26/93       779    (H)   DP: MENARD                                       
  03/26/93       779    (H)   DNP: G.DAVIES, VEZEY, MULDER                     
  03/26/93       780    (H)   NR: MACKIE, G.DAVIS                              
  03/26/93       780    (H)   -3 FISCAL NOTE (DPS, LAW, ADM)                   
                              3/26/93                                          
  03/26/93       780    (H)   -2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES(CORR, ADM)                  
                              3/26/93                                          
  03/29/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-44, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to                 
  order at 2:07 p.m., on March 29, 1993.  A quorum was                         
  present.  Chairman Porter announced that the committee would                 
  take up HB 41 first.                                                         
                                                                               
  HB 41:  CIVIL LIABILITY FOR SKIING ACCIDENTS                                 
                                                                               
  Number 036                                                                   
                                                                               
  GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY                           
  COMMITTEE, called the members' attention to a draft                          
  committee substitute for HB 41 (CSHB 41 (JUD)), dated March                  
  27, 1993.  She mentioned that state agencies and others had                  
  submitted recommended amendments to HB 41, which had been                    
  incorporated into CSHB 41 (JUD).                                             
                                                                               
  Number 060                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER noted that CSHB 41 (JUD) included                      
  changes which had been suggested by, among others, Mr.                       
  Richard Harren, an attorney who had testified during the                     
  last hearing on HB 41.                                                       
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI stated that the first change appeared on the                    
  bottom of page 3 of CSHB 41 (JUD).  She indicated that the                   
  House Labor and Commerce committee substitute for HB 41 had                  
  included language which stated that if a person was injured                  
  as a result of an "inherent danger" of skiing, in                            
  determining percentages of fault, the trier of fact could                    
  not treat the inherent danger as part of the ski area                        
  operator's "fault."  She said that the language had been                     
  deleted, at the suggestion of Mr. Harren, because if an                      
  injury was the result of an inherent danger, then the                        
  injured party could not maintain a suit on that ground.                      
                                                                               
  Number 100                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI commented that ski area officials had agreed                    
  with the proposed deletion.  She expressed an opinion that                   
  the revised language was clearer.  She stated that the next                  
  change appeared on page 4, lines 10-11.  She reminded the                    
  committee that the Eaglecrest Ski Area had informed them of                  
  a program involving handicapped skiers.  She said that                       
  language was added to CSHB 41 (JUD) to clarify that if a                     
  skier did not have sufficient physical dexterity, but was                    
  assisted by someone who did, then that person would be                       
  allowed to ski.                                                              
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI indicated that the next changes appeared on                     
  page 5.  She said that the language in question pertained to                 
  plans which ski area operators had to submit.  New language                  
  required that the plans be reviewed and approved by the                      
  Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).                   
  Existing law provided that the Commissioner of the                           
  Department of Public Safety (DPS) reviewed and approved                      
  plans.  She noted that both the DPS and the DNR had                          
  suggested this particular change.  There was an exception to                 
  this arrangement if a ski area was located on federal land.                  
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI said that in that situation, the appropriate                    
  federal agency would be responsible for reviewing and                        
  approving the plan.  She mentioned that new language also                    
  appeared on page 5, beginning on line 9.  That new language                  
  embodied Representative Gail Phillips' proposed amendment,                   
  which was meant to exclude two small ski areas in Homer and                  
  Anchorage from the requirement to meet national ski patrol                   
  standards.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 164                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND asked if the language on page 5,                 
  lines 16-18, was also new language.                                          
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI replied in the affirmative.                                     
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND indicated that he intended to offer                  
  amendments later in the hearing.                                             
                                                                               
  Number 172                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI stated that the new language appearing on page                  
  5, lines 16-18 was suggested by both the DPS and the DNR.                    
  It held that the DNR would not be civilly liable for                         
  resulting damages.  She called the language "standard                        
  disclaimer language."  She pointed out a change on page 6,                   
  line 11 of CSHB 41 (JUD).  She said that a reference to a                    
  "safety gate" had been changed to read "stop gate."  The                     
  next change, she said, appeared on page 9, and pertained to                  
  warnings on signs and lift tickets.  The new language                        
  appearing on lines 26-28 was intended to clarify what kind                   
  of natural hazards were considered inherent dangers of                       
  skiing.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 210                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that Mr. Harren had indicated that                 
  the warning sign language embodied in the House Labor and                    
  Commerce committee substitute for HB 41 was not entirely                     
  accurate.  The new language recognized that there were                       
  qualifications to some inherent risks of skiing.  If a                       
  hazard was not readily visible under ordinary visibility                     
  conditions, from a distance of at least 100 feet, he said,                   
  then it was not an inherent risk of skiing, and needed to be                 
  marked by a sign.                                                            
                                                                               
  Number 226                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to the last                       
  change incorporated into CSHB 41(JUD), appearing on page 12.                 
  The change clarified the definition of "groomed slope or                     
  trail," she said, and was added at the request of ski area                   
  operators.  She commented that the new definition provided                   
  that a groomed slope or trail must have been packed or                       
  prepared within the previous twelve hours.                                   
                                                                               
  Number 253                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND expressed concern over the                           
  definition of "groomed slope or trail."  He mentioned that                   
  ski areas often had expert trails which equipment could not                  
  gain access to, because of their steepness.                                  
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES commented that if equipment                   
  could not access a particular trail, then it would not be                    
  considered "groomed."                                                        
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND replied that certain runs were still                 
  intended to be used by skiers, although they were not able                   
  to be groomed by equipment.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 276                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS stated that there would be a                    
  difference between the definition of a "groomed slope" and a                 
  "run."                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 283                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND understood that HB 41 was attempting                 
  to set out which ski area runs would be marked.                              
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI stated that Representative Nordlund was correct                 
  in his assertion that the point of defining "groomed slope                   
  or trail" was to clarify which trails required signs.  She                   
  reminded committee members of a concern expressed during the                 
  last hearing that ski area operators could not conceivably                   
  mark every tree and rock within a ski area.                                  
                                                                               
  Number 300                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND acknowledged that a ski area could                   
  not be expected to mark every conceivable line that a skier                  
  would follow in getting to the bottom of a mountain.  That,                  
  he said, was part of the inherent risk that skiers took.                     
  However, he stated that there were runs, marked on maps,                     
  that might be too steep for grooming equipment to access,                    
  but on which hazards should still be marked by signs.                        
                                                                               
  Number 309                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI stated that she had described all of the                        
  changes incorporated into CSHB 41(JUD).                                      
                                                                               
  Number 312                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Gary Mendivil to comment on the                    
  definition of "groomed slope or trail."                                      
                                                                               
  Number 326                                                                   
                                                                               
  GARY MENDIVIL, from the EAGLECREST SKI AREA, commented that                  
  his ski area did include regularly-used runs which could not                 
  be accessed by grooming equipment.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 346                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned that she was not a skier, and                 
  could not visualize how a ski area would mark a run which                    
  was too steep for equipment to groom.                                        
                                                                               
  Number 350                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MENDIVIL replied that skiers could still get down the                    
  runs, and could put up signs.  He asked if a rock which was                  
  not visible and not on a groomed trail would be considered                   
  an inherent risk of skiing.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 359                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that, in his interpretation, it                      
  would be considered an inherent risk of skiing.                              
                                                                               
  Number 365                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MENDIVIL called the members' attention to the language                   
  on page 9, lines 19-29 regarding inherent risks of skiing.                   
                                                                               
  Number 369                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that the only reference in the                 
  bill to "groomed slope or trail" of which he was aware was                   
  located on page 8, line 30.  He suggested that the committee                 
  change the term to "designated run" and then define it as                    
  one which was marked on a map as a run.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 379                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MENDIVIL commented that, during the last meeting, the                    
  approach that Representative Nordlund had just suggested was                 
  what individuals were trying to move away from.                              
                                                                               
  Number 389                                                                   
                                                                               
  MITCH GRAVO, representing ALYESKA SKI RESORT, thought the                    
  committee was trying to distinguish between "groomed slopes"                 
  and "open slopes."  He said that, as a skier, there were                     
  open slopes at Eaglecrest Ski Area and Alyeska Ski Resort                    
  which he would not consider going down.  He added that there                 
  was an expectation that non-readily-visible hazards should                   
  be marked on groomed slopes.  However, he said, on open                      
  slopes, it was unreasonable to require ski areas to mark                     
  every hazard.  He supported the proposed definition of                       
  "groomed slope or trail."                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 420                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MOVED to ADOPT CSHB 41 (JUD), dated                     
  March 27, 1993.  There being no objection, IT WAS ADOPTED.                   
                                                                               
  Number 426                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that in many ways, he felt                    
  that HB 41 was a good bill.  He noted that the bill went                     
  into amazing detail regarding signs.  He commented that                      
  other areas of the bill, including pertaining to ski area                    
  plans of operation, were not as well "fleshed-out."  He said                 
  that as a member of the skiing public, he wanted the bill to                 
  provide more assurances that plans of operation would be                     
  sufficient, especially when the bill absolved the state of                   
  any liability for inadequate plan review.                                    
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND wanted to see HB 41 include a                        
  provision that the DNR would adopt regulations setting out                   
  more detail about what would be required in a plan of                        
  operation.  He commented that it was somewhat incongruous to                 
  set out warning sign requirements in such great detail, and                  
  to provide almost no detail about a ski area's plan of                       
  operation.  He did not see a need to include the language on                 
  page 5, lines 16-18, absolving the DNR's Commissioner from                   
  liability resulting from acts or omissions.  He understood                   
  that the state would probably already be immune from                         
  liability, due to the sovereign immunity clause.                             
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that the language on lines                    
  16-18 took the heart out of public assurances that ski area                  
  plans of operation were adequate.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 478                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expected that the DNR would adopt                       
  regulations, whether or not the legislature told them to do                  
  so.                                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 491                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that the legislature had to                          
  authorize an agency to promulgate regulations.                               
                                                                               
  Number 496                                                                   
                                                                               
  RAGA ELIM, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DNR'S COMMISSIONER,                      
  commented that ski area plans of operation had always been                   
  reviewed by DPS officials.  He noted that the state was                      
  getting into the ski area business, as it owned the land                     
  where the Alyeska Ski Resort was being expanded, and also                    
  had holdings in the Hatcher Pass and Girdwood areas.                         
  Because the state owned the land where ski areas were                        
  located, he said, plan review responsibilities were being                    
  transferred from the DPS to the DNR.                                         
                                                                               
  MR. ELIM said that the DNR intended to set out very specific                 
  requirements for ski area operators, in addition to those                    
  set forth in HB 41, whether through regulation or through                    
  lease terms.  He said that it was not clear whether or not                   
  the DNR would need to adopt regulations.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 529                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES did not understand how a ski area                       
  operator could file a plan, if there was no attendant                        
  instructions for doing so.  She asked Mr. Elim if he felt                    
  that HB 41 should include a provision requiring the DNR to                   
  adopt regulations.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 536                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. ELIM stated that if HB 41 did not include a requirement                  
  that the DNR adopt regulations, the agency would still have                  
  the discretion of adopting regulations on its own.                           
  Alternatively, he stated that the DNR could also come up                     
  with policies and procedures relating to ski area operation                  
  plans.  He understood that the DPS had not adopted                           
  regulations regarding ski area operation plans, but did have                 
  a working relationship with the resorts regarding what was                   
  expected of them.                                                            
                                                                               
  Number 557                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 1, requiring                     
  that the DNR adopt regulations pertaining to ski area                        
  operation plans.                                                             
                                                                               
  Number 568                                                                   
                                                                               
  GRETCHEN PENCE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DPS' COMMISSIONER,                  
  addressed the method by which her department reviewed ski                    
  area operation plans.  She said that the DPS did not                         
  currently have any regulations regarding the plans, nor had                  
  it in the past.  She mentioned that the DPS had developed a                  
  working relationship with the ski areas over the past                        
  several years.                                                               
                                                                               
  MS. PENCE commented that present statutes required the DPS                   
  to review ski area operation plans for some basic safety                     
  provisions, regarding avalanches, search and rescue, and                     
  missing persons reports.  She noted that the DPS had never                   
  gone "on site" to examine a ski area.                                        
                                                                               
  Number 588                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND mentioned the Rizer case, in which a                 
  child was lost on a ski slope.  He had heard Alyeska                         
  criticized for having an inadequate plan for dealing with a                  
  missing person.  He noted that, without regulations, the                     
  public was not assured that a ski area would have adequate                   
  plans in place.  The regulatory process, however, would                      
  provide the public with more assurances, he said.                            
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS perceived that adopting amendment                    
  no. 1 would result in CSHB 41 (JUD) needing a fiscal note                    
  and therefore a House Finance Committee referral.  She added                 
  that because ski areas were already required to submit plans                 
  of operation, and because a working relationship already                     
  existed between the state and the ski areas, the committee                   
  could elect to not require the DNR to adopt regulations.                     
                                                                               
  Number 619                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the amendment would not                       
  necessarily require a fiscal note.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 631                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that the committee could send                  
  a letter of intent along to the House Finance Committee,                     
  stating that if the DNR determined that CSHB 41 (JUD) would                  
  result in a fiscal impact, then the House Finance Committee                  
  could add a fiscal note at that time.  He wished to amend                    
  his amendment to refer specifically to the DNR's                             
  commissioner.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 639                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. ELIM asked if the DNR had authority to promulgate                        
  regulations under Title 5.                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked why the DNR, and not the DPS,                     
  would be reviewing ski area plans.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 650                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that most of the lands involved                      
  would be coming under the DNR's purview.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 658                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON questioned whether the                         
  committee was unwilling to improve CSHB 41 (JUD), as it                      
  would result in the bill receiving an additional committee                   
  of referral.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 663                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee was currently                      
  addressing the question of whether the DNR had the                           
  authority, under Title 5, to promulgate regulations.  He                     
  noted that HB 41 already had a House Finance Committee                       
  referral.                                                                    
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS was simply questioning whether the                   
  committee needed to add a fiscal note to CSHB 41 (JUD).                      
                                                                               
  Number 666                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. ELIM stated that he had written a new fiscal note to                     
  comport with CSHB 41 (JUD).  He was uncertain as to whether                  
  regulation writing would result in an additional fiscal                      
  impact.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 674                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Elim to comment on the                        
  relative workloads associated with writing regulations and                   
  writing policies and procedures.                                             
                                                                               
  MR. ELIM responded that the regulatory process entailed much                 
  more time and effort than the process of writing policies                    
  and procedures.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 687                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND considered replacing "department"                    
  with "commissioner of natural resources" as a friendly                       
  amendment to his amendment.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 689                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how long the gap between the                      
  effective date of CSHB 41 (JUD) and the finalization of                      
  regulations would be.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 694                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that, until regulations were                       
  finalized, he assumed that plans would be reviewed according                 
  to procedures now in place.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 705                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. GRAVO commented that if the committee was concerned                      
  about the fiscal impact of the amendment, they could amend                   
  the amendment to say that the DNR shall adopt a policy to                    
  implement the section.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 712                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that Mr. Gravo's suggestion embodied                 
  that which was now in place.  He added that the legislature                  
  either established policy and asked departments to implement                 
  it, or established a general policy and asked departments to                 
  adopt specific regulations.  He would be uncomfortable doing                 
  something halfway between those two approaches, he said.                     
                                                                               
  Number 726                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that HB 41 was very                        
  detailed regarding signs, yet much more general with regard                  
  to other provisions.  The effect of that, he said, was that                  
  sign requirements were getting a great deal of public                        
  review, while other aspects of ski area operations were not.                 
  He expressed his support for requiring the DNR to adopt                      
  regulations.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 736                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER did not see the adoption of regulations as a                 
  bar to implementing the rest of the statute.                                 
                                                                               
  Number 744                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON stated that it appeared that HB 41                   
  was attempting to solve problems faced by some of the                        
  smaller ski areas.  Yet, he said, it seemed that the                         
  committee was trying to craft a bill which would apply to                    
  all ski areas.                                                               
                                                                               
  There being no objection to the adoption of AMENDMENT NO.1,                  
  IT WAS ADOPTED.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 756                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked why the immunity language on                   
  page 5, lines 6-18 had been added to CSHB 41 (JUD).                          
                                                                               
  Number 768                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI replied that the DPS and the DNR had suggested                  
  the addition.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 770                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. PENCE stated that the Department of Administration's                     
  Division of Insurance had recommended the addition to the                    
  DPS.                                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 786                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that because AMENDMENT NO.1,                  
  requiring the DNR to adopt regulations, had been adopted, he                 
  would not offer an amendment pertaining to the immunity                      
  language.                                                                    
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-44, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON called the members' attention to                     
  page 5, line 1.  He asked if a ski area was obliged to                       
  follow a plan, once prepared and implemented.  He said that                  
  if that was not the case, then he would OFFER AMENDMENT NO.                  
  2 adding language to that effect.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 029                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that, in his opinion, following                    
  the plan was inherent in the language of CSHB 41 (JUD).                      
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON WITHDREW AMENDMENT NO. 2.                            
                                                                               
  Number 067                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 3, inserting a                   
  new provision requiring an operator or its predecessor who                   
  had a plan in effect on January 1, 1993, to implement that                   
  plan as a minimum standard for skier safety.  He said that                   
  the intent of his amendment was to prohibit ski areas from                   
  implementing lesser standards than those in place on January                 
  1, 1993.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 081                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED for the purpose of                          
  discussing the amendment.                                                    
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if it would be appropriate to say that                 
  a plan in place on January 1, 1993 would operate as a                        
  minimum standard for skier safety until the adoption of                      
  regulations by the DNR.                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 092                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that the committee could be                     
  creating a problem, in that, for 1993, plans would already                   
  be in effect.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 101                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON stated that it was his intent that                   
  ski areas not adopt plans which were less stringent than                     
  those already in place for 1993.                                             
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that the January 1, 1993 date                      
  concerned him.  He noted that ski area operation plans were                  
  probably amended at times, with those amendments resulting                   
  in even safer skiing conditions.  He asked Representative                    
  Davidson if he would object to changing the January 1, 1993                  
  date to the date HB 41 passed.                                               
                                                                               
  Number 123                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that by the time HB 41                     
  passed the legislature and was signed by the governor, ski                   
  season would be over.  She OBJECTED to the motion on the                     
  basis that the amendment was a moot point.                                   
                                                                               
  Number 132                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON wanted to ensure that ski areas did                  
  not adopt lower safety standards than those which were                       
  currently in place.  He understood the Chairman's concern                    
  regarding the January 1, 1993 date, but said that, in his                    
  opinion, the Chairman's suggestion for rectifying the                        
  problem would not adequately address the situation.                          
                                                                               
  Number 147                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that there was adequate time to get                    
  regulations in place before the next ski season began.  He                   
  understood what Representative Davidson was trying to                        
  accomplish with his amendment, but did not like the                          
  amendment's presumption that ski area operators were "laying                 
  in wait" to reduce safety standards.                                         
                                                                               
  Number 171                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON expressed his opinion that when                      
  safety costs money, safety generally did not happen.  He                     
  reminded the committee members that they had heard powerful                  
  testimony expressing concerns with HB 41.  He wanted to                      
  ensure that the committee had tried to address some of the                   
  concerns and fears that people had testified about.                          
                                                                               
  Number 184                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that some of the testifiers had                   
  assumed that adoption of HB 41 would result in less safe                     
  skiing conditions than now existed.  She said that testimony                 
  she had heard seemed to indicate that the perceived problem                  
  was ski areas not adhering to plans in place, not that the                   
  plans themselves were inadequate.  She expressed an opinion                  
  that HB 41 would ensure that plans would be at least as                      
  stringent as they were today.  With the adoption of                          
  regulations, she added, plans would likely be even more                      
  stringent than they were now.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 205                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the committee had heard                       
  testimony expressing an opinion that a particular ski area                   
  operator had not correctly implemented a plan, or did not                    
  have an appropriate plan.  That opinion, he noted, would be                  
  tested in court.                                                             
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON stated that some laws, not excluding                 
  HB 41, made it more difficult for aggrieved parties to file                  
  lawsuits.                                                                    
                                                                               
  A roll call vote on amendment no. 3 was taken.                               
  Representatives Nordlund and Davidson voted "YEA."                           
  Representatives Kott, Phillips, James, and Porter voted                      
  "NAY."  And so, AMENDMENT NO. 3 WAS NOT ADOPTED.                             
                                                                               
  Number 243                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON MOVED AMENDMENT NO. 4, deleting the                  
  word "groomed" on page 8, line 30.                                           
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 250                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON understood that many ski trails were                 
  not groomed.  His amendment sought to expand the safety                      
  responsibilities of ski area operators, he said.  He cited                   
  concerns of parents whose children went skiing.                              
                                                                               
  Number 265                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee had discussed this                 
  issue prior to Representative Davidson's arrival at the                      
  meeting.  He said that the idea behind requiring signs only                  
  on groomed trails was so that an operator was not made to                    
  post a sign on every tree and rock within the ski area.                      
                                                                               
  Number 282                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that many of the unsigned                      
  trails were in areas where children would not be skiing,                     
  unless they were expert skiers.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 288                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that his children had skied all                    
  over the Alyeska ski area.  He added that they knew, and he                  
  knew, that skiing was inherently risky.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 303                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND said that, as he read Representative                 
  Davidson's amendment, it could require a ski area operator                   
  to mark every tree on a ski slope.  For that reason, he                      
  said, he intended to vote against the amendment.                             
                                                                               
  Number 310                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON WITHDREW AMENDMENT NO. 4.                            
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 41 (JUD),                    
  dated 3/27/93, as amended, with individual recommendations,                  
  and a zero fiscal note.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO                 
  ORDERED.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 323                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the next item of business                     
  before the committee was HB 147.                                             
                                                                               
  HB 147:  EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR REFERENCE INFO                             
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to a new draft                    
  committee substitute (CSHB 147 (JUD)), dated March 12, 1993.                 
  She noted that a companion bill, SB 122, was currently on                    
  the Senate floor.  She stated that the only change between                   
  CSHB 147 (JUD), dated March 12, 1993 and an earlier House                    
  Judiciary committee substitute appeared on the bottom of                     
  page 1.                                                                      
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI stated that the new committee substitute had                    
  two paragraphs at the bottom of page 1, and the old                          
  committee substitute had three paragraphs.  She explained                    
  that former paragraphs (1) and (2) had been combined into                    
  present paragraph (1) which required that, in order for an                   
  employer to lose the presumption of good faith, he or she                    
  must have recklessly, knowingly, or with a malicious                         
  purpose, disclosed false or deliberately misleading                          
  information.  If disclosed information was accurate, she                     
  noted, these provisions would generally not apply.                           
                                                                               
  Number 375                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 147                      
  (JUD), dated March 12, 1993.  There being no objection, IT                   
  WAS SO ORDERED.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 379                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 147 (JUD),                   
  dated March 12, 1993, out of committee with individual                       
  recommendations.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO                        
  ORDERED.                                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would now take                  
  up HJR 3.                                                                    
                                                                               
  HJR 3:  LIMITING TERMS OF LEGISLATORS                                        
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to a draft                        
  committee substitute (CSHJR 3 (JUD)), dated March 24, 1993.                  
  She reminded the committee that they had suggested referring                 
  to calendar years, instead of terms, to avoid ambiguity.                     
  She said that that change had been incorporated into CSHJR 3                 
  (JUD).                                                                       
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI noted another change included in CSHJR 3 (JUD),                 
  on page 1, line 12.  The new version of the resolution                       
  stated that "no person may serve consecutively more than                     
  fourteen full calendar years".  An earlier version of the                    
  resolution provided that no person could serve consecutively                 
  "more than eleven full or partial calendar years", she said.                 
                                                                               
  Number 426                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that CSHJR 3 (JUD).                                
                                                                               
  Number 431                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said that it might be a compromise,                  
  but he still found it to be bad public policy.  He predicted                 
  that the resolution would spawn litigation, and asked why                    
  the legislature desired to limit the public's choice.  He                    
  stated that the resolution went overboard in attempting to                   
  fix a problem which did not exist.  He noted that this year,                 
  there were 18 new House members.  He said that there would                   
  be a negative effect on the legislature if there was an even                 
  higher concentration of new legislators after the next                       
  election.  He recommended that the committee not move the                    
  resolution out.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 458                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that term limits already                      
  existed, at the voting booth.  However, she said that most                   
  of her constituents felt that term limits were needed.  She                  
  expressed an opinion that the legislature would benefit from                 
  a high concentration of new members every two years.                         
                                                                               
  Number 472                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON replied that he had not intended to                  
  slight the freshmen legislators.  He noted that thoroughly                   
  learning the legislative process took a great deal of time.                  
  He added that institutional memory helped new legislators to                 
  learn.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 484                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that a constitutional revision                 
  task force might be formed to work during the interim.  She                  
  said that it might be appropriate to refer HJR 3 to that                     
  task force for study.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 500                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHJR 3                       
  (JUD), dated March 24, 1993.  There being no objection, IT                   
  WAS ADOPTED.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 504                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to PASS CSHJR 3 (JUD),                 
  dated March 24, 1993, out of committee with individual                       
  recommendations and attached fiscal note.                                    
                                                                               
  Number 510                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked if this meant that there would                 
  never be the opportunity to hold a bill in the House                         
  Judiciary Committee for further study.                                       
                                                                               
  Number 519                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER replied in the negative.  He noted that                      
  there had been a great deal of discussion over the years,                    
  both within the legislature and outside of it, on the issue                  
  of term limits.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 522                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that, realistically, if the                        
  committee was having such a difficult time moving the                        
  resolution out, how could the resolution win a 2/3 vote on                   
  the House floor.                                                             
                                                                               
  Number 528                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that the best place to                     
  vote on the resolution was on the House floor.  There being                  
  no objection to moving CSHJR 3 (JUD) out of committee, IT                    
  WAS SO ORDERED.                                                              
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  HB 61 next.                                                                  
                                                                               
  HB 61:  LOWER ALCOHOL LIMIT TO 0.08 FOR OMVI'S                               
                                                                               
  Number 540                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 61, told                    
  the committee that his bill would lower the blood alcohol                    
  content (BAC) level at which a person would be considered to                 
  be legally drunk while driving, from .10 to .08.  He called                  
  the members' attention to a chart included in the bill                       
  packets which showed the practical effect of that change, in                 
  terms of quantity of drinks, body size, and sex of the                       
  subject.  (A copy of the chart 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.)                          
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that studies had shown                     
  that driving ability was significantly impaired when a                       
  person had a BAC of approximately .05.  That impairment                      
  included reduced visual acuity and slower reaction time, he                  
  said.  He noted that for commercial motor vehicle operators,                 
  a BAC of higher than .04 was considered legally drunk under                  
  present state law.  He said that HB 61 would not solve the                   
  problem of drunk driving, but could help alleviate the                       
  problem to some extent.                                                      
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that the committee would                      
  probably hear testimony that most drunk driving accidents                    
  involved persons with a BAC of well above .10.  He agreed                    
  with that.  However, he said that HB 61 would make some                      
  difference in making the state's highways safer.  He noted                   
  that his bill would encourage people to act responsibly.                     
                                                                               
  Number 586                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked about the effect of the recency                   
  of drinking on the results of a breath test.                                 
                                                                               
  Number 592                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that a commonly-used defense at DWI                  
  (driving while intoxicated) trials was that a person had had                 
  a lot to drink just before getting in the car, but believed                  
  that he or she would not feel the effects of the alcohol                     
  until after he or she had arrived at home.                                   
                                                                               
  Number 615                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND was encouraged to introduce HB 61 by                 
  the Alaska Peace Officers Association in Anchorage.  He                      
  stated that when people were found to have a BAC of .10, it                  
  was difficult to make those prosecutions "stick."  He said                   
  that if there was a lesser penalty, people registering a BAC                 
  of .10 could plead down to that lesser penalty and be                        
  successfully prosecuted for a DWI offense.  He said that                     
  under HB 61's provisions, people found to have a BAC of .08                  
  would be penalized by a fine of at least $250.  He said that                 
  he had crafted the bill in such a manner so as to not impact                 
  the Department of Corrections (DOC).                                         
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that a DWI on one's record,                   
  combined with a fine and probably increased insurance rates                  
  would create a deterrent to driving while under the                          
  influence of alcohol.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 641                                                                   
                                                                               
  MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,                 
  DEPARTMENT OF LAW (DOL), stated that the DOL supported the                   
  concept of a .08 DWI offense.  She noted that the DOL had                    
  supported similar legislation the year before.  She said                     
  that a growing number of states, especially Western states,                  
  were using .08 as the cut-off for DWI offenses.  She                         
  commented that her department was concerned about the                        
  sentencing provisions contained in section 3 of the bill,                    
  however.  She expressed support for deleting that section.                   
  The reason for that, she said, was that by creating a                        
  separate offense, although still a class A misdemeanor, a                    
  .08 DWI would be considered a "lesser offense" to a .10 DWI                  
  prosecution.                                                                 
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH said that in that situation, defendants                            
  registering a BAC of .10 might seek to plead down to the                     
  lesser .08 offense, because the lesser offense did not                       
  require mandatory jail time.  She mentioned federal highway                  
  safety incentive funds for which the state could apply.  In                  
  order to receive those funds, she said, the state would have                 
  to impose mandatory jail time, at least 48 hours, for repeat                 
  DWI offenders.  She mentioned that there was currently no                    
  provision for that jail time in HB 61, meaning that passage                  
  of HB 61 would not comply with federal funding requirements.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH stated that Alaska's appellate courts had said                     
  that a .08 DWI offense was not "substantially similar" to a                  
  .10 DWI offense.  Therefore, she said that Alaska could not                  
  count any .08 DWI conviction from another jurisdiction as a                  
  prior offense for sentencing purposes.  She stated that that                 
  circumstance would continue unless section 3 were deleted                    
  from HB 61.                                                                  
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-45, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH expressed her opinion that the elements of HB 136,                 
  Drunk Driving and Breath Test Offenses, would dovetail well                  
  with HB 61.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 020                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND was interested in amending HB 61 so                  
  as to make the state eligible for federal funding.  He asked                 
  Ms. Knuth if there were many acquittals for persons charged                  
  with DWI offenses, whose BAC registered on or near the .10                   
  margin.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 034                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH did not know about acquittals, but knew that there                 
  were many cases which were simply not prosecuted because the                 
  BAC was on or near the margin.  She commented that under                     
  current law, a person could be charged with a DWI offense if                 
  his or her BAC registered under .10.  However, she said that                 
  it was difficult to successfully prosecute such cases.  If                   
  the state had a .08 DWI offense, she added, the state                        
  expected that persons who had a BAC at or near the .10                       
  margin would plead down to the lesser .08 DWI offense.  The                  
  state did not expect to make more arrests, she said, just to                 
  end up with more convictions.                                                
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that with HB 61, persons                      
  charged with a .10 DWI offense could plead down to the                       
  lesser .08 charge, whereas under current law, persons with a                 
  BAC at or near .10 were often not prosecuted.                                
                                                                               
  Number 081                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH was concerned about whether or not a .08                           
  conviction would count as a DWI offense, in terms of the                     
  state's repeat offender sentencing laws.  She feared that                    
  HB 61 would lessen the deterrent effect of the state's                       
  current DWI laws.                                                            
                                                                               
  Number 104                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what would happen in the event that a                  
  person was convicted of a .08 DWI offense, and later was                     
  convicted of a DWI offense, with a BAC of .15.  "Would that                  
  person be treated as a second offender?" he asked.                           
                                                                               
  Number 112                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH believed that person would not be treated as a                     
  second offender.                                                             
                                                                               
  Number 122                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND recognized that as a problem.  He                    
  stated that the reason for making a .08 DWI a separate                       
  offense was to not add to the already overcrowded jails in                   
  the state.  He noted that if HB 61 was amended as the DOL                    
  had suggested, it would require a DOC fiscal note.  He                       
  mentioned Representative Eldon Mulder's HB 136, Drunk                        
  Driving and Breath Test Offenses, and said that if that bill                 
  passed, it would be a good idea to make the change suggested                 
  by Ms. Knuth.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 156                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the committee could ask the DOC                   
  to draft a fiscal note based on HB 136 being law at the time                 
  that HB 61 was enacted.                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 179                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that HB 61 might inspire some trials,                 
  as defendants sought to get a charge reduced from a .10                      
  offense to a .08 offense.  He said that the state's track                    
  record for convictions, other than those for defendants                      
  whose BAC was at or near .10, was very good.  He expressed                   
  fear that HB 61 might have a negative effect on the state's                  
  track record for DWI convictions.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 203                                                                   
                                                                               
  JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF OF DRIVER SERVICES, DIVISION OF MOTOR                 
  VEHICLES (DMV), DPS, said that her department supported a                    
  .08 DWI offense.  However, she had concerns about section 3                  
  of HB 61.  She recommended that the committee delete that                    
  particular section.  She also expressed concerns about                       
  section 5 of the House Transportation Committee's substitute                 
  for the bill.  She stated that federal law allowed states to                 
  keep .10 laws for three years after states became eligible                   
  for certain federal grants.  Then, she added, states had to                  
  change to a .08 DWI law in order to be eligible for those                    
  grants.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 260                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HENSLEY commented that section 5 of CS HB 61 (TRA) was                   
  therefore a moot point.  She mentioned that states that had                  
  adopted .08 laws had shown a 15.4% reduction in traffic                      
  fatalities.  The State of Maine had shown a 37% decrease in                  
  alcohol-related traffic fatalities, she noted.  But, she                     
  said, that state heavily enforced the new .08 law.                           
                                                                               
  Number 276                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Knuth if sections 3 and 5 were to                  
  be removed from the bill, would HB 61 then simply lower the                  
  BAC level at which intoxication was presumed from .10 to                     
  .08.                                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 284                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH replied in the affirmative.                                        
                                                                               
  Number 296                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that prosecutors would still have the                  
  ability to charge a DWI offense if the driver's BAC was                      
  between .04 and .07, with egregious conduct indicative of                    
  intoxication.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 303                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH stated that if HB 61 was amended as proposed,                      
  Alaska, for the first time, could treat people with .08 DWI                  
  convictions from other jurisdictions as repeat DWI                           
  offenders.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 314                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to DELETE sections 3                   
  and 5 from CSHB 61 (TRA).  There being no objection, IT WAS                  
  SO ORDERED.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 339                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that the Transportation                    
  Committee had also changed the effective date of HB 61, from                 
  1994 to 1995, in order to take into account the provisions                   
  of section 5.  He suggested changing the effective date back                 
  to January 1, 1994, as it was in the original bill.  He made                 
  a MOTION to AMEND the bill in that manner.                                   
                                                                               
  Number 354                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT OBJECTED, for the purposes of                       
  discussion.  He asked what the intent behind a January 1,                    
  1994 effective date was.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 361                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HENSLEY responded that a January 1, 1994 effective date                  
  would give the DMV more time to change its forms and inform                  
  law enforcement officers of the change in law.  She said                     
  that the DMV could gear up to implement the new law in less                  
  time, if the committee desired to change the effective date.                 
                                                                               
  Number 377                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that a January 1 date would                       
  "catch" drivers out on New Year's Eve.  He would rather see                  
  an earlier effective date or a January 2 effective date in                   
  the bill.                                                                    
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH commented that September was the usual effective                   
  date for new crime bills.                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 391                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND WITHDREW his MOTION.  He made a new                  
  MOTION to CHANGE the effective date to September 1, 1993.                    
                                                                               
  Number 403                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER supported the proposed new effective date.                   
                                                                               
  Number 412                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT observed that the September 1 effective                  
  date would result in approximately the same time frame as                    
  allowing the bill to go into effect 90 days after being                      
  signed by the governor.                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 427                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HENSLEY stated that the September 1, 1993 effective date                 
  would give the DMV sufficient time to prepare to implement                   
  the law.                                                                     
                                                                               
  There being no objection to the amendment, IT WAS ADOPTED.                   
                                                                               
  Number 445                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND requested that the committee write a                 
  letter to the DOC, asking that its fiscal note indicate the                  
  effect of HB 61 in the event that HB 136 was enacted.                        
                                                                               
  Number 456                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI indicated that the committee could request two                  
  different fiscal notes from the DOC, one of which could                      
  reflect the fiscal impact of HB 61, given enactment of HB
  136.                                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 464                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER proposed asking the DOC to prepare two                       
  fiscal scenarios for HB 61, based on enactment and non-                      
  enactment of HB 136.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 482                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE out CSHB 61                       
  (JUD).  There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                         
                                                                               
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m.                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects