Legislature(1993 - 1994)

04/12/1993 01:00 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         April 12, 1993                                        
                            1:00 p.m.                                          
                                                                               
                                                                               
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
                                                                               
  Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                        
  Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair                                   
  Representative Pete Kott                                                     
  Representative Gail Phillips                                                 
  Representative Joe Green                                                     
  Representative Cliff Davidson                                                
  Representative Jim Nordlund                                                  
                                                                               
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
                                                                               
  HB 188    "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain                          
            property; and providing for an effective date."                    
                                                                               
            HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER                            
            CONSIDERATION                                                      
                                                                               
  HB 71     "An Act relating to the involuntary dissolution of                 
            Native corporations; and providing for an                          
            effective date."                                                   
                                                                               
            PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS                             
            RECOMMENDATION                                                     
                                                                               
  SB 53     "An Act relating to payment for abortions under                    
            Medicaid and general relief medical assistance;                    
            annulling changes made by certain regulations                      
            adopted by the Department of Health and Social                     
            Services relating to funding of abortion services                  
            under the general relief medical program."                         
                                                                               
            MOTION TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE FAILED BY A VOTE                   
            OF 3-4                                                             
                                                                               
  SB 122    "An Act relating to the disclosure of information                  
            by an employer about the job performance of an                     
            employee or former employee."                                      
                                                                               
            HCSSB 122 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS                          
            RECOMMENDATION                                                     
                                                                               
  HB 222    "An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to                      
            termination of tenancies and recovery of rental                    
            premises, to tenant responsibilities, to the civil                 
            remedies of forcible entry and detainer and                        
            nuisance abatement, and to the duties of peace                     
            officers to notify landlords of arrests involving                  
            certain illegal activity on rental premises."                      
                                                                               
            HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER                            
            CONSIDERATION                                                      
                                                                               
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
                                                                               
  MARGOT KNUTH                                                                 
  Assistant Attorney General                                                   
  Department of Law                                                            
  Criminal Division                                                            
  P. O. Box 110300                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                    
  Phone:  465-3428                                                             
  Position Statement: Explained HB 188                                         
                                                                               
  LIEUTENANT PAUL HARRIS                                                       
  Alaska State Troopers                                                        
  Department of Public Safety                                                  
  4500 West 50th Avenue                                                        
  Anchorage, Alaska 99502                                                      
  Phone:  243-2298                                                             
  Position Statement: Supported HB 188; Supported the concept                  
                      of HB 222                                                
                                                                               
  CHRISTINE SCHLEUSS, President                                                
  Alaska Trial Lawyers Association                                             
  Schleuss and McComas                                                         
  500 L Street, Suite 300                                                      
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                      
  Phone:  258-7807                                                             
  Position Statement: Suggested amendment to HB 188                            
                                                                               
  LARRY LABOLLE, Legislative Aide                                              
    to Representative Richard Foster                                           
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol                                                                
  Court Building, Room 611                                                     
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-3789                                                             
  Position Statement: Reviewed HB 71                                           
                                                                               
  MIKE MONAGLE                                                                 
  Supervisor, Corporate Information                                            
  Department of Commerce and Economic Development                              
  Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations                             
  P. O. Box 110808                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                         
  Phone:  465-2570                                                             
  Position Statement: Answered questions related to HB 71                      
                                                                               
  GAYLE HORETSKI, Committee Counsel                                            
  House Judiciary Committee                                                    
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 120                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  Phone:  465-6841                                                             
  Position Statement: Explained changes in HCSSB 122 (JUD);                    
                      Discussed HB 222                                         
                                                                               
  RUTH SKIDMORE, Legislative Aide                                              
    to Senator Bert Sharp                                                      
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol                                                                
  Capitol Building, Room 514                                                   
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-3004                                                             
  Position Statement: Supported House Judiciary amendment to                   
                      SB 122                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES                                               
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 501                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  Phone:  465-3743                                                             
  Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 222                                  
                                                                               
  SHERRIE GOLL                                                                 
  Alaska Women's Lobby                                                         
  P. O. Box 22156                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska 99802                                                         
  Phone:  463-6744                                                             
  Position Statement: Opposed HB 222                                           
                                                                               
  ELLEN NORTHUP, Director                                                      
  The Glory Hole                                                               
  P. O. Box 21997                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska 99802                                                         
  Phone:  586-4159                                                             
  Position Statement: Objected to shortened notice periods                     
                      contained in HB 222                                      
                                                                               
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 188                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY                                 
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                               
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain property;                   
  and providing for an effective date."                                        
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  03/01/93       489    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/01/93       490    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  03/01/93       490    (H)   -4 ZERO FNS (ADM, ADM, DPS,                      
                              LAW) 3/1/93                                      
  03/01/93       490    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                    
  04/05/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/06/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/07/93              (H)   JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/12/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 71                                                                 
  SHORT TITLE:  DISSOLUTION OF NATIVE CORPORATIONS                             
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) FOSTER,MacLean                               
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to the involuntary dissolution of                    
  Native corporations; and providing for an effective date."                   
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/18/93       101    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/18/93       101    (H)   CRA, JUDICIARY                                   
  03/25/93              (H)   CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124                      
  03/25/93              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                      
  03/26/93       781    (H)   CRA RPT  5DP  2NR                                
  03/26/93       781    (H)   DP: SANDERS,BUNDE,WILLIAMS,                      
                              TOOHEY,OLBERG                                    
  03/26/93       781    (H)   DNP: DAVIES, WILLIS                              
  03/26/93       781    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE  (DCED)                        
                              3/26/93                                          
  03/26/93       807    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): MACLEAN                            
  04/12/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  SB 53                                                                 
  SHORT TITLE:  ANNULLING ABORTION FUNDING REGULATIONS                         
  BILL VERSION: CSSB 53(FIN) AM(EFD FLD)                                       
  SPONSOR(S):   HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES                            
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to payment for abortions under                       
  Medicaid and general relief medical assistance; annulling                    
  changes made by certain regulations adopted by the                           
  Department of Health and Social Services relating to funding                 
  of abortion services under the general relief medical                        
  program."                                                                    
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  01/22/93       122    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/22/93       122    (S)   HES, JUD, FINANCE                                
  01/27/93              (S)   HES AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM                   
                              205                                              
  01/27/93              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  01/29/93       187    (S)   HES RPT  4DP 1NR 1DNP                            
  01/29/93       187    (S)   FISCAL NOTES PUBLISHED (DHSS-5)                  
  02/10/93              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                   
  02/10/93              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  02/24/93              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                   
  02/24/93              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  02/25/93       481    (S)   JUD RPT  1DP  2DP W/AM  2DNP                     
  02/25/93       481    (S)   PREVIOUS FNS (DHSS-5)                            
  02/25/93       487    (S)   FIN WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING                        
                              NOTICE,RULE 23                                   
  02/26/93       499    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  4DP 2DNP     NEW                    
                              TITLE                                            
  02/26/93       499    (S)   PREVIOUS FNS APPLY TO CS (DHSS-                  
  5)                                                                           
  02/26/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              518                                              
  02/26/93              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                      
  02/26/93              (S)   RLS AT 01:15 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM                  
                              203                                              
  02/26/93              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  03/02/93       575    (S)   MOTION TO CALENDAR 3/3/93 FLD                    
                              Y8 N11 E1                                        
  03/03/93       589    (S)   RULES RPT 2/CALENDAR 1/OTHER                     
                              REC 3/3/93                                       
  03/03/93       590    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  03/03/93       591    (S)   FIN  CS ADOPTED Y13 N5 E1 A1                     
  03/03/93       592    (S)   AM NO  1     ADOPTED Y11 N8 E1                   
  03/03/93       592    (S)   ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FAILED Y13                    
                              N6 E1                                            
  03/03/93       592    (S)   THIRD READING 3/5 CALENDAR                       
  03/05/93       634    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 53                     
                              (FIN) AM                                         
  03/05/93       635    (S)   PASSED Y12 N6 E2                                 
  03/05/93       635    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE FAILED Y12 N6 E2                  
  03/05/93       635    (S)   Duncan  NOTICE OF                                
                              RECONSIDERATION                                  
  03/08/93       658    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD                        
                              READING                                          
  03/08/93       659    (S)   PLACED AT BOTTOM OF CALENDAR                     
                              UNAN CONS                                        
  03/08/93       672    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y13                    
                              N6 E1                                            
  03/08/93       672    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE FAILED Y13 N6 E1                  
  03/08/93       677    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  03/10/93       582    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/10/93       582    (H)   L&C, HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                     
  03/23/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 124                      
  03/25/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 124                      
  03/25/93              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  03/26/93       791    (H)   L&C RPT  3DP  2DNP  2NR                          
  03/26/93       791    (H)   DP: WILLIAMS, PORTER, SITTON                     
  03/26/93       791    (H)   DNP: GREEN, MULDER                               
  03/26/93       791    (H)   NR: HUDSON, MACKIE                               
  03/26/93       791    (H)   -5 PREVIOUS SENATE FNS(DHS)                      
                              1/29/93                                          
  03/26/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/26/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  04/01/93              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  04/01/93              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  04/02/93       957    (H)   HES RPT  4DP 2DNP 1NR                            
  04/02/93       957    (H)   DP: TOOHEY, B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA,                   
                              OLBERG                                           
  04/02/93       957    (H)   DNP: VEZEY, G.DAVIS                              
  04/02/93       957    (H)   NR: BUNDE                                        
  04/02/93       957    (H)   -5 PREVIOUS FNS (DHSS) 1/29/93                   
  04/02/93       957    (H)   REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                            
  04/12/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  SB 122                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR REFERENCE INFO                        
  BILL VERSION: HCS SB 122(JUD)                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   SENATOR(S) SHARP,Frank,Taylor,Kelly,Rieger,                    
  Miller,Pearce,Donley                                                         
                                                                               
  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                                     
  02/19/93       411    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/19/93       412    (S)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY                      
  03/04/93              (S)   L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM                  
                              203                                              
  03/04/93              (S)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  03/05/93       613    (S)   L&C RPT  3DP 1AM                                 
  03/05/93       614    (S)   ZERO FNS (COURT, ADM, LAW)                       
  03/22/93              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                   
  03/22/93              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/23/93       911    (S)   JUD RPT  3DP 2NR                                 
  03/23/93       911    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (COURT, ADM,                   
                              LAW)                                             
  03/23/93              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  03/24/93       926    (S)   RULES RPT  3 TO CAL 1NR                          
                              3/24/93                                          
  03/24/93       927    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  03/24/93       927    (S)   ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FAILED Y11                    
                              N8 A1                                            
  03/24/93       928    (S)   THIRD READING 3/25/93                            
  03/24/93       934    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  FRANK, TAYLOR,                    
                              KELLY,                                           
  03/24/93       934    (S)   RIEGER, MILLER, PEARCE, DONLEY                   
  03/25/93       949    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  SB 122                      
  03/25/93       950    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 Y15                    
                              N2 E1 A2                                         
  03/25/93       950    (S)   AM NO  1     ADOPTED UNAN                        
                              CONSENT                                          
  03/25/93       950    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                   
  03/25/93       951    (S)   PASSED Y16 N- E1 A3   SB 122 AM                  
  03/25/93       951    (S)   DUNCAN  NOTICE OF                                
                              RECONSIDERATION                                  
  03/29/93       980    (S)   RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                     
  03/29/93       981    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  03/30/93       844    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/                             
                              REFERRAL(S)                                      
  03/30/93       844    (H)   JUDICIARY                                        
  04/12/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 222                                                                
  SHORT TITLE:  USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW VIOLATIONS                          
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S):   REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES,Porter                                 
                                                                               
  TITLE: "An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to                         
  termination of tenancies and recovery of rental premises, to                 
  tenant responsibilities, to the civil remedies of forcible                   
  entry and detainer and nuisance abatement, and to the duties                 
  of peace officers to notify landlords of arrests involving                   
  certain illegal activity on rental premises."                                
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  03/12/93       619    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/12/93       619    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY                      
  04/01/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  04/01/93              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  04/02/93       932    (H)   L&C RPT  3DP  4NR                                
  04/02/93       932    (H)   DP: WILLIAMS, MULDER, PORTER                     
  04/02/93       932    (H)   NR: GREEN, MACKIE, SITTON,                       
                              HUDSON                                           
  04/02/93       932    (H)   -2 FISCAL NOTES (DPS, LAW)                       
                              4/2/93                                           
  04/12/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-58, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  The House Judiciary Committee meeting was called to order at                 
  1:10 p.m., on April 12, 1993.  A quorum was present.                         
  Chairman Porter announced that the committee would take up                   
  HB 188 first.                                                                
                                                                               
  HB 188:  FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY                                      
                                                                               
  Number 028                                                                   
                                                                               
  MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,                 
  DEPARTMENT OF LAW (DOL), stated that HB 188 would amend the                  
  state's forfeiture laws, which were used almost exclusively                  
  in felony drug cases.  She commented that existing                           
  forfeiture laws were difficult to use, causing the state to                  
  rely on the federal government to handle forfeiture cases.                   
  She noted that the federal government charged the state a                    
  15% fee for providing that service.  She stated that often                   
  in drug cases, a defendant thought beforehand about whether                  
  the benefits of the crime outweighed the potential costs.                    
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH said that the DOL felt if it could take the profit                 
  out of drug crimes, it would be more effective in deterring                  
  those crimes.  She said further that HB 188 permitted the                    
  forfeiture of real property, including buildings, in                         
  addition to other types of property.  Additionally, it                       
  allowed for the tracing of funds to permit forfeiture of any                 
  property which was purchased with the proceeds of drug                       
  sales.  House Bill 188 would also permit the sharing of                      
  assets between the state and municipal police departments,                   
  she said.                                                                    
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH added that the bill also made a number of                          
  technical changes to the state's forfeiture laws, in                         
  response to some court rulings.                                              
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN mentioned concerns that HB 188                      
  would increase the chance of an innocent bystander having                    
  his or her property confiscated.                                             
                                                                               
  Number 124                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH replied that HB 188 did a good job of safeguarding                 
  innocent property owners.  She stated that part of the                       
  confusion might stem from the fact that a protection                         
  provision was deleted from one section of the bill and                       
  reinserted into another section.  She mentioned another                      
  provision in the bill which stated that there was a "prima                   
  facie" case for forfeiture, if there had been an indictment.                 
  She mentioned concerns that an indictment was an early phase                 
  in a court proceeding, and hence forfeiture at that stage                    
  might be premature.                                                          
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH stressed that the prima facie showing was                          
  completely rebuttable, as it only stated that there was at                   
  least probable cause to believe that certain property was                    
  owned by a drug offender.  Property was not automatically                    
  forfeited upon an indictment, she noted.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 165                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES stated that it would be easy                  
  to find out who owned property that was subject to                           
  forfeiture.  It appeared to her that HB 188 would force an                   
  owner to prove that he or she did not have any knowledge                     
  that drug activity was occurring.  She wondered if the                       
  burden of proof should not be reversed.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 187                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH replied that the burden of proof initially was                     
  upon the government.  After the government made its showing,                 
  she said, a person could dispute that showing.                               
                                                                               
  Number 212                                                                   
                                                                               
  LIEUTENANT PAUL HARRIS, from the ALASKA STATE TROOPERS'                      
  STATEWIDE DRUG ENFORCEMENT UNIT, said that HB 188 would                      
  provide law enforcement with a powerful tool for going after                 
  drug traffickers.  He said that the bill represented an                      
  improvement over existing law, as it covered many areas                      
  which were left out of the old forfeiture laws.  He                          
  commented that HB 188 provided protection for innocent                       
  parties.                                                                     
                                                                               
  LT. HARRIS mentioned that HB 188 would allow the state to go                 
  after property in which people had hidden illegal profits,                   
  including money, real estate, and weapons.  He approved of                   
  the bill's provision which allowed forfeited property to be                  
  shared by the state and local police forces, as proceeds                     
  from the sale of seized property could be used for                           
  additional drug law enforcement efforts.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 287                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHRISTINE SCHLEUSS, representing the ALASKA ACADEMY OF TRIAL                 
  LAWYERS and the ALASKA ACTION TRUST, testified via telephone                 
  from Anchorage.  She shared the belief that drug dealers                     
  should not be able to keep property which was purchased with                 
  the proceeds from drug sales.  However, she said that her                    
  organization felt that HB 188 would pose a risk to innocent                  
  property-owners who had no connection to drug sales that                     
  occurred on their property.  The bill would require innocent                 
  property-owners to either undergo a tremendously expensive                   
  process to get their property back or not get their property                 
  back at all.                                                                 
                                                                               
  MS. SCHLEUSS suggested that HB 188 be amended so that it did                 
  not pose a risk to innocent persons, but instead focused its                 
  efforts on those who were truly involved in drug                             
  trafficking.  She mentioned a "60 Minutes" television                        
  program about federal forfeiture laws, which she said were                   
  narrower than those proposed in HB 188.  The "60 Minutes"                    
  program portrayed several apparently innocent parties who                    
  had had sizable assets seized by the federal government                      
  wielding its forfeiture law.  She urged the committee                        
  members to view the "60 Minutes" program, in order to                        
  understand the harm that could result from a well-                           
  intentioned bill like HB 188.                                                
                                                                               
  MS. SCHLEUSS likened HB 188 to a "zero tolerance" law.  She                  
  reminded the committee what had happened several years ago                   
  when the federal government had used its forfeiture laws to                  
  implement a zero tolerance drug policy, which had                            
  devastating effects on the fishing industry.  She said that                  
  HB 188, as written, did not require proof beyond a                           
  reasonable doubt of anyone's guilt, much less the guilt of                   
  the property owner.  She cited an example of a child who                     
  lived with his or her parents, and who possessed or sold                     
  drugs in the home.  She said that under HB 188, innocent                     
  parents could find themselves losing their homes.                            
                                                                               
  MS. SCHLEUSS commented that fishing boat owners, who did not                 
  know that crew members possessed or sold drugs, could lose                   
  their boats and therefore their livelihoods.  She expressed                  
  her opinion that HB 188 went too far.  She stated that the                   
  bill held that the government only had to prove, by 51% of                   
  the evidence, that property was connected to drug activity,                  
  either as a place where a drug deal took place, or was                       
  purchased with the proceeds from drug sales.  She said that                  
  in order for an owner to recover forfeited property, he or                   
  she had to convince a court that he or she did not know                      
  about the drug activity.                                                     
                                                                               
  MS. SCHLEUSS commented that it was very difficult for a                      
  person to prove a negative.  She suggested that the                          
  committee amend HB 188 so that it applied only to                            
  individuals convicted of drug offenses.  In order for the                    
  law to be applied to property beyond that of convicted drug                  
  dealers, she recommended that, before property was seized,                   
  the government should have to prove by at least clear and                    
  convincing evidence, that the owners were aware of and                       
  approved of the use of their property for illegal purposes.                  
                                                                               
  MS. SCHLEUSS expressed her opinion that HB 188, as currently                 
  written, imposed an unfair burden of proof on the property-                  
  owners.  She commented that the bill's provision that                        
  forfeited property be turned over to law enforcement                         
  agencies was an unfortunate aspect of HB 188.  She suggested                 
  instead turning the property over to drug rehabilitation                     
  programs.  She noted that when law enforcement agencies                      
  received the forfeited property, there was a built-in                        
  incentive for law enforcement to overstep its bounds.                        
                                                                               
  Number 475                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND asked if Ms. Schleuss had any                    
  proposed language to offer.                                                  
                                                                               
  MS. SCHLEUSS did not have any proposed language to offer at                  
  this time; however, she added that she could prepare some by                 
  the end of the week.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 496                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND mentioned that he had seen the "60                   
  Minutes" episode to which Ms. Schleuss referred.  He asked                   
  the Chairman if he intended to move HB 188 out of committee                  
  today.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 499                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER stated that he would go along with the                 
  committee's desire.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 503                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if Ms. Schleuss could prepare                  
  amendment language by Wednesday, at which time the committee                 
  could also view the "60 Minutes" episode.                                    
                                                                               
  Number 511                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER expressed concerns about the factuality of a                 
  "60 Minutes" program presentation.  He asked Ms. Schleuss                    
  about the standard of proof required in property-dispute                     
  matters brought before the court, and asked if HB 188's                      
  standard of proof was not the same.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 525                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. SCHLEUSS responded that the standard of proof could vary                 
  in civil cases.  Sometimes, she said, the standard was "a                    
  preponderance of evidence," while other times it was "clear                  
  and convincing evidence."  She said that the standard of                     
  proof in civil cases was not "proof beyond a reasonable                      
  doubt."  She added that in civil cases, property was never                   
  taken from an owner without a hearing.                                       
                                                                               
  Number 548                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH mentioned that a sentence on page 3, lines 18 and                  
  19, of HB 188 should be deleted, as notice provisions were                   
  already covered in existing statute.                                         
                                                                               
  Number 561                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if, at the time of arrest, a lien                 
  would be placed on a piece of real estate where a drug                       
  offense was thought to have taken place.  She asked at what                  
  point the property would be in jeopardy.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 570                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. KNUTH replied that the state would need to initiate a                    
  forfeiture proceeding first, by providing notice of what                     
  property could be subject to seizure, and the connection                     
  that the state would attempt to prove between the property                   
  and the offense.  She stated that if the hearing on HB 188                   
  was to be continued another day, her colleague, Mr. Dean                     
  Guaneli could more adequately speak to the effects of the                    
  bill.                                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 596                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES was concerned that if a person had                      
  committed a drug offense and his or her property was subject                 
  to forfeiture, a notice could protect the state from a                       
  situation in which the offender disposed of the property                     
  before it could be forfeited.  Conversely, she did not wish                  
  to inhibit innocent property-owners from acting to protect                   
  their interests.  She stressed the need for a balanced                       
  approach.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 613                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Knuth to share the committee's                     
  concerns with Mr. Guaneli, so that he might address them at                  
  the next hearing on HB 188 on the following Wednesday.  He                   
  said that the "60 Minutes" tape would be shown at 12:45 p.m.                 
  on Wednesday in the committee room.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 630                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT MOVED an AMENDMENT DELETING the                     
  sentence on page 3, lines 18-19, as proposed by Ms. Knuth.                   
  There being no objection, the AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED.                         
                                                                               
  Number 644                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. SCHLEUSS indicated that she would send amendment                         
  language to Representative Nordlund for the committee's                      
  consideration.                                                               
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  HB 71 next.                                                                  
                                                                               
  HB 71:  DISSOLUTION OF NATIVE CORPORATIONS                                   
                                                                               
  Number 659                                                                   
                                                                               
  LARRY LABOLLE, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD                    
  FOSTER, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 71, stated that a bill similar                   
  to HB 71 had passed the House the year before, but died in                   
  the Senate Rules Committee at the end of the session.  He                    
  said that the bill would provide a one-year period for ANCSA                 
  (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) village corporations                   
  which had been involuntarily dissolved because they had not                  
  completed their biannual report, to be reinstated.  He added                 
  that the corporations would have to pay all dues and fees as                 
  if they had been incorporated all along.                                     
                                                                               
  MR. LABOLLE raised the question of why the corporations                      
  could not simply go out and reincorporate.  He stated that,                  
  because they were the corporations which were originally set                 
  up under ANCSA, the reincorporation had to occur in order to                 
  allow for the continuation of property ownership and                         
  liability.  He mentioned the summer fishing village of                       
  Hamilton, in Representative Foster's district, which had                     
  allowed its corporate status to lapse, and said that many                    
  similar village corporations existed in Southeast Alaska.                    
                                                                               
  Number 688                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked how the state could ensure                    
  that corporations did not, in the future, allow their                        
  corporate status to lapse again.                                             
                                                                               
  Number 692                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. LABOLLE replied that it was his hope that village                        
  corporations would not allow their corporate status to lapse                 
  again.  He said that Representative Foster would send out                    
  notices to corporations within his district, as well as to                   
  others of which he was aware, that needed to reincorporate,                  
  informing them of the one-year window in which they could do                 
  so.                                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 705                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood that the reincorporation                     
  option was already available to corporations.  She asked Mr.                 
  LaBolle what would happen if another corporation had used                    
  the village corporation's name during the period that the                    
  incorporation had been allowed to lapse.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 717                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. LABOLLE replied that a village would still have to                       
  reincorporate in order to pick up all of the corporate                       
  rights and responsibilities that existed for the ANCSA                       
  corporation.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 724                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the corporations which had                     
  already reincorporated would be melded with those which had                  
  not.                                                                         
                                                                               
  MR. LABOLLE replied in the affirmative.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 728                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked Mr. LaBolle why the                       
  similar bill had died the year before in the Senate Rules                    
  Committee.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 730                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. LABOLLE responded that the bill had been caught in the                   
  end-of-session time crunch.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 744                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood that some corporations had                   
  been involuntarily dissolved, and later reinstated after                     
  fees had been paid, provided that no other corporation had                   
  taken their corporate name.  She asked Mr. Monagle what the                  
  time limit for reinstatement was.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 752                                                                   
                                                                               
  MIKE MONAGLE, SUPERVISOR, CORPORATE INFORMATION, DIVISION OF                 
  BANKING, SECURITIES AND CORPORATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                 
  AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DCED), replied that a corporation                  
  had three years from the date of dissolution in which to be                  
  reinstated.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 753                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if some of the corporations                       
  covered by HB 71 had been dissolved for longer than three                    
  years.                                                                       
                                                                               
  MR. MONAGLE replied in the affirmative.                                      
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to MOVE HB 71 out of                      
  committee, with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal                 
  note.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                          
                                                                               
  SB 53:  ANNULLING ABORTION FUNDING REGULATIONS                               
                                                                               
  Number 767                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  SB 53 next.  He commented that SB 53 had received a great                    
  deal of testimony from around the state.  He said that there                 
  were no significant legal questions surrounding the bill.                    
  Consequently, he invited each member to give a statement on                  
  his or her position on the bill, if they so desired, and                     
  then a vote could be taken on whether or not to move the                     
  bill out of committee.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 783                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that publicly-funded elective                 
  abortions were inconsistent with the legislature's efforts                   
  to cut the budget.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 799                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with Representative Green's                       
  remarks.  He stated that abortion funding and unwanted                       
  pregnancies were part of a larger and growing problem.                       
                                                                               
  Number 811                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she had never supported                  
  public funding for elective abortions.  She recognized that                  
  abortions required for medical or psychological reasons                      
  should be treated like any other medical procedure, however.                 
  She opposed SB 53, and echoed Representative Green's comment                 
  that supporting publicly-funded elective abortions would be                  
  inconsistent with other budget-cutting actions taken by the                  
  legislature this year.                                                       
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-58, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he had had personal                           
  experiences in his background which required him to support                  
  SB 53.  He stated that abortion had been a felony crime in                   
  Alaska when he first worked as a police officer.  He said                    
  that he had investigated illegal abortions, and said that                    
  the state should never go back to the days of "back-room"                    
  abortions.  He believed that not publicly funding abortions                  
  for poor women would make them susceptible to "back-room"                    
  abortions.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 028                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS chose not to comment at this time.                   
                                                                               
  Number 029                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND took issue with Representative                       
  Green's and Representative Kott's comments regarding the                     
  costs of SB 53.  He said that if SB 53 was not enacted, the                  
  state would face tremendous downstream health care, criminal                 
  justice, and social service costs.  He said that SB 53 sets                  
  up two classes of people:  poor women who would not be able                  
  to get abortions and women who could afford to get                           
  abortions.  He believed that was fundamentally wrong.  He                    
  supported the bill.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 061                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON said that he had no statement                  
  to make.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 065                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to MOVE SB 53 out of                   
  committee.                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OBJECTED.  A roll call vote was taken                   
  on moving SB 53 out of committee.  Representatives Nordlund,                 
  Davidson, and Porter voted "YEA."  Representatives Green,                    
  Kott, Phillips, and James voted "NAY."  And so, the bill                     
  FAILED TO MOVE out of committee.                                             
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  SB 122 next.                                                                 
                                                                               
  SB 122:  EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR REFERENCE INFO                             
                                                                               
  Number 099                                                                   
                                                                               
  GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY                           
  COMMITTEE, called the members' attention to a draft                          
  committee substitute for SB 122, dated April 9, 1993.  She                   
  mentioned that a companion bill, HB 147, which the House                     
  Judiciary Committee had passed out earlier, was currently in                 
  the House Rules Committee.  She stated that the draft                        
  committee substitute for SB 122 included language at the                     
  bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2 which had been lifted                 
  from the House Judiciary Committee's substitute for HB 147.                  
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI said that the draft committee substitute had                    
  two additional differences from the House Judiciary                          
  Committee's version of HB 147.  She added that those two                     
  differences were part of the bill which the Senate had                       
  passed.  The first change appeared on page 1, line 11, where                 
  the phrase "employer or" was added, in order to clarify that                 
  the bill applied to both present and former employers who                    
  gave out references.  The other change appeared on page 2,                   
  line 2, and added the word "comparable," to clarify that the                 
  bill referred to federal civil rights laws, not all federal                  
  laws.                                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 165                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if Senator Bert Sharp, sponsor                 
  of SB 122, concurred with the changes starting at the bottom                 
  of page 1 of the draft committee substitute.                                 
                                                                               
  RUTH SKIDMORE, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO SENATOR SHARP PRIME                       
  SPONSOR of SB 122, indicated that the sponsor did not oppose                 
  the amendment.                                                               
                                                                               
  Number 181                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI mentioned that former-Representative Max                        
  Gruenberg had expressed concerns about the use of the word                   
  "recklessly" in SB 122, and would be available by telephone                  
  to testify if the committee wished to hear from him.                         
                                                                               
  Number 190                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that the committee had                     
  given the bill ample consideration and that she, therefore,                  
  saw no reason to reopen the discussion on its language.                      
                                                                               
  Number 199                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI described the changes that the committee had                    
  made to the original HB 147.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 236                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Ms. Skidmore to clarify for                    
  the committee that SB 122's sponsor supported the draft                      
  committee substitute.                                                        
                                                                               
  MS. SKIDMORE stated that Senator Sharp supported the draft                   
  committee substitute.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 238                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to MOVE HCSSB (122)                    
  (JUD) out of committee, with individual recommendations and                  
  a zero fiscal note.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO                     
  ORDERED.                                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  HB 222, next.                                                                
                                                                               
  HB 222:  USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW VIOLATIONS                               
                                                                               
  Number 280                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 222, said that she                 
  introduced the bill due to many requests that the                            
  landlord/tenant law be changed.  She said that, to date, she                 
  had received only favorable responses to her bill.                           
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that HB 222 was a very                        
  complex bill, which essentially accomplished three things:                   
  (1) it expedited a landlord's ability to evict a tenant who                  
  failed to pay rent when due, or damaged the premises, or                     
  refused to vacate the premises after a lease expired; (2) it                 
  increased the tenant's responsibility for maintenance of a                   
  rental unit and allowed the landlord to use a "premises                      
  condition statement," signed by both parties, as legal                       
  evidence; and (3) it added criminal offenses involving                       
  alcohol or drugs to the nuisance abatement statutes and                      
  allowed eviction for those offenses.                                         
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that HB 222 would not hurt                    
  responsible tenants, but would give them and landlords much-                 
  needed relief and protection from irresponsible tenants.                     
  She urged the committee to support the bill.  She commented                  
  that the bill contained two classifications of landlords:                    
  professional and incidental.  She said that the existing                     
  landlord/tenant law had been very effective, except that it                  
  was weighted toward tenants.                                                 
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed an opinion that the existing                  
  landlord/tenant law had resulted in landlords requiring huge                 
  deposits from new tenants, as a result of experiences with                   
  bad tenants in the past.  She said that the law needed to be                 
  changed so that it was weighted more towards landlords.  She                 
  noted that she had two amendments to offer, in response to                   
  concerns expressed at the House Labor and Commerce Committee                 
  hearing on HB 222.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 363                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES read AMENDMENT NO. 1, which included                    
  the use of rental property to engage in prostitution as a                    
  criminal offense for which a tenant could be evicted,                        
  instead of allowing a person to be evicted for simply                        
  working as a prostitute off the rented premises.                             
                                                                               
  Number 426                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative James if the effect of                  
  AMENDMENT NO.1 was to expand the prohibited acts from                        
  prostitution to prostitution-involved crimes such as                         
  soliciting prostitution, assignation, etc.                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied in the affirmative.                             
                                                                               
  Number 432                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that the original intent of                     
  HB 222 was to limit the group of acts for which a tenant                     
  could be evicted to drug and alcohol offenses; AMENDMENT                     
  NO.1 added an additional type of activity.  She made a                       
  MOTION to ADOPT AMENDMENT NO.1.  There being no objection,                   
  IT WAS ADOPTED.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 445                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OFFERED AMENDMENT NO.2, which she said                  
  would benefit tenants.  The amendment changed the language                   
  of the bill to relate only to substantial acts or omissions.                 
  The amendment defined "substantial" as something which                       
  caused damage in excess of the amount of the rental                          
  property's security deposit.                                                 
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED AMENDMENT NO.2.  She then                      
  questioned whether the definition of "substantial" was                       
  sufficiently concise.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 474                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that it was his understanding AMENDMENT                 
  NO,2 replaced language which existed in present statute.                     
                                                                               
  Number 479                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied that the language in AMENDMENT                  
  NO. 2 did not exactly match, but was similar to language                     
  presently in statute.  She said that the existing language                   
  referred to "substantial" acts or omissions, but did not                     
  define "substantial."                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 492                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT AMENDMENT NO.2.                  
  There being no objection, IT WAS ADOPTED.                                    
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND distributed copies of AMENDMENT                      
  NO. 3, which he said had been included in the Senate's                       
  companion bill to HB 222.  He said that the amendment would                  
  allow for a mediation process to be set up between a                         
  landlord and a tenant.  If the mediation broke down, he                      
  said, the proceedings would return to court.  He said that                   
  the amendment provided an avenue for differences to be                       
  resolved outside of a courtroom.  He expressed an opinion                    
  that the amendment would not take the "teeth" out of the                     
  bill.                                                                        
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Representative James to state                  
  her objections to including this particular amendment in                     
  HB 222.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 530                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that mediation was always                     
  available to parties in dispute, but she felt that putting                   
  it into statute would be too cumbersome.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 539                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND indicated his understanding that                     
  mediation between a landlord and a tenant could occur,                       
  whether or not it was included in HB 222.  However, he said                  
  that including it in the law would draw attention to the                     
  fact that there was another avenue available for people                      
  wanting to resolve differences.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 557                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative Nordlund to comment on                  
  the section of his amendment pertaining to section 6 of                      
  HB 222.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 559                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that it was his                            
  understanding that the amendment as a whole would allow for                  
  a mediation process to be conducted.  He said that he could                  
  not speak to the specifics of the amendment.                                 
                                                                               
  Number 560                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she was not familiar                     
  with the particular section either.  She said that if the                    
  amendment would extend the time frames which were in HB 222,                 
  then she would oppose it.                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 569                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the committee consider the                    
  portion of AMENDMENT NO. 3 beginning with the section                        
  pertaining to page 7, line 7.  He said that the amendment                    
  would not require mediation, but merely allowed for it.                      
                                                                               
  Number 573                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood that the amendment would not                 
  require mediation.  She expressed concern that mediation                     
  would not be mentioned in some rental agreements, resulting                  
  in complex court proceedings later.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 580                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER did not think that such a problem would                      
  result, given the wording of the amendment.                                  
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI expressed her opinion that AMENDMENT NO. 3                      
  would not invalidate a rental agreement which did not                        
  mention mediation.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 589                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if a landlord could include                       
  mediation in rental agreements with some tenants, but not                    
  with others.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 598                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI commented that landlords could treat different                  
  tenants differently, but could not discriminate against                      
  tenants on the basis of certain features, including race and                 
  sex.  However, if a landlord had articulable reasons for                     
  treating one tenant differently than another (for example, a                 
  lack of references), then he or she could impose different                   
  conditions on that tenant, she said.                                         
                                                                               
  Number 613                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that mediation seemed like a                     
  stall tactic, as well as a cumbersome requirement.                           
                                                                               
  Number 632                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned that the amendment had not                 
  been formally moved.  Additionally, she said that the                        
  amendment was to SB 155, the Senate version of HB 222, and                   
  HB 222's sponsor did not support it.                                         
                                                                               
  Number 641                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND said that he would not formally move                 
  the amendment, as there apparently were not enough votes to                  
  support it.  He said that if the hearing on HB 222 were to                   
  be continued on another day, he would bring the amendment                    
  back before the committee, redrafted so that the format                      
  conformed with HB 222.                                                       
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee now had HB 222, as                 
  amended by AMENDMENTS NO. 1 AND 2, before it.                                
                                                                               
  Number 650                                                                   
                                                                               
  SHERRIE GOLL, representing the ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY,                         
  commented that HB 222 was substantially similar to                           
  landlord/tenant bills which had been before the legislature                  
  for the last five years.  She said that the landlord/tenant                  
  law now in place had tried to balance the rights of                          
  landlords and tenants.  She expressed an opinion that HB 222                 
  tipped the balance too far in favor of landlords.  She said                  
  that women, minorities, and low-income citizens were more                    
  likely to be renters than other Alaskans; for that reason,                   
  she said that the effects of HB 222 would disproportionately                 
  fall on those groups of people.                                              
                                                                               
  MS. GOLL expressed her concern about HB 222's shortened                      
  notice periods.  She appreciated the bill's accompanying                     
  fiscal note, to cover the cost of preparing a brochure                       
  explaining the new landlord/tenant law.  She commented that                  
  in some instances, the bill was changing notice periods from                 
  ten days to five days; in other instances, notice periods                    
  were being decreased from ten days to 24 hours.  She stated                  
  that the bill would result in more evictions.                                
                                                                               
  MS. GOLL agreed that there were bad tenants, but expressed                   
  doubts that changing the landlord/tenant law would have any                  
  impact on tenants who disregarded the law anyway.  She said                  
  that in most cases, landlords were able to protect                           
  themselves by requiring references or deposits.  She                         
  applauded AMENDMENT NO. 2, saying that it made HB 222 more                   
  balanced.  She said that her organization supported the                      
  mediation process.                                                           
                                                                               
  MS. GOLL called attention to the section of HB 222                           
  pertaining to a tenant who had been arrested for a crime.                    
  She said that by shortening the notice period, eviction                      
  proceedings would begin before the tenant was able to defend                 
  him- or herself against the crime for which he or she was                    
  arrested.  And, if the tenant was convicted, she questioned                  
  what purpose would be served by putting that person's family                 
  out on the street.                                                           
                                                                               
  MS. GOLL summarized by saying that, when dealing with the                    
  landlord/tenant law, both parties needed to be respected.                    
  She reiterated her belief that HB 222 went too far in                        
  shifting the balance away from tenants and toward landlords.                 
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-59, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  ELLEN NORTHUP, DIRECTOR of THE GLORY HOLE homeless shelter                   
  in Juneau, distributed a letter to the members of the                        
  committee.  She believed Americans were innocent until                       
  proven guilty, and said that some of HB 222's provisions ran                 
  counter to that tenet.  However, she approved of many of the                 
  provisions of the bill.  She was aware that shortening the                   
  notice period from ten days to five days was aimed at drug                   
  dealers and prostitutes, but said that it would also hit                     
  senior citizens whose social security checks were held up in                 
  the mail.                                                                    
                                                                               
  MS. NORTHUP mentioned a current situation of which she was                   
  aware, involving an elderly man who had lived in the same                    
  apartment for about six years.  The building was sold to                     
  another owner, who implemented a new requirement of first                    
  and last months' rent, plus a cleaning deposit.  When the                    
  man first moved into the building, she said, he only had to                  
  pay his first month's rent.  He was unable to pay for his                    
  last month, plus his cleaning deposit and, therefore, was                    
  evicted.                                                                     
                                                                               
  MS. NORTHUP stated that her primary objection to HB 222 was                  
  its shortened notice periods.  She suggested that landlords                  
  ask prospective tenants if they knew how to clean a house.                   
  Strange as it might seem, she said, some people had never                    
  kept an apartment.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 135                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that tenants could only seek                  
  assistance from the general relief program of the Division                   
  of Public Assistance when they could present an eviction                     
  notice.  Therefore, she said, eviction notices were                          
  sometimes given to tenants in order to benefit them.  She                    
  said that in most cases, landlords were understanding in the                 
  situation of a welfare or social security check arriving                     
  late.                                                                        
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed an opinion that landlords                     
  required first and last months' rent, plus deposits as a                     
  result of problems that had occurred due to the existing                     
  landlord/tenant law.  She noted that if tenants were given a                 
  five-day notice period, and could not come up with rent                      
  money within that time, then they would probably also be                     
  unable to come up with the rent money in ten days.                           
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that the intention of the                        
  existing landlord/tenant law was to protect both parties.                    
  However, she said that during the fifteen years that it had                  
  been in effect, it had bent over backwards for tenants.  She                 
  said that the existing law had resulted in many people who                   
  were unwilling to be landlords.  She expressed an opinion                    
  that the state needed to encourage landlords to provide                      
  rental housing.                                                              
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative James if she was aware                  
  of a memorandum from Jack Chenoweth of the Legislative                       
  Affairs Agency's Division of Legal Services, which suggested                 
  that a particular amendment be made to HB 222.                               
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she had seen the                         
  memorandum, and felt that if the amendment was necessary,                    
  then she would support including it.  However, she said that                 
  if the amendment was unnecessary, then she would rather not                  
  include it.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 195                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI mentioned that a House Judiciary Committee                      
  substitute would need to be drafted anyway, due to the other                 
  amendments that had been made.  She noted that she had seen                  
  Mr. Chenoweth's suggested amendment regarding court rule                     
  references, but was as yet uncertain as to whether HB 222                    
  made procedural or substantive changes.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 200                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she would like to hear                   
  Ms. Horetski's legal opinion of Mr. Chenoweth's suggested                    
  amendment.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 209                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the committee hold HB 222 in                  
  committee until the following Wednesday; in the meantime, he                 
  said, a committee substitute could be drafted and Ms.                        
  Horetski could research Mr. Chenoweth's concerns.                            
                                                                               
  Number 219                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that sections 1 and 6 of                       
  HB 222 would place additional requirements on police                         
  departments, including notifying property-owners if someone                  
  other than the property-owner was arrested, and aiding in                    
  the eviction process.  He wondered what sort of impact the                   
  bill would have on the Alaska State Troopers and on local                    
  police departments.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 234                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that there was a fiscal note                  
  accompanying HB 222.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 238                                                                   
                                                                               
  LT. HARRIS commented that he supported the concept of                        
  section 1 of HB 222, while recognizing that it would create                  
  more work for the Troopers.  He said that in most cases, it                  
  would be easy to find out who owned a piece of property and                  
  notify that person by letter.  He said that in Anchorage and                 
  Fairbanks, records were computerized, thereby speeding up                    
  the notification process.  In other areas of the state, he                   
  said, finding out who owned a particular piece of property                   
  would be more time-consuming.  But, he said that                             
  notification of property-owners was an important thing to                    
  do.                                                                          
                                                                               
  LT. HARRIS indicated his understanding that eviction notices                 
  were usually served by private process-servers, only asking                  
  the police for assistance if certain problems arose.  At                     
  that time, he said, the police would provide assistance as                   
  part of its routine work.  He stated that the Department of                  
  Public Safety (DPS) supported the concept of HB 222.                         
                                                                               
  Number 273                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that it would be helpful to the                       
  police to have the cooperation of a property-owner in these                  
  instances.  Additionally, police could use the opportunities                 
  presented in HB 222 to point out the owner's                                 
  responsibilities toward bad tenants.  He added that the                      
  police's involvement stemming from HB 222 would not                          
  necessarily be viewed as a problem.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 288                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked how a court would interpret                    
  section 10 of HB 222, pertaining to a person's reputation in                 
  the community.                                                               
                                                                               
  Number 298                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that a person's reputation in the                    
  community was a standard used in establishing the                            
  credibility of a witness.                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 311                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that HB 222 reduced a notice                  
  period from 20 days to 24 hours, for breach of a rental                      
  agreement.  He asked if this would present due process                       
  problems.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 325                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the 24-hour period                          
  pertained not to non-payment of rent, but to situations in                   
  which a rental unit was being damaged.                                       
                                                                               
  Number 335                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that he was referring to page                 
  10, lines 8 and 9 of HB 222.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 344                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the section to which                        
  Representative Nordlund was referring was where the                          
  committee had inserted the word "substantially."  The effect                 
  of that section, she said, would give landlords an                           
  opportunity to evict tenants before damage became worse.                     
  She said that she had personal experiences in which property                 
  she owned was being damaged by tenants, and all she could do                 
  was to watch helplessly as the damage was perpetrated.  She                  
  stated that the 24-hour notice period did not apply to non-                  
  payment of rent situations.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 361                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that a House Judiciary Committee                   
  substitute for HB 222 would be drafted, with or without Mr.                  
  Chenoweth's amendment, based on the outcome of Ms.                           
  Horetski's research.  He said that the bill would be back                    
  before the committee on Wednesday.                                           
                                                                               
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m.                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects