Legislature(1995 - 1996)

05/05/1995 01:10 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                          May 5, 1995                                          
                           1:10 p.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                         
 Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman                                       
 Representative Con Bunde                                                      
 Representative Bettye Davis                                                   
 Representative Al Vezey                                                       
 Representative Cynthia Toohey                                                 
 Representative David Finkelstein                                              
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 CSSB 79(CRA):  "An Act relating to errors in surveys of land and              
                amending Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 4 and 12."            
                PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                        
 CONFIRMATION HEARING:  JUDICIAL CONDUCT                                       
                Patrick T. Brown - Fairbanks                                   
                Joann Holmes - Ivanoff Bay                                     
                Arthur H. Peterson - Juneau                                    
 CSSB 26(FIN):  "An Act providing for automatic waiver of juvenile             
                jurisdiction and prosecution of minors as adults for           
                certain violations of laws by minors who use deadly            
                weapons to commit offenses that are crimes against             
                a person, and relating to the sealing of the records           
                of those minors."                                              
                PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                        
 CSSB 87(FIN):  "An Act relating to the membership of the Alcoholic            
                Beverage Control Board; relating to community local            
                options for control of alcoholic beverages;                    
                prohibiting persons from being on premises involving           
                alcoholic beverages under certain circumstances;               
                relating to the definition of `alcoholic beverage';            
                relating to purchase and sale of alcoholic                     
                beverages; relating to alcohol server education                
                courses; and providing for an effective date."                 
                PASSED HCS CSSB 87(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                       
 SB 6 AM:       "An Act relating to suspension of a driver's license           
                for failure to appear in court or failure to pay a             
                fine; relating to court and collection costs for               
                traffic offenses; and relating to citations and                
                court procedures for municipal traffic and parking             
                PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                        
 * HB 327:      "An Act eliminating 'monte carlo' nights as an                 
                authorized form of charitable gaming;  and providing           
                for an effective date."                                        
                PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                        
 (*First public hearing)                                                       
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 PATRICIA HAGGERTY, Administrative Assistant                                   
   to Senator Dave Donley                                                      
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 11                                                        
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone;  (907)  465-3892                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Introduced SB 26                                         
 GREG MCDONALD, Secretary-Treasurer                                            
 Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA)                                    
 1569 South Bragaw, No. 201                                                    
 Anchorage, AK 99508                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  337-1979                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of SB 26                              
 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General                                      
 Criminal Division                                                             
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99811-0300                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-3428                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 26                                            
 ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant                                            
 Office of the Commissioner                                                    
 Department of Health and Social Services                                      
 P.O. Box 111200                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99811-1200                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-3030                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 26                                            
 KATHY TIBBLES                                                                 
 Division of Family and Youth Services                                         
 Department of Health and Social Services                                      
 P.O. Box 110600                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99811-0600                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-3191                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 26                                            
 LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant                                              
 Office of the Commissioner                                                    
 Department of Public Safety                                                   
 P.O. Box 111200                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99811-1200                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4322                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 26                                            
 JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant                                            
    to Senator Robin Taylor                                                    
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 30                                                        
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-3873                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Introduced HCS CSSB 87 and SB 6                          
 PATRICK SHARROCK, Director                                                    
 Alcoholic Beverage Control Board                                              
 550 West 9th Avenue                                                           
 Anchorage, AK 99501                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  277-8638                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of SB 87                              
 EDITH NASHOALOOK, Assistant Health Educator                                   
 North Slope Borough                                                           
 P.O. Box 638                                                                  
 Barrow, AK 99723                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  852-2064                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified regarding SB 87                                
 TOM NICOLOS                                                                   
 P.O. Box 385                                                                  
 Barrow, AK 99723                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  852-2162                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 87                                            
 REVEREND JUDITH MCQUISTON                                                     
 P.O. Box 730                                                                  
 Barrow, AK 99723                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  852-6566                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of SB 87                            
 FRED KOPACZ, Coordinator                                                      
 Mental Health                                                                 
 General Delivery                                                              
 Barrow, AK 99723                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  852-2869                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of SB 87                              
 REVEREND JAMES ROGHAIR                                                        
 Presbyterian Church                                                           
 P.O. Box 730                                                                  
 Barrow, AK 99723                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  852-6566                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of SB 87                              
 MARK HAMLIN                                                                   
 P.O. Box 952                                                                  
 Barrow, AK 99723                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  852-6916                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified regarding SB 87                                
 GREG T. DANJIN, Patriot                                                       
 P.O. Box 125                                                                  
 Barrow, AK 99723                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  852-2277                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified regarding SB 87                                
 TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General                                   
 Department of Law                                                             
 1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200                                               
 Anchorage, AK 99501                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  269-5225                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Bill drafter for SB 87                                   
 SHARON M. NETH                                                                
 P.O. Box 1872                                                                 
 Bethel, AK 99559                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  543-2426                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified regarding SB 87                                
 ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide                                                
 House Judiciary Committee                                                     
 State Capitol, Room 120                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4990                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on SB 87                            
 KAREN BRAND, Legislative Assistant                                            
 Senator Dave Donley                                                           
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 11                                                        
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone;  (907)  465-3892                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on SB 6                             
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  SB  79                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEFECTIVE SURVEY                                 
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) RIEGER                                                 
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 02/09/95       222    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/09/95       222    (S)   CRA                                               
 04/12/95              (S)   CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205                  
 04/19/95              (S)   CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205                  
 04/20/95      1101    (S)   CRA RPT  CS  1DP 2NR   NEW TITLE                  
 04/20/95      1102    (S)   ZERO FNS (DNR, DCRA)                              
 04/22/95              (S)   RLS AT 02:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 04/25/95      1227    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/25/95                        
 04/25/95      1231    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/25/95      1231    (S)   CRA  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/25/95      1231    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                    
 04/25/95      1231    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 79(CRA)                 
 04/25/95      1231    (S)   PASSED Y20 N-                                     
 04/25/95      1232    (S)   COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                     
 04/25/95      1232    (S)   Halford  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                
 04/26/95      1259    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                 
 04/26/95      1259    (S)   HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/27                   
 04/27/95      1297    (S)   BEFORE THE SENATE ON                              
 04/27/95      1297    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y20 N-                  
 04/27/95      1297    (S)   COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                     
 04/27/95      1302    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/28/95      1609    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/28/95      1609    (H)   JUDICIARY                                         
 05/04/95              (H)   JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 05/05/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  SB  26                                                                
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY, Kelly, Pearce, Leman, Green, Miller,           
 Taylor,R.Phillips, Halford                                                    
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG              ACTION                                      
 01/13/95        20    (S)   PREFILE INTRODUCED - 1/13/95                      
 01/16/95        20    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        20    (S)   JUD, FIN                                          
 03/15/95              (S)   JUD AT 02:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 03/17/95              (S)   JUD AT 03:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 03/17/95              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/20/95       696    (S)   JUD RPT  3DP 2DNP                                 
 03/20/95       696    (S)   ZERO FNS (LAW #1, DPS #2, DHSS #3)                
 04/11/95              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 04/11/95              (S)   FIN AT 02:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 04/12/95              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 04/12/95       994    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  6DP        NEW TITLE                 
 04/12/95       995    (S)   ZERO FNS (DHSS-2, ADM)                            
 04/12/95       995    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (LAW, DPS, DHSS)                
 04/13/95              (S)   RLS AT 01:15 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203               
 04/20/95      1103    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/19/95                        
 04/19/95      1087    (S)   HELD TO 4/20/95                                   
 04/20/95      1109    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/20/95      1109    (S)   FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                       
 04/20/95      1109    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                    
 04/20/95      1109    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 26(FIN)                 
 04/20/95      1109    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  PEARCE,LEMAN,GREEN,                
 04/20/95      1109    (S)   MILLER, TAYLOR, PHILLIPS, HALFORD                 
 04/20/95      1110    (S)   PASSED Y18 N1 A1                                  
 04/20/95      1126    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/21/95      1416    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/21/95      1416    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                
 05/02/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 05/03/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 05/04/95              (H)   JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 05/05/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  SB  87                                                                
 SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY                                                         
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 02/14/95       270    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/14/95       270    (S)   CRA, JUD, FIN                                     
 03/08/95              (S)   CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/08/95              (S)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 03/17/95              (S)   CRA AT 03:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/17/95              (S)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 03/20/95       696    (S)   CRA RPT  CS  4DP      SAME TITLE                  
 03/20/95       697    (S)   FISCAL NOTE (REV)                                 
 03/22/95              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 03/22/95              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/27/95              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 03/27/95              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/28/95       808    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  1DP 4NR   SAME TITLE                 
 03/28/95       808    (S)   PREVIOUS FN (REV)                                 
 04/06/95              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 04/07/95              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 04/11/95       977    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  3DP 3NR    NEW TITLE                 
 04/11/95       977    (S)   PREVIOUS FN (REV)                                 
 04/11/95              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 04/12/95              (S)   RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203               
 04/18/95      1058    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/18/95                        
 04/18/95      1059    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/18/95      1059    (S)   FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/18/95      1060    (S)   AM NO  1     ADOPTED Y12 N7 E1                    
 04/18/95      1060    (S)   AM NO 2 WITHDRAWN                                 
 04/18/95      1063    (S)   AM NO  3     ADOPTED Y10 N9 E1                    
 04/18/95      1063    (S)   RESCINDED ACTION WITHDRAWING                      
                             AM 2 UN CON                                       
 04/18/95      1060    (S)   AM NO  2     OFFERED BY DONLEY                    
 04/18/95      1063    (S)   AM NO  2     ADOPTED Y10 N9 E1                    
 04/18/95      1064    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                    
 04/18/95      1064    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 87(FIN) AM               
 04/18/95      1064    (S)   PASSED Y12 N7 E1                                  
 04/18/95      1065    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y19 N- E1                   
 04/18/95      1065    (S)   PEARCE  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 04/19/95      1089    (S)   HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/20                   
 04/20/95      1114    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                 
 04/20/95      1115    (S)   RETURN TO 2ND RESCIND ACTION                      
                             AM 1 Y18 N2                                       
 04/20/95      1115    (S)   RESCINDED ACTION IN ADOPTING                      
                             AM 1 Y11 N9                                       
 04/20/95      1116    (S)   AM NO 1      FAILED  Y10 N10                      
 04/20/95      1116    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 04/20/95      1116    (S)   RETURN TO 2ND RESCIND ACTION AM                   
                             2 Y17 N3                                          
 04/20/95      1117    (S)   RESCINDED ACTION IN ADOPTING AM                   
                             2 Y11 N9                                          
 04/20/95      1117    (S)   AM NO 2      FAILED  Y7 N13                       
 04/20/95      1117    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 04/20/95      1118    (S)   RETURN TO 2ND RESCIND ACTION AM                   
                             3 Y17 N3                                          
 04/20/95      1118    (S)   RESCINDED ACTION IN ADOPTING AM                   
                             3 Y11 N9                                          
 04/20/95      1119    (S)   AM NO  3     FAILED  Y8 N12                       
 04/20/95      1119    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 04/20/95      1119    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y13 N7                  
 04/20/95      1120    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y17 N3                      
 04/20/95      1127    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/21/95      1417    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/21/95      1418    (H)   CRA, JUDICIARY                                    
 04/27/95              (H)   CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/27/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 04/29/95      1663    (H)   CRA RPT HCS(CRA) 1DP 3NR                          
 04/29/95      1663    (H)   DP: VEZEY                                         
 04/29/95      1663    (H)   NR: AUSTERMAN, IVAN, KOTT                         
 04/29/95      1663    (H)   SENATE FISCAL NOTE (REV) 3/20/95                  
 05/02/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 05/03/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 05/04/95              (H)   JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 05/05/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  SB   6                                                                
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR,Sharp                                           
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG              ACTION                                      
 01/06/95        14    (S)   PREFILE RELEASED  - 1/6/95                        
 01/16/95        14    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        14    (S)   STA, JUD                                          
 02/02/95              (S)   STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 02/02/95              (S)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/03/95       160    (S)   STA RPT  4DP                                      
 02/03/95       160    (S)   FISCAL NOTE (DPS)                                 
 02/03/95       160    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)                            
 02/08/95              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 02/08/95              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/09/95       217    (S)   JUD RPT  1DP 2DNP 2NR                             
 02/09/95       217    (S)   FN (COURT)                                        
 02/09/95       217    (S)   PREVIOUS FN (DPS)                                 
 02/09/95       217    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)                            
 02/09/95       217    (S)   FIN REFERRAL ADDED                                
 03/15/95              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 03/15/95              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 03/17/95              (S)   FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 03/27/95              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 03/30/95       839    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  3DP 4NR    NEW TITLE                 
 03/30/95       839    (S)   FNS (DPS #4, CORR)                                
 03/30/95       839    (S)   PREVIOUS FN (COURT)                               
 03/30/95       839    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)                            
 03/30/95              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 04/11/95              (S)   RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203               
 04/11/95              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/12/95       996    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/12/95                        
 04/12/95      1000    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/12/95      1001    (S)   FAILED TO ADOPT FIN CS  Y10 N10                   
 04/12/95      1001    (S)   ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FLD Y12 N8                     
 04/12/95      1001    (S)   THIRD READING 4/13 CALENDAR                       
 04/13/95      1030    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  SB 6                         
 04/13/95      1030    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1  UNAN                   
 04/13/95      1030    (S)   AM NO  1     OFFERED BY TAYLOR                    
 04/13/95      1032    (S)   AM NO  1     ADOPTED Y10 N9 E1                    
 04/13/95      1033    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
                             SB 6 AM                                           
 04/13/95      1033    (S)   FAILED PASSAGE Y10 N9 E1                          
 04/13/95      1033    (S)   KELLY  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                  
 04/18/95      1069    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                 
 04/18/95      1069    (S)   MOTION: RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2                 
 04/18/95      1070    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2                         
                             Y15 N3 E1 A1                                      
 04/18/95      1070    (S)   AM NO  2     OFFERED BY DONLEY                    
 04/18/95      1071    (S)   AM NO  2     ADOPTED Y15 N4 E1                    
 04/18/95      1071    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 04/18/95      1072    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION                         
                             Y17 N2 E1                                         
 04/18/95      1077    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/19/95      1364    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/19/95      1365    (H)   CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                           
 04/25/95              (H)   CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/27/95              (H)   CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/27/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 04/28/95      1628    (H)   CRA RPT HCS(CRA) 3DP 2NR                          
 04/28/95      1628    (H)   DP: VEZEY, KOTT, IVAN                             
 04/28/95      1628    (H)   NR: ELTON, AUSTERMAN                              
 04/28/95      1629    (H)   2 SENATE FNS (CORR, DPS) 3/30/95                  
 04/28/95      1629    (H)   SENATE FISCAL NOTE (COURT) 2/9/95                 
 04/28/95      1629    (H)   SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)                     
 05/03/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 05/04/95              (H)   JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 05/05/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB 327                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: ELIMINATE MONTE CARLO NIGHTS                                     
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS,Mulder                                 
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 05/01/95      1695    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 05/01/95      1695    (H)   JUDICIARY                                         
 05/02/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 05/03/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 05/04/95              (H)   JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 05/05/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 95-57, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:10            
 p.m. on Friday, May 5, 1995.  All members were present.  CHAIRMAN             
 BRIAN PORTER stated the following bills would be heard:  CSSB 79,             
 Appointment hearings for the confirmation to the Commission on                
 Judicial Conduct, CSSB 26, HCS CSSB 87, SB 6, and HB 327.  The                
 hearing was teleconferenced to Anchorage, Barrow and Bethel.                  
 CSSB 79(CRA) - ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEFECTIVE SURVEYS                            
 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER explained that this is the identical bill to            
 the House Bill we passed out of committee last week.  He felt they            
 could just hear the bill, and eliminate the necessity for a waiver,           
 based on the fact that they heard an identical bill.                          
 Number 070                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to move CSSB 79(CRA)              
 out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal              
 notes.  Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.                               
 CONFIRMATION HEARING:  JUDICIAL CONDUCT                                     
 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that having polled the committee, he was            
 given to understand that there was no objection to holding the                
 hearing on the recommendations for the appointments of three people           
 to the Commission on Judicial Conduct without them being here in              
 person.  We have those three names in front of us and he                      
 entertained a motion.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE recommended that they move Patrick Brown,            
 Joann Holmes and Arthur Peterson's names forward to the House floor           
 for consideration on the Commission on Judicial Conduct.  Hearing             
 no objection, it was so ordered.                                              
 CSSB 26(FIN) - DEADLY WEAPON OFFENSES BY JUVENILES                          
 Number 140                                                                    
 PATRICIA HAGGERTY, Administrative Assistant, Senator Dave Donley,             
 introduced the bill.  Senate Bill 26 treats minors who are over 14            
 as adults when they commit a second violent offense using a deadly            
 weapon.  The bill provides for an automatic waiver of juvenile                
 jurisdiction and prosecution of minors 14 and over into adult                 
 court.  SB 26 does not require any specified punishment or                    
 mandatory sentence.  The sentence is at the discretion of the                 
 judge.  A minor sentenced in adult court through this means will              
 have the ability to petition the superior court to seal the record            
 of all criminal proceedings, if provisions of the court are                   
 fulfilled, but a minor convicted in Sections 1 or 2 of this bill              
 will never have the opportunity to have records sealed.                       
 MS. HAGGERTY stated there is a clear problem with juveniles                   
 bringing guns and weapons to schools and public places.  School               
 employees and the police are concerned that the juvenile process              
 does not offer a deterrent to this dangerous behavior.  Students              
 can be expelled for one year for having a firearm on school                   
 property, but we are finding that they re-enroll in the same                  
 district, in another school.  SB 26 will create a strong deterrent            
 to the repeated use of deadly weapons by juveniles.  SB 26 is                 
 supported by the National Education Association, the National Rifle           
 Association, the Juneau Police Department, Fairbanks Police                   
 Department, Anchorage Police Department, the Public Safety                    
 Employees Association, and the Spenard Community Council.                     
 GREG MCDONALD, Secretary-Treasurer, Public Safety Employees                   
 Association (PSEA), stated that the people he represents are                  
 looking at this bill to help them with the growing problem of                 
 juvenile violent crime.  While we recognize that this is a strong             
 measure for the treatment of juveniles, we feel that the bill is              
 being fair and that it (indisc.) the 14-year-old that is for the              
 second crime involving weapons, and we feel strongly that we need             
 to do something to deter this.  This is for the second offense.               
 These kids have been tried and convicted of their first offense               
 under the juvenile system.  Obviously it has failed if they are               
 back again with a second crime involving a weapon, and it is                  
 limited to the felony charges.                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if she heard the testimony correctly              
 that this will stay with them for the rest of their lives.  Is that           
 MS. HAGGERTY answered that if the juvenile is convicted under                 
 Section 1 or 2, it will stay on their record.                                 
 Number 240                                                                    
 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,                  
 Department of Law, stated that the Administration is opposed to               
 this bill because of the 14- and 15-year-olds that would be                   
 automatically waived, treated as adults and left with convictions             
 on their adult records.  Last year, SB 54 went through the                    
 legislature, and in fact, took two years to do it, and it addressed           
 the issue of juvenile waiver.  There was, at one time, a provision            
 for automatic waiver, for 14 years of age and older.  Ultimately,             
 what was passed was an automatic waiver for 16 years and older for            
 unclassified felonies or class A felonies or arson.  This bill has            
 been before the legislature before and did not pass last session.             
 An offense against a person could be either the class A misdemeanor           
 of reckless endangerment.  The fact that it is not limited to                 
 serious felony offense but can include even the most minor                    
 misdemeanor and the fact that it does bring in 14- and 15-year-               
 olds, the Administration does not support the bill.                           
 MS. KNUTH also noted that she has spoken with the Juneau Police               
 Department and the Anchorage Police Department, and they do not               
 support the automatic waiver of 14- and 15-year-olds, and they,               
 like the Administration, are concerned about juvenile violent                 
 crime, and they believe it should be responded to, as does the                
 Administration, but automatic waiver that goes this far is                    
 something that people do not believe is appropriate at this time.             
 The Administration does believe that we need to look wholesale at             
 juvenile justice, that we have got a problem that has leaked to the           
 forefront, and needs to be addressed.  But instead of a patchwork             
 approach where we look at joyriding, we look at offenses involving            
 guns, and there is one other automatic waiver pending this session.           
 Instead of doing it just one issue at a time, we believe that a               
 group of people should get together and come up with a more uniform           
 and more considered policy direction to go with for juvenile                  
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the first time he read this, he thought it was           
 only narrowed to felonies.  It requires a crime against a person              
 committed with a deadly weapon, having been previously adjudicated,           
 but would a misdemeanor be confined to that category?                         
 MS. KNUTH answered that all that is required is for it to be a                
 crime committed against a person, and that a deadly weapon was used           
 in the commission of the offense, not that that be an element of              
 it, and therefore, for reckless endangerment.  The crime is                   
 committed if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates           
 substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person,                
 waiving a gun around would constitute the offense of reckless                 
 endangerment, and obviously is not a felony offense.                          
 ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,               
 Department of Health and Social Services, stated that Margot has              
 given the Administration's testimony, and we were very much                   
 involved in the debate on SB 54, the juvenile waiver bill last                
 year, and we are consistently opposed to the automatic waiver                 
 provisions for children under 16.  We feel comfortable with that              
 position today, and therefore go on record as being opposed to this           
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said we do automatically waive 16-year-olds,            
 but it is the 14- and 15-year-olds that we are objecting to.  We do           
 not just slap their hands and put them back out on the street do              
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said, yes, just about.                                        
 MR. LINDSTROM explained that there are existing provisions where a            
 14- or 15-year-old could be waived into adult court through                   
 existing procedures that have been on the books for a long time.              
 He was not suggesting for one moment that there could not be a                
 situation where that was appropriate.  It is the automatic aspect             
 of this bill that is troubling to the Department of Health and                
 Social Services.                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how many 14- and 15-year-olds have                 
 actually been waived.                                                         
 MR. LINDSTROM asked his staff, Kathy Tibbles, to come forward and             
 answer that.                                                                  
 KATHY TIBBLES, Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of           
 Health and Social Services, said they are not able to provide data            
 about how many kids would fall under this particular provision.               
 Our system will record prior adjudications, but for the major                 
 offense that the juvenile was adjudicated for at that time, perhaps           
 burglary, or whatever, not whether it involved use of a deadly                
 weapon.  We have a new system we are working on and eventually we             
 can answer that, but right now we cannot even tell how many                   
 juveniles would fall under this.  We do not think there are very              
 many, but we do not have the combination of the deadly weapons use            
 along with the charge.                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, without referring to statistics,  if              
 she knew of any.                                                              
 MS. TIBBLES said she did not personally know of any.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY hoped somebody in this room had somewhat of             
 an answer.                                                                    
 Number 370                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that being a longstanding proponent of              
 peer evaluation, he wanted to invite the committee's attention to             
 the letter from Nicolette Davis, a senior from Lathrop.  She does             
 not want concealed weapons allowed.  She says that if you are held            
 accountable for your behavior, maybe your behavior will change.               
 "Out of the mouths of babes" might apply here.                                
 LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,                 
 Department of Public Safety, stated the department's position.                
 They do share the concern with the Departments of Law and Health              
 and Social Services.  For automatic waiver of 14-and 15-year-olds,            
 we feel provisions are present that were implemented through SB 54            
 last year, provides for waiving of those 14- and 15-year-olds on a            
 case-by-case basis.                                                           
 Number 400                                                                    
 MS. HAGGERTY wanted to clarify, in response to the question earlier           
 about sealing of records.  A case sent to adult court under this              
 bill would strictly be a case of a second offense of a minor 14 and           
 over.  In adult court, the judge would have discretion of the                 
 sentence or possible treatment, or waiver of all punishments,                 
 depending on the decision of the court in that case.  All cases               
 coming to court will not become a matter of public record, only               
 those classified under Sections 1 and 2.                                      
 MR. MACDONALD differed with the Department of Law.  We also                   
 represent the Juneau Police Department.  The police officers of the           
 Juneau Police Department support this.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the fiscal note is zero, so they must               
 anticipate this to include a relatively small group of people.  He            
 felt the message to be worth the price.  He then made a motion to             
 move CSSB 26(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations            
 and attached fiscal notes.  Hearing no objection, the bill moved.             
 Number 450                                                                    
 JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, bill              
 sponsor, introduced HCS CSSB 87.  This bill is an old friend that             
 has been through the process twice.  Last session it was known as             
 SB 372, and was prompted by concerns over a lack of clarity in how            
 local option elections are conducted, and the Alcoholic Beverage              
 Control Board (ABC) asked for legislation to clarify the process.             
 Senate Bill 87 as you see it today is substantially the same as               
 last year's legislation.  The bill addresses the shortcomings in              
 the current statute dealing with local option elections for which             
 no provision is made for moving from one type of option to another.           
 Under the current law, a community must first move to remove all              
 restrictions on the sale or importation of alcoholic beverages, and           
 then conduct a second vote on a new option.  This burdensome                  
 process can cause confusion from municipalities and unincorporated            
 villages alike.  SB 87 was amended in the Community and Regional              
 Affairs Committee and the Judiciary Committee to address specific             
 concerns that were raised by local option communities.  This bill             
 has the support of the ABC Board and the chairman of the sponsoring           
 PATRICK SHARROCK, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,                 
 wanted to confirm that Teresa Williams of the Attorney Generals               
 Office was on the teleconference, which she was.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Version R of the CS as            
 the working document.  Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.                
 Number 510                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if it would be helpful if he described             
 the difference between the CS and the bill that was transmitted to            
 this committee.                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER answered sure.                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that the only change in this lengthy           
 CS, Version R, is that we have added a new section 1 which is                 
 similar to the section 1 that came over in the Senate.  It provides           
 that, talking about the makeup of the board, that it leaves three             
 members of the board to represent the general public.  "A board               
 member representing the general public or immediate family member             
 of a board member representing the general public may not have any            
 financial interest in the alcoholic beverage industry."  In this              
 section, "immediate family member" means a spouse, child, or                  
 parent."  The only reason for that change was a concern by the                
 sponsor of the bill that without a reference to the board, that the           
 title would be incorrect, and we would have to go through a                   
 concurrent resolution to do a title change.  He did not concur with           
 that conclusion but he did not want to hold the bill up by trying             
 to fight that battle at this time.                                            
 MR. SHARROCK mentioned that the reason he asked if Teresa Williams            
 was on the teleconference is because she was the assistant attorney           
 general assigned to the board and she drafted this legislation, so            
 she is a good reference.  It is hard to believe that almost a year            
 ago today, May 10, he was sitting before Representative Vezey's               
 committee, the final committee of referral on this same piece of              
 legislation.  In that light, it would be fair to say that the                 
 difference between that and the version you have before you now, is           
 the version that you have just accepted with the proposed amendment           
 in it, and six other amendments that have found their way through             
 the committee system on the Senate side, and two additional new               
 provisions that the board requested be included in the bill in its            
 current form.  Substantially recognizing those things, this bill is           
 identical to the legislation that was before the Senate and the               
 House last year.  The reason it is so thick is because when Teresa            
 rewrote the local option provisions and the descriptions of those,            
 and so forth, the citations were changed.  With that, there was a             
 necessity throughout current law to change those citations, so that           
 makes up the bulk of why there are so many pages.                             
 MR. SHARROCK explained that the reason the board requested that the           
 local option sections of the law be clarified, is because at one              
 point, about a year and a half ago, the City of St. Mary's was                
 trying to change from its current local option to another one, and            
 there was litigation between the traditional council and the city             
 as to how the elections should be handled and how it should                   
 proceed, and more currently, the same situation exists in Barrow.             
 The judge there had determined that it is appropriate that the                
 community wait for a year after it adopted the prohibition on                 
 (indisc.) importation that it adopted last October.  That is not              
 exactly the way it is described in the law, that they shall wait              
 one year, but the intent was certainly there and that is what we              
 had promoted all along, or understood the law to mean, and the                
 judge upheld that.  So there is that correction and provision in              
 there too, to clarify for certain that after an election, either to           
 remove it or to go to a lesser restrictive prohibition that the               
 community must wait a minimum of 12 months and not hold an election           
 more than once in 18 months.  The whole idea of rewriting the local           
 option provision was to clarify things like that and to put them in           
 a form that is more understandable by the people who vote on those            
 kinds of options in incorporated cities and villages, so they only            
 have to hold one election to change or remove or adopt an option              
 they want.                                                                    
 MR. SHARROCK said there are other technical amendments, a few of              
 which are somewhat new, that the board also suggested or desired.             
 Those are insignificant in his mind, except maybe one that they had           
 asked to be included in this version of the bill, which is a                  
 provision to convert restaurant licenses in the community if that             
 restaurant business person wants to have entertainment.  It does              
 not create a new class of license, but allows a person to convert             
 a beer and wine or restaurant license into what he refers to as a             
 semi-tavern license.  The reason the bill chose not to create a new           
 license by regulation is because if it did, then that many more               
 licenses would be available under the population limitation                   
 provisions and the board did not want to do that at all.  The board           
 thought it would be easier to address it under one class of license           
 already.  You may recall the Ciranos case the board had a year or             
 so ago, and this is the board's proposed solution to that kind of             
 thing, to help people out that run into that problem, that run a              
 different sort of business that is not a full-fledged restaurant.             
 He said the sectional analysis addresses the different things the             
 board felt was appropriate.                                                   
 Number 600                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the outcome was of the                  
 Ciranos case.                                                                 
 MR. SHARROCK answered that the proprietor submitted to the board              
 what he believed was a sufficient menu for food to be served at the           
 restaurant, which was somewhat expanded from what the board had               
 looked at before, and the board accepted it.                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the current composition of              
 the board was.                                                                
 MR. SHARROCK answered that, as required by law, there are two                 
 members from the industry.                                                    
 Number 650                                                                    
 EDITH NASHOALOOK, Assistant Health Educator, North Slope Borough              
 (NSB), testified via teleconference from Barrow.  She submitted               
 written testimony as well:                                                    
 "My employment with the NSB started in 1983 as an advocate in the             
 Arctic Women-in-Crisis.  We dealt with a lot of alcohol related               
 domestic violence, sexual abuse, elder abuse.  In 1985, I                     
 transferred to Senior Citizens Program and I saw elder abuse due to           
 alcohol and drug abuse.  I transferred to Health Education in 1987            
 and have been there since.                                                    
 "I support amendments for making alcohol possession and importation           
 a crime, a felony.                                                            
 "When the alcohol ban, making possession and importation illegal,             
 first went into effect last year, I felt a sense of peace in our              
 community.  Children were happier and the domestic violence and               
 other abuses were less evident in the Public Safety and also in the           
 "Barrow residents voted to ban alcohol because it affects their way           
 of life.  Alcohol use in Barrow has been highly correlated with an            
 increased domestic violence, crimes, accidents, mortality, suicides           
 and job absenteeism.  You wouldn't want your child, spouse or                 
 family member to be involved in domestic violence, in crimes, or              
 have a serious accident or commit suicide - we do not want that for           
 our families.  We now know why those things happened in the past.             
 The people of the NSB voted to ban alcohol because they did not               
 want to increase the statistics that were already outrageously                
 higher than the rest of the U.S.  We want those statistics lower              
 and nonexistent.                                                              
 "Residents that are not substance abusers are affected by these               
 things too because we live in an isolated area.  We are in close              
 contact with each other on a daily basis at work and at school.  We           
 see co-workers who do not come in at all because of drinking, or              
 co-workers who are victims of domestic violence related to                    
 substance abuse.  This makes our jobs and our days hard.  We do not           
 want that anymore.                                                            
 "We need stiffer laws that make alcohol procession and importation            
 a serious crime.  Please support us in our efforts."                          
 Number 730                                                                    
 TOM NICOLOS testified via teleconference.  He does not believe the            
 problem with alcohol is alcohol itself.  The problem with alcohol             
 is the people who abuse alcohol.  He felt it was taking a big step            
 forward to increase laws for people who do just that, abuse                   
 alcohol.  This legislation is needed, but portions of it are unfair           
 and unjust, because they are heavily slanted toward one person's              
 view.  He was one of the ten people involved in the lawsuit                   
 regarding the Barrow election laws.  As he recalled, the reason the           
 judge ruled that Barrow could not have an election for a year was             
 not because of the way the statute was written, but because the               
 city council failed to overturn it.  It did not fly in the face of            
 common sense to have an election within less than a year, even                
 though federal interpretation of the law said that we could.                  
 MR. NICOLOS brought up his bone of contention in the State Affairs            
 Committee, and that is that an election would be held once a month            
 to impose a restriction.  But an election can only be held once a             
 year through a restriction, and not more than once.  He asked for             
 clarification because he did not read the law that way.  When it              
 says you can have an election whenever, even though that may not              
 fly in the face of common sense.  That should be addressed.  The              
 people in this community who are opposed to prohibition worked                
 very hard to submit a petition to the municipality to bring about             
 another election.  In Section 7, those petitions are swept aside              
 needlessly.  He asked the committee to please consider this bill              
 carefully, that it be made fair and just to everyone, not just one            
 group of people.                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Mr. Nicolos if he would like to see               
 alcohol back in Barrow.                                                       
 MR. NICOLOS said absolutely.  He does not consider himself an                 
 abuser of alcohol.  His consumption is not great, but he is                   
 extremely opposed to his freedom being restricted because of the              
 actions of other people.                                                      
 Number 780                                                                    
 REVEREND JUDITH MCQUISTON testified via teleconference.  She is a             
 relatively new resident of Barrow.  When she learned that                     
 importation and possession of alcohol is illegal on the North                 
 Slope, she wondered if it would work.  She was really skeptical.              
 After watching this community for the last few months, and hearing            
 the comments of the helping professionals, she is impressed with              
 what is happening.  She believed it is a beginning, not an ending.            
 She felt it to be an encouragement to the people of Barrow that               
 needs to be supported.  Importation of alcohol should be a felony             
 crime.  Today she sees the community having hope.  We have seen               
 some of the best and brightest young people having real problems              
 because of alcohol consumption, and yet there is a prevailing hope            
 that things can change and that our young people must have a better           
 future.  We need to continue that process.  This is a long process,           
 and not just something that is automatically resolved because they            
 no longer have alcohol.  The end result is that the penalty for               
 possession and importation of alcohol is merely a slap on the                 
 wrist.  She encouraged the possibility of creating a penalty that             
 will make people think about whether or not they really want to do            
 that. It is time to do some healing and provide some hope for our             
 young people.                                                                 
 Number 800                                                                    
 FRED KOPACZ, Coordinator, Mental Health Services, North Slope                 
 Borough, testified via teleconference.  He has spent some time                
 dealing with the effects of alcohol and alcohol abuse.  He is                 
 surprised and pleased to see the effects of what this prohibition             
 has done on the North Slope.  He started off quite skeptical about            
 whether or not we could achieve much by doing this.  He is                    
 overwhelmed with the results of this.  He felt that people gave up            
 alcohol for the good of the community and we have seen an                     
 overwhelming community good.  More families are coming to deal with           
 the real issues.  There is more attention being paid to our young             
 people, and we are seeing more and more use of the professionals on           
 the North Slope doing what they are trained at - getting people               
 healed, rather than patching them up after bad episodes of                    
 drinking.  He applauded the committee and hoped they would support            
 the CS, because one of the things happening in Barrow is that the             
 sanctions for not following the law are really too light.                     
 Hopefully, this bill will address some of that.  When a community             
 takes a step like this, we do no want that effort thwarted.  The              
 community of Barrow deserves to have this law enforced.                       
 REVEREND JAMES ROGHAIR, Presbyterian Church, testified via                    
 teleconference.  He has been a pastor for eight years in Barrow and           
 has seen some of the devastation that has come about from alcohol,            
 and accidents, suicides, domestic violence, and people freezing to            
 death.  He is pleased with the changes that have taken place in               
 Barrow since the alcohol ban took effect a few months ago.  He has            
 had the opportunity to read the whole draft and hoped that they had           
 all read it more carefully than he had.  He agreed with the idea of           
 making bootlegging into a felony.  When a community makes the                 
 decision to be alcohol free, then the community needs to have the             
 tools to enforce that.  If the fines for people disobeying the law            
 are about the same price as the street value of a bottle of booze,            
 then we would have the same... (tape ended)                                   
 TAPE 95-57, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 REVEREND ROGHAIR continued, ... strengthen that a bit.  He believed           
 it would give the community a stronger hand because this is a                 
 community that is struggling as others are, for community health.             
 There is a value to community decisions over individual freedom.              
 That is something we in Alaska have to help the rest of the nation            
 understand, especially in the small villages that have strong                 
 Native traditions where tribal values of community are very                   
 important.  These communities need to be strengthened and some of             
 the previous speakers are thinking about their own individual                 
 freedoms of course.  They are speaking about another polarity, but            
 it is important that we try to support community decision making.             
 Number 040                                                                    
 MARK HAMLIN testified via teleconference.  He is a 16 year resident           
 of Barrow.  His comments are focused on the fairness to all sides             
 of the prohibition issue, and are not intended to speak to whether            
 or not prohibition is good, but merely that all sides of the issue            
 should have an equal shot about which way a community will go.  He            
 was concerned about the provisions in Title IV, which gives                   
 politicians with prohibition beliefs an unfair and unequitable                
 advantage over voters, and sometimes even the majority who believes           
 otherwise.  SB 87 would take Title IV, which is already somewhat              
 unfair, to the abuse of those whose rights are being restricted.              
 Title IV does not provide equal treatment.  It is abused by                   
 politicians who choose to promote their personal views over the               
 majority.  The current law allows prohibitionists to attempt to               
 impose prohibition as often as the wish, but restricts those who              
 wish to remove prohibition by trying to do so more than once every            
 12 months.  This section of the law is unfair to the views of half            
 of the voters in Alaska.  He asked the committee to hold the bill             
 over until next session, and make it fair to all of the voters.               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. Hamlin if he is involved in the                
 alcohol industry at all.                                                      
 MR. HAMLIN answered that he is not.  He is a North Slope Borough              
 GREG DANJIN, 22 year Alaska resident, testified via teleconference.           
 He has had dealings with alcohol as an individual and as a law                
 enforcement officer.  He dealt with more alcohol related deaths in            
 Kotzebue than he ever did in Barrow.  Trying to take the issue of             
 possession of alcohol from a misdemeanor to a felony, everyone sees           
 alcohol as the guy with the black hat sitting on the black horse              
 out in front because he is the (indisc.) of the drug of choice, so            
 to speak.  They do not look at what is standing behind him.  That             
 is the guy in the white hat, the (indisc.) drugs.  If you want to             
 make possession a felony, then he suggested making the changes in             
 the law for a misconduct involving a controlled substance 1, 2, 3,            
 4, 5, 6.  That (indisc.) should also be considered a felony.  Why             
 is it they have a choice on drugs when they are already controlled,           
 and alcohol is not?                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if we are imposing laws on the North              
 Slope Borough, and Adak, et cetera, without their consent?  Is any            
 of this valid unless a community votes for this?  A community must            
 vote for this in order for it to become law, correct?                         
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said a community must vote for a repeal of alcohol            
 from there.                                                                   
 Number 280                                                                    
 MR. AMBROSE pointed out that in the packet there is a 1986 memo               
 addressed to Governor Sheffield from the Attorney General.  It                
 deals with many of the issues in Barrow today.  The local option              
 provisions were questionable as far as the constitutionality, and             
 the legislature at that time, chose not to go to a criminal offense           
 for possession, because it is a serious constitutional question.              
 This bill affects not just Barrow, but 115 local option communities           
 in this state.                                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if there was a deterrent for                       
 TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,               
 testified via teleconference.  She said bootlegging is a class C              
 felony under the current law.  This could give you more than a                
 year's prison term.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE wanted to refresh his memory as to what the              
 maximum fine was for a class C felony.                                        
 ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide, House Judiciary Committee, stated             
 that a fine for a C felony is $50,000 for an individual, and                  
 $500,000 for an organization.                                                 
 SHARON M. NETH, Bethel, testified via teleconference.  She had a              
 question on page 21, Section 29 (b) and (c).  It seems to be a                
 contradiction, and she would like to see part (c) amended to be the           
 same as part (b).                                                             
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Teresa Williams if she could answer that.               
 MS. WILLIAMS answered that it had been a year since she had drafted           
 the language.  The distinction is between a municipality and an               
 established village.  In an established village, you would not                
 necessarily have regular elections, and in a municipality, of                 
 course, you do.                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment Number 1:                        
      Page 2, line 7, following "industry.":                                   
           Insert "A person who is employed in a program providing             
           alcohol or substance abuse counseling or related services           
           is not considered to have a financial interest in the               
           alcoholic beverage industry."                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected and said that was not reasonable or             
 necessary.  We should not be adjudicating statutes as fine as this.           
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN withdrew his amendment, and then offered           
 Amendment Number 2, which just clarifies that you now have three              
 public members and two members of the industry, and that in order             
 to have a quorum you have to have at least two of those three                 
 public members.  Otherwise you would have the circumstance where              
 you would have a quorum which is actually made up of a majority of            
 industry members.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected.                                                
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said he could not support the amendment because               
 under this scenario, two members of the board could control the               
 board by not being there.  He requested a roll call vote.                     
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Vezey, Toohey, Green, and Porter voted no.  Amendment Number           
 2 failed, two to five.                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to move Amendment Number             
      Page 2, line 4, after "public.":                                         
           Insert "One board member representing the general public            
           shall also be or have been employed in the field of law             
           enforcement or public safety."                                      
      Page 37, line 8:                                                         
           Delete "sec. 79"                                                    
           Insert "sec. 80"                                                    
      Page 37, after line 15:                                                  
           Insert a new bill section to read:                                  
           "Sec. 77. TRANSITION: BOARD MEMBERS.  The amendments to             
           AS 04.06.020 made by sec. 1 of this Act do not prevent a            
           person who is serving as a member of the Alcoholic                  
           Beverage Control Board on the effective date of this                
           section from continuing to serve until the person's term            
           expires.  The Governor shall implement AS 04.06.020, as             
           amended by sec. 1 of this Act, in making appointments               
           after the effective date of this section."                          
      Page 37, line 18:                                                        
           Delete "secs. 77 and 78"                                            
           Insert "secs. 78 and 79"                                            
 There was objection and a roll call vote was taken. Representatives           
 Finkelstein, Davis and Green voted yes.  Representatives Toohey,              
 Vezey, Bunde and Porter voted no.  Amendment Number 3 failed three            
 to four.                                                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment Number 4:                        
      Page 2, line 4, after "public.":                                         
           Insert "One board member representing the general public            
           shall also be employed in the field of public health."              
      Page 37, line 8:                                                         
           Delete "sec. 79"                                                    
           Insert "sec. 80"                                                    
      Page 37, after line 15:                                                  
           Insert a new bill section to read:                                  
           "Sec. 77 TRANSITION: BOARD MEMBERS.  The amendments to AS           
           04.06.020 made by sec. 1 of this Act do not prevent a               
           person who is serving as a member of the Alcoholic                  
           Beverage Control Board on the effective date of this                
           section from continuing to serve until the person's term            
           expires.  The Governor shall implement AS 04.06.020, as             
           amended by sec. 1 of this Act, in making appointments               
           after the effective date of this section."                          
      Page 3, line 18:                                                         
           Delete "secs. 77 and 78"                                            
           Insert "secs. 78 and 79"                                            
 There was objection and a roll call vote was taken.                           
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Vezey, Toohey, Green, and Porter voted no.  Amendment Number           
 4 failed two to five.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move HCS CSSB 87(JUD) out of            
 committee with individual recommendations and fiscal notes as                 
 attached.  Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.                           
 SB 6 AM - SUSPEND DRIVERS LIC./TRAFFIC OFFENSES                             
 Number 700                                                                    
 JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor,                   
 introduced SB 6.  The intent of this legislation is to encourage              
 individuals to pay some of the 25,000 traffic citations for moving            
 violations that go uncollected each year.  SB 6 is designed to                
 provide the court system with additional leverage in collecting               
 fines.  It would also apply to an individual who fails to appear in           
 court.  SB 6 would be a valuable tool for use by the courts                   
 addressing problems created by those who choose to ignore the law,            
 especially those who fail to make court ordered appearances, or pay           
 fines.  The bill is based on statutes from other states.  The                 
 experience in the state of Washington indicates that over 50                  
 percent of those who receive notice for possible sanctions clear up           
 outstanding matters within one week.  SB 6 allows the courts to               
 suspend the driver's license of anyone who fails to make an                   
 appearance or pay a fine.  It also includes the provision for                 
 putting an offender on notice, that under existing law, their                 
 permanent fund dividend could also be attached.  The bill would               
 actually generate revenue from some of these outstanding fines.               
 Secondly, by the reinstatement of fees that would be collected by             
 the Division of Motor Vehicles.  This does have a positive fiscal             
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if this is a problem in Wrangell.                  
 MR. AMBROSE answered that the problem generating the bill actually            
 came out of Ketchikan.  While there is not supposed to be                     
 communication between the two branches of government, he assured              
 him that in the time it has taken to get the bill this far, the               
 (indisc.) retire from the bench.  It seems to keep running into a             
 small problem in Anchorage with the Parking Authority.  It has                
 nothing to do at this moment with parking.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered an amendment for discussion,               
 described by Karen Brand below.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought the implications are more than the               
 motion indicates.  It seems this would make it somewhere between              
 difficult and impossible for privatization of this service, which             
 is a very laudable goal in management of our municipal services.              
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what Amendment Number 1 does.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Senator Donley's staff member could           
 describe it.                                                                  
 KAREN BRAND, Legislative Assistant to Senator Donley, explained               
 that Amendment Number 1 does three things.  It simply requires the            
 municipality, the Anchorage Parking Authority to comply with state            
 citation forms set out in AS 12.25.  It requires them to adopt a              
 similar appeals process for people who get a traffic citation and             
 want to appeal the process.  Three, it requires that non-peace                
 officers, in other words, Parking Authority employees, when they              
 issue citations, they can only fine up to one half of the amount              
 set by that municipality.  Peace Officers can still write full fine           
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if this was not mandating to a                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER answered yes.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if the offense is the offense, then why            
 would the fine vary, depending upon who writes the ticket?  That              
 sounds a little bit punitive of the parking authority.                        
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if this amendment was offered in the Senate.            
 MS. BRAND answered that yes it was discussed at quite length in               
 Senate Finance, and was adopted.  It was incorporated into the                
 Senate Finance version, and then taken out in the House Community             
 and Regional Affairs Committee version.  To address Representative            
 Bunde's question, the Parking Authority personnel have often times            
 had a lot less training than a police officer.                                
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said he has no knowledge of this particular                   
 subject, and wished he had, but he used to be in charge of parking            
 enforcement in Anchorage as a sergeant.  When you get to a point of           
 having enough people to do a good job, then all of a sudden you are           
 the most hated individual or entity in the world.  That is where              
 the parking authority is right now.  They have finally organized,             
 gotten funding, and gotten an ordinance to the extent that they do            
 a darn good job.  And guess who is complaining?  Those people who             
 are getting those tickets.  He does not have any sympathy for that            
 or for this amendment, quite frankly.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN withdrew the amendment because he agrees           
 with Chairman Porter's comments.                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move SB 6 (AM) out of                  
 committee with individual recommendations and its positive fiscal             
 notes.  Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.                              
 HB 327 - ELIMINATE MONTE CARLO NIGHTS                                       
 Number 850                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that in communication through the Speaker           
 with the Attorney General who says we need this bill, so we will              
 consider it.  This bill eliminates monte carlo nights.  He stated             
 that he could be the reason we have monte carlo.  Back in the 60s             
 he came to visit his mother in Anchorage and found her having a               
 monte carlo day with her Soroptomist Club, and he had to close her            
 down.  It is gambling.  They asked what they needed to do in order            
 to do this, and he told her she needed to go to Juneau and get a              
 permit or a change in the law to allow you to do this, and they               
 TAPE 95-58, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the question is,  "Why do we want to shut down           
 monte carlo nights?"  The answer is that monte carlo is a procedure           
 in our law that allows the following to happen:  A charity may                
 operate a virtual casino for one night a year with craps and                  
 roulette and "21", and those kinds of things for members who wish             
 to contribute to this charity, but do have the opportunity through            
 this process to actually win something or their investment.  They             
 buy chips with real money, play games all night, and those who have           
 won and end up with more chips than they started with, can go and             
 redeem the chips for prizes that have been donated.  It is a very             
 nice function for charity.  The Indian Gaming Commission has gained           
 through court decisions, that people who allow certain kinds of               
 gaming permitted in their state, also have to allow Indian tribes             
 within the definition of Indian country may then negotiate with the           
 state, so that little innocuous monte carlo, provides the                     
 opportunity for casino gambling in Alaska.                                    
 Number 090                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if in keeping monte carlo nights, we               
 allow Indian gaming, if the reverse would also be true.  If we get            
 rid of monte carlo, will we not have the full fledged casino?  Can            
 we be assured of that?                                                        
 CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that there are assumptions you have to               
 make.  The assumption most of us are running with here, and perhaps           
 not correctly, but at least, in his opinion, that is not something            
 we would like to see happen in this state.  Assuming that is the              
 policy of the Administration, they would be negotiating with the              
 Indian tribes to try to avoid full fledged casino operations in               
 Alaska.  With the assumption that they would take that position,              
 their position on being able to successfully negotiate that                   
 position is enhanced tremendously if this is not in the law.                  
 Conversely, it is almost guaranteed to fail if the compact cannot             
 be reached and is appealed, if it stays in the law.  The cruise               
 ship bill fell into that same category and that is why we are                 
 sunsetting the thing, so that they can negotiate in good faith                
 saying that will not occur after September 1 in this state.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that brings him to his next question.  If           
 we did that for the cruise ships, he did not know that it would               
 make a difference.  He has heard from a number of charities, most             
 notably, Greater Anchorage, Incorporated, where they have monte               
 carlo night not only as a money generating thing, but as a part of            
 the festival, where people are out having a good time, and that               
 makes donating a little more comfortable.  Could we put a sunset              
 date in this of December 31, 1995?  Would it still accomplish what            
 we are trying to accomplish?                                                  
 CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that was a great idea.  As a matter of               
 fact, if you read Section 6...                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said "January 1996.  Obviously this bill is              
 hot off of the presses."                                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that is not Representative Bunde's                
 question.  His question was a sunset clause.  What you have here is           
 an effective date clause.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that is essentially the same thing.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY argued they are not at all the same.  This Act           
 takes effect January 1, 1996.  That is not in any aspect, a sunset            
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said he thought the bill would eliminate monte                
 carlo nights as of January 1, 1996.  It has the same effect.                  
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said, "He wants to sunset the                      
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, that, no, he wanted to give monte carlo            
 and the charities a time to phase out, and now they have until the            
 end of the year, if this were to pass.                                        
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said he did not know how Representative Bunde had             
 said it, but knew what he meant.                                              
 Number 170                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt the problem here is a gross error in                
 federal law, and that is really where the matter needs to be                  
 CHAIRMAN PORTER did not disagree.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS asked if we had information on what has           
 happened in other states where they have full fledged gambling on             
 Indian reservations.  They do not necessarily comply with state               
 law, and are still doing it.  How is this law going to keep it from           
 happening in our state?                                                       
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said one reason he went to the NCSL conference was            
 to get the full day Indian gaming seminar the day before.  The                
 states that have this are kind of all over the board, because they            
 have developed this case law, and been guided by different kinds of           
 decisions throughout the last couple of years when they have                  
 engaged in these negotiations with their individual Indian tribes.            
 Some governors and legislatures have come from different positions            
 of policy, too.  What they have negotiated in the compacts that               
 exist are a gambit of some allowing it, and others not allowing it.           
 Those who have tried to revisit totally, have had mixed case and              
 federal court reviews, too.  The most relevant one is under review            
 again at the Ninth Circuit, which is our Federal Court of Appeals             
 for the state.  Unfortunately it is kind of unsettled for us as to            
 just exactly where we are.  What you try to do is build the best              
 hand that you can hold while sitting down in these negotiations.              
 Having these things off of our books would provide a much better              
 position to argue from.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he attended the same conference, and                
 while he does not have any personal heartburn with gambling of many           
 kinds, it became very apparent that for Alaska, any casino                    
 operation, no matter what entity ran it, would be a disaster                  
 financially.  Obviously money had to come from out of your local              
 community, out of your state, and even out of your country, if you            
 will, because it involves disposable income, and if all the local             
 people take their disposable income to the casino, then the                   
 hamburger joints, bowling alleys, and all of these other places               
 that survive on disposable income go away.  It is just not good for           
 the local community.                                                          
 CHAIRMAN PORTER added that sometimes the income is not disposable.            
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt the most likely scenario, if it               
 were going to be allowed in Alaska, under the status quo, would               
 only be relatively few areas that are deemed Indian land.  He felt            
 the most likely areas were remote villages.  There are very few               
 villages who, under the 1971 Settlement Act, chose to hold their              
 own reservations.                                                             
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that once it is allowed, there will be other             
 communities trying.  Tyonek is already making noises like they want           
 to try.                                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said his point is that first of all,               
 they have to ask why it has not occurred already.  All over the               
 rest of the country under the exact same law, and the exact same              
 circumstances, these casinos exist.  This is not just some                    
 discussion that is going on.  He said Indian casinos are all over             
 the place.  The reason it has not happened here is that areas that            
 the entities they just described have no interest in it, or are in            
 lousy locations, and the point that was made by Representative                
 Bunde is true.  They do not have very many people to hit.  The ones           
 most likely to do it, are the ones who are on some sort of tourist            
 route.  This is going to tend to be a Southeast place that can                
 somehow get ferries or cruise ships to come by.  He thought this              
 was a far fetched reason to get rid of monte carlo nights, and he             
 has nothing against monte carlo nights.  Also he does not see                 
 anything wrong with Indian gaming.  He felt it should be regulated,           
 and they do not necessarily want it near our large populations, but           
 this is a self-determination issue.  He is affected by the fact               
 that two of his brothers are Indians, one whose tribe has chosen to           
 pursue this avenue.  They are very poor down in Arizona, as are               
 many of our Natives in Alaska.  He found it hard to imagine that we           
 would decide that the Indian entities that want to pursue this do             
 not have enough self-determination to make that decision for                  
 themselves, and that we are so anti-gambling that we are going to             
 preclude that, but at the same time, we just passed a law saying              
 that cruise ships can have all out casinos while they are in Alaska           
 waters.  Why would we preclude one and then allow another?  He does           
 not see a strong reason to do this.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Are you going to get him, Mr.                   
 Chairman?  I will."                                                           
 Number 330                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he, too, attended the gambling seminar in           
 San Diego.  The stories they told from the states that had gambling           
 were horrendous, but the bottom line was that if you do not have an           
 outside source of people to come and gamble, you are doomed to                
 failure.  The reason the cruise ship gambling works is because they           
 take their people with them.  They pick them up in some foreign               
 port and they bring them in, and they are not allowed to gamble               
 within three miles of a port here.  They have got their gamblers,             
 but when you go to some place like Metlakatla, you really do not              
 have a large draw area, so even if for some reason that would                 
 become some sort of a Mecca for people to swing by and be able to             
 say they played cards at Metlakatla, is not going to get it done              
 for the rest of the year.  There is tourist season, and then there            
 are nine other months when they would have to depend on their local           
 people.  We know it is not just disposable income that goes into              
 gambling, and the state ends up holding the bag for people who have           
 somehow been lured into this thing repeatedly.  Statistically, they           
 showed that if you were not in an area where you could draw in                
 business from outside of your community, you were doomed to                   
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY was concerned about people using their Aid to           
 Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) checks to gamble, so the              
 state would always be feeding that whole gambling group.  It is bad           
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that in response to Representative                      
 Finkelstein's concerns, it is just now coming into the light up               
 here because of ANCSA.  We are the only state in that situation.              
 Most of the land that might have been categorized that way was                
 signed off of that category and we still dispute as to whether that           
 is or is not Indian country.                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered why we were allowing this to continue           
 through the fall until January.                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER guessed it was probably because there are some                
 monte carlo functions already scheduled for the fall.  He really              
 did not know.                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated the reason for his concern is that the            
 longer this continues, the worse the situation gets as far as the             
 federal government observing what the state is doing.  Unless there           
 is some strong reason or some major thing that comes up before the            
 end of the year, he thought this time period should be shortened.             
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY hoped that after the state has settled its              
 position on gambling and gaming, that they could come back and                
 visit a way for the charities to raise funds, because we have put             
 so much effort into making them responsible for their monies, and             
 now we are taking it away from them.  It is a very harsh treatment,           
 and we really need to revisit that.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought the only communities possibly pursuing           
 this include Metlakatla, Angoon, Klawock and Kake.  He did not see            
 how it could be possible for any kind of gambling casino to be                
 economically feasible in those communities.  He thought they were             
 trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.  The problem does lie           
 with the federal law, and if we try to take the burden on                     
 ourselves, we are really not addressing the problem.  We need to be           
 addressing this with our Congressional Delegation.  A Resolution              
 would be more appropriate than a statute.                                     
 CHAIRMAN PORTER could not disagree that the problem is at the                 
 federal level, but he did not know if it would be solvable in the             
 period of time during which we are required to negotiate with                 
 tribes.  There is a chance that at some point in time, the                    
 presumption of good faith negotiations goes away and it could be              
 turned around, but we do not even have the right to appeal this               
 final decision of the Gaming Commission.  He does not like this               
 solution, but what it does is give us six or seven months to work             
 on it, and we would not be devastating any charities if they found            
 the solution between now and then, and they would only be without             
 the ability to have monte carlo for a month until we got geared up            
 next January.                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said they have no evidence before us               
 that there is anything wrong with monte carlo nights.  He thought             
 monte carlo nights were great and were one of the most charitable,            
 social occasions, and all of the ones he has ever been to have been           
 very nice events that serve a very good cause.  They are also one             
 of the very few options people have in that realm, because the same           
 crowd is not going to come and play bingo.  Those are two different           
 crowds.  The people who put on monte carlo nights put in tons of              
 time, and they turn volunteer effort into money.  It takes a                  
 hundred volunteers to run a monte carlo night.  What we are doing             
 is getting rid of something that is definitely good to make our               
 hand somewhat stronger over something that we are not even sure how           
 bad it is.  These small communities could already be doing this,              
 but if not, the reason they are not is because they will not make             
 money.  It is the tribal authority or whatever entity they have               
 who is in charge.  It is not some outside entity trying to make               
 money off of the small community.  So the money they make from                
 their people all goes into a pool that is used for their people.              
 All they are doing is putting money into the community funds that             
 is often used for community good.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that the issue here that we are             
 not really talking about is Indian self-determination, and these              
 folks made the decision not to opt into the Native Claims                     
 Settlement Act.  Tetlin was in that same circumstance.  They chose            
 to remain in control of their own communities, and for the main               
 reason of self-determination.  Gambling is not that popular and               
 does not have the support of all of our citizens, but he felt that            
 was what Indian self-determination comes down to.  We sometimes               
 have to decide that we cannot control what goes on in their                   
 Number 500                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move HB 327 out of committee.           
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to amend the bill first.             
 Amendment Number 1 would move the date from January to March.  The            
 legislature can never act within a month, the way things work                 
 around here.  He thought they should allow two more months, so that           
 if this all works out, there does not have to be a period where               
 this is made illegal, because it would only preclude activities               
 during that one month, these activities involve months and months             
 of planning and so it would probably preclude it over the first               
 half of the year.                                                             
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected to the amendment.  He did not know what              
 the schedule of negotiations were or what it was that drove this              
 particular date.  If this goes to the floor of the House, he will             
 know by then what the reason for that particular effective date is.           
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said in light of that, he would withdraw           
 his amendment.  He then offered a conceptual amendment that would             
 give a two year sunset date from the end of this fiscal year.  This           
 would sunset the effect of this prohibition.                                  
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said this would take two cards out of the state's             
 hand in negotiations, because then they would not be able to say              
 that we are not going to have this.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he would not offer the amendment.             
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if it would be reasonable to say                  
 January 30 instead of January 1.                                              
 Number 530                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER would really resist changing the date at all,                 
 because he did not know much about the bill, since he just got it.            
 He then said that we have had a motion to move, and asked if there            
 was any further discussion.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected, just for the record, but would not             
 keep the bill from moving out of committee.  That is not an                   
 indication of how he would vote on the floor.                                 
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was objection to moving the bill.              
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN objected.  A roll call vote was taken.             
 Representative Finkelstein voted no.  Representatives Toohey,                 
 Bunde, Davis, Vezey, Green and Porter voted yes.  The bill passed             
 with a six to one vote.                                                       
 The following persons submitted testimony for the record, in                  
 opposition to eliminating monte carlo nights:                                 
 Ms. Margaret E, Webber, Anchorage                                            
 Susan M. Sullivan, State Director of the Alaska Chapter of                   
 March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation                                       
 Joanne Lovitz-Edmiston, Board Member, apparently of a handicap               
  charity group                                                                
 Jennifer McGrady, Kenai                                                      
 Frank Miller, Diamond Rose Bingo Hall for Multiple Charities                 
 The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 3:35 p.m.                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects