Legislature(1997 - 1998)

04/29/1998 01:00 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
         HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                    
                   April 29, 1998                                              
                     1:00 p.m.                                                 
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                
Representative Joe Green, Chairman                                             
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman                                        
Representative Brian Porter                                                    
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                 
Representative Jeannette James                                                 
Representative Eric Croft                                                      
Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                 
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                 
All members present                                                            
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                             
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42(FIN)                                     
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska              
relating to marriage.                                                          
     - MOVED CSSJR 42(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 323(FIN) am                                             
"An Act relating to sexual offenses, to those who commit sexual                
offenses, and to registration of sex offenders; amending Rule                  
6(r)(2), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an              
effective date."                                                               
     - MOVED CSSB 323(FIN) am OUT OF COMMITTEE                                 
HOUSE BILL NO. 319                                                             
"An Act relating to an employee's expectation of privacy in                    
employer premises."                                                            
     - MOVED CSHB 319(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
HOUSE BILL NO. 452                                                             
"An Act relating to registration, disclosures, and reports by                  
certain nonprofit corporations."                                               
     - MOVED CSHB 452(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284(STA)                                                
"An Act relating to cruelty to animals."                                       
     - MOVED CSSB 284(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
SENATE BILL NO. 309                                                            
"An Act relating to the use of force by peace officers and                     
correctional officers."                                                        
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                 
HOUSE BILL NO. 434                                                             
"An Act requiring drug testing for applicants for and recipients of            
assistance under the Alaska temporary assistance program; and                  
providing for an effective date."                                              
     - REMOVED FROM AGENDA                                                     
(* First public hearing)                                                       
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                
BILL:  SJR 42                                                                  
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
 3/02/98      2701     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 3/02/98      2701     (S)  JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                 
 3/09/98               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 3/09/98               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 3/10/98      2807     (S)  JUD RPT  CS  4DP 1DNP      SAME TITLE              
 3/10/98      2807     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, PARNELL, MILLER, PEARCE                
 3/10/98      2807     (S)  DNP: ELLIS                                         
 3/10/98      2807     (S)  FISCAL NOTE TO SJR & CS (GOV)                      
 3/24/98               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 3/31/98               (S)  FIN AT  1:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 3/31/98               (S)  FIN AT  7:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 4/01/98               (S)  FIN AT  7:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 4/02/98               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 4/06/98      3158     (S)  FIN RPT  CS  5DP 1DNP 1NR  SAME TITLE              
 4/06/98      3158     (S)  DP: SHARP, PHILLIPS, PARNELL, DONLEY,              
 4/06/98      3158     (S)  TORGERSON; DNP: ADAMS; NR: PEARCE                  
 4/06/98      3158     (S)  PREVIOUS FN APPLIES (GOV)                          
 4/08/98               (S)  RLS AT 11:20 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 4/08/98               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                        
 4/16/98      3294     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR 1NR    4/16/98                   
 4/16/98      3297     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                               
 4/16/98      3298     (S)  FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                       
 4/16/98      3298     (S)  AM NO  1     FAILED  Y4 N16                        
 4/16/98      3299     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING Y15 N5                   
 4/16/98      3300     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSJR 42(FIN)                 
 4/16/98      3300     (S)  PASSED Y14 N6                                      
 4/16/98      3300     (S)  ADAMS  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                   
 4/17/98      3334     (S)  RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                  
 4/17/98      3334     (S)  PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y14 N6                   
 4/17/98      3346     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                 
 4/18/98      3071     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 4/18/98      3071     (H)  JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                 
 4/27/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 4/27/98               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
BILL:  SB 323                                                                  
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PEARCE, Taylor, Lincoln, Kelly, Donley,                 
Miller, Green                                                                  
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
 2/16/98      2529     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 2/16/98      2529     (S)  JUD, FIN                                           
 3/11/98               (S)  JUD AT  1:45 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 3/11/98               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 3/12/98      2842     (S)  JUD RPT  CS  3DP 2NR      SAME TITLE               
 3/12/98      2842     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, MILLER, PEARCE                         
 3/12/98      2842     (S)  NR: ELLIS, PARNELL                                 
 3/12/98      2842     (S)  FISCAL NOTE TO SB (COR)                            
 3/12/98      2842     (S)  INDETERMINATE FN TO SB (ADM)                       
 3/12/98      2848     (S)  COSPONSOR: TAYLOR                                  
 3/24/98               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 3/25/98               (S)  RLS AT 12:55 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 3/25/98               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                        
 3/25/98      2988     (S)  FIN RPT  CS  4DP 2NR       SAME TITLE              
 3/25/98      2988     (S)  DP: PEARCE, SHARP, PHILLIPS,                       
 3/25/98      2988     (S)  NR: DONLEY, ADAMS                                  
 3/25/98      2988     (S)  PREVIOUS FN  (CORR)                                
 3/25/98      2988     (S)  PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN (ADM)                    
 3/26/98      3008     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR  3/26/98                         
 3/26/98      3010     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                               
 3/26/98      3010     (S)  FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                       
 3/26/98      3010     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                     
 3/26/98      3010     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 323(FIN)                 
 3/26/98      3010     (S)  COSPONSOR(S): LINCOLN, KELLY, DONLEY,              
 3/26/98      3010     (S)  MILLER, GREEN                                      
 3/26/98      3011     (S)  PASSED Y16 N- E4                                   
 3/26/98      3011     (S)  COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                      
 3/26/98      3011     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                  
 3/26/98      3011     (S)  KELLY  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                   
 3/26/98      3011     (S)  RECON TAKEN UP SAME DAY  UNAN CONSENT              
 3/26/98      3011     (S)  HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 3/30                    
 3/30/98      3050     (S)  RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                  
 3/30/98      3050     (S)  RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1  UNAN                    
 3/30/98      3050     (S)  AM NO  1     ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                  
 3/30/98      3051     (S)  AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                     
 3/30/98      3051     (S)  RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2  UNAN                    
 3/30/98      3051     (S)  AM NO  2     ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                  
 3/30/98      3052     (S)  AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                     
 3/30/98      3053     (S)  PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y20 N-                   
 3/30/98      3053     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                  
 3/30/98      3053     (S)  COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                      
 3/30/98      3055     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                 
 3/31/98      2807     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 3/31/98      2807     (H)  JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                 
 4/28/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 4/28/98               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
BILL:  HB 319                                                                  
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG                                        
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
 1/14/98      2040     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 1/14/98      2040     (H)  LABOR & COMMERCE                                   
 1/14/98      2045     (H)  ADDITIONAL REFERRAL TO JUD                         
 3/25/98               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                         
 3/25/98               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 3/27/98      2767     (H)  L&C RPT  CS(L&C) 1DP 5NR                           
 3/27/98      2767     (H)  DP: ROKEBERG; NR: COWDERY, SANDERS,                
 3/27/98      2767     (H)  KUBINA, HUDSON, RYAN                               
 3/27/98      2767     (H)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                             
 4/20/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 4/20/98               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 4/23/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 4/23/98               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
BILL:  HB 452                                                                  
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) GREEN                                           
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
 2/18/98      2362     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 2/18/98      2362     (H)  JUDICIARY                                          
 3/04/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 3/04/98               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 3/06/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 3/06/98               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 4/15/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 4/15/98               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 4/28/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 4/28/98               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
BILL:  SB 284                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: CRUELTY TO ANIMALS                                                
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY, Phillips, Ellis; REPRESENTATIVE(S)              
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
 2/09/98      2450     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 2/09/98      2450     (S)  STA, JUD                                           
 2/11/98      2487     (S)  COSPONSOR: PHILLIPS                                
 2/12/98      2505     (S)  COSPONSOR: ELLIS                                   
 3/03/98               (S)  STA AT  3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 3/03/98               (S)  MINUTE(STA)                                        
 3/04/98      2734     (S)  STA RPT  CS  4DP          SAME TITLE               
 3/04/98      2734     (S)  DP: GREEN, DUNCAN, MACKIE, WARD                    
 3/04/98      2734     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (LAW,                  
 3/20/98               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 3/20/98               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 3/23/98      2944     (S)  JUD RPT  2DP 1NR    (STA)CS                        
 3/23/98      2944     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, PEARCE; NR: PARNELL                    
 3/24/98               (S)  RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 3/24/98               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                        
 3/26/98      3008     (S)  INDETERMINATE FN (LAW)                             
 3/26/98      3008     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR  3/26/98                         
 3/26/98      3009     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                               
 3/26/98      3009     (S)  STA  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                       
 3/26/98      3009     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                     
 3/26/98      3009     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 284(STA)                 
 3/26/98      3010     (S)  PASSED Y16 N- E4                                   
 3/26/98      3013     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                 
 3/27/98      2767     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 3/27/98      2767     (H)  JUDICIARY                                          
 4/29/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
WITNESS REGISTER                                                               
KRISTY TIBBLES, Researcher                                                     
  to Senator Drue Pearce                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                       
Capitol Building, Room 518                                                     
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 465-4747                                                     
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented                                                 
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Administrative Assistant                            
  to Representative Joe Green                                                  
Alaska State Legislature                                                       
Capitol Building, Room 118                                                     
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 465-4990                                                     
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on CSSB 323(FIN) am.                   
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant                                             
  to Representative Norman Rokeberg                                            
Alaska State Legislature                                                       
Capitol Building, Room 24                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 465-4968                                                     
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on CSSB 323(FIN) am.                   
JEFFREY LOGAN, Legislative Assistant                                           
   to Representative Joe Green                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                       
Capitol Building, Room 118                                                     
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 465-6841                                                     
POSITION STATEMENT:  Discussed changes in Version F and answered               
                      questions about HB 452 on behalf of sponsor.             
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                               
TAPE 98-76, SIDE A                                                             
Number 0001                                                                    
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee               
meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.  Members present at the call to order            
were Representatives Green, Porter, Rokeberg, James and Croft.                 
Representatives Berkowitz and Bunde arrived at 1:05 p.m. and 1:10              
p.m., respectively.                                                            
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first item of business would be CSSJR
42(FIN), proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of            
Alaska relating to marriage.  He noted that the committee had heard            
the resolution at length two days before.                                      
Number 0061                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a motion to move CSSJR 42(FIN)             
from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal             
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT objected.                                            
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote.  Voting to move the                 
resolution were Representatives James, Porter, Rokeberg and Green.             
Voting against it was Representative Croft.  Representatives                   
Berkowitz and Bunde had not yet arrived.  Therefore, CSSJR 42(FIN)             
moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-1.            
CSSB 323(FIN) am - SEX OFFENSES & OFFENDER REGISTRATION                        
Number 0104                                                                    
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the next order of business would be CSSB
323(FIN), "An Act relating to sexual offenses, to those who commit             
sexual offenses, and to registration of sex offenders; amending                
Rule 6(r)(2), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for            
an effective date," sponsored by the Senate Finance Committee.                 
KRISTY TIBBLES, Researcher to Senator Drue Pearce, Alaska State                
Legislature, came before the committee.  She indicated that at the             
meeting the previous day there was concerns regarding the bill.                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he reviewed the bill with Mr. Guenali and            
it is as difficult as people thought to define this area of the law            
much further.  He said they could not find federal guidelines.                 
There were some federal statutes, federal cases and some old state             
cases that gave some more illumination to it.  Representative Croft            
said there may be a way to do this better, but there probably isn't            
a way to do it better in the next day or even two weeks.  He said              
he appreciates the chairman giving him a day to try and figure out             
if there is someway to define it better.                                       
Number 0243                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ indicated he had a proposed                     
amendment and moved to adopt it.                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN objected for the purpose of discussion.                         
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained what he is trying to do with the            
amendment is to ensure that if the state brings a criminal charge              
against the sexual perpetrator, the victim similarly situated can              
also seek redress at that time as the statute of limitations would             
have otherwise expired.                                                        
Number 0321                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER questioned what the current statute of             
limitations is.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that it is three years after                
discovery and it is located in Section 1 of the bill.  He referred             
to Section 9 and said, "Even if the general time limit of                      
limitations expires the prosecution for sexual offenses - for an               
offense committed against a person under the age of 18 may be                  
commenced at any time."                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she doesn't know why the amendment is                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained the criminal charge can be                  
brought at any time but the civil case can't be.  A person could be            
in a situation where the state would be bringing a criminal charge,            
but an individual might not be permitted to bring a civil case.                
Number 0430                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it seems to be particularly appropriate              
in dealing with sexual offenses involving children.  There are                 
various reasons why a child or guardian may not bring that action              
within three years.                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said if he understands the meaning of the                
amendment, there will be no statute of limitations for a civil case            
brought by an alleged sexual assault victim against the alleged                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded, "If the victim was under 18 at             
the time of the offense."                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "All of the reasons that we discussed              
about adding reasonable statutes of limitations, the statutes of               
repose come into play.  As much as child sexual abuse is a                     
despicable thing, bringing one of these cases 25 years later                   
creates problems that I don't think they're outweighed by the                  
benefit."  He stated he can't support the amendment.                           
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that is true, but we've made                   
exception in the criminal law.  If there is a discovery 25 years               
later, we're allowing the state to pursue an action.  For all the              
reasons talked about earlier, for eliminating actions would                    
logically apply to the state for a criminal action.  He said he                
believes a limitation should be put on the state's ability to bring            
a criminal action or loosen the ability of an individual to bring              
civil action.                                                                  
Number 0590                                                                    
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested, as a friendly amendment, that on line 8              
if instead of "at any time," change it to say "within three years              
after the victim reaches the age of majority."  He said, "In other             
words, this 5-year-old has been put upon.  Now he reaches 21 and so            
that then gives him nearly 20 years find, plus the fact that                   
whatever suppressed his ability to bring the cause of action                   
earlier - now he's an adult and would not be subject perhaps                   
parental or at least family-type abuse."                                       
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he believes that is a step in the                
right direction.  He pointed out that the limitation operates under            
the assumption that people leave home when they're 18.  He noted               
that are a lot of people who don't for various reasons.                        
CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to a person who was to bring a civil action            
for abuse that happened many years ago and asked if that same                  
person would stay in that household after they were an adult.                  
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated there could be circumstances where             
an individual would such as to protect a younger sibling.                      
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that open-endedness is probably more than he               
can handle.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated criminal law is punishable by fines or             
imprisonment or both.  Civil law seems to be only punishable by                
money.  She said sees this as opening the door for family distress.            
Representative James said when people go to court on a civil case              
two things have to be measured, "What is the result going to be?               
And how much money you want to get?"  Representative James said she            
understands the argument by Representative Berkowitz that if the               
criminal act is okay, that the civil act should be okay.  She                  
stated she doesn't see any connection between the two.  There might            
be a case when a child had been sexual assaulted when they under               
six and by the time the child gets into the hands of the state,                
they are a teenager.  There may be some costs incurred by the state            
because of something that happened to a child a long time ago.  She            
said she doesn't have any real discomfort in allowing the criminal             
action to be carried forward because it has a different motive.  A             
civil case only has the issue of money.  If there isn't money, a               
lawsuit probably wouldn't be filed and if there is, there would be             
a lawsuit filed.  Representative James stated she isn't comfortable            
with the amendment.                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "Maybe I can offer an amendment that            
combines the friendly amendment you had which would be something,              
'Within three years of majority or within three years after the                
onset of criminal prosecution.'"                                               
Number 0852                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if that doesn't just extend what the               
current law provides by one year.                                              
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to                         
Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature, came before the            
committee.  He explained that in AS 09.10.140 it states you would              
have two years after you become the age of majority.  If the                   
causing event happens while under the age of majority, it is towed             
until you reach the age of majority in which time you have two                 
years to bring the action.  There are also two special provisions              
for sexual abuse.  He stated that it seems that if you have an                 
injury or illness, being psychological he would imagine, that you              
discover and you relate it back to an event, you have three years              
from the time you make that connection that your psychological                 
problems are related to the sexual abuse.  Mr. Jardell stated that             
there are provisions.                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "The loophole is there might be a               
situation, and I've seen them in other states, where a victim makes            
a decision not to pursue a case, fully cognizance of the effect                
it's had him.  Yet, after a period of time, the state pursues a                
criminal case, maybe not against this individual victim but a case             
that would involve this victim, in which case the victim has, in a             
sense, been forced to confront ... their past in a way they might              
not have otherwise chosen to do, in a time they otherwise (indisc.)            
chosen to.  And at that point, their own personal statute of                   
limitations has lapsed, but they've been brought back into all the             
abuse that occurred before."                                                   
Number 0994                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "I guess you could come up with a 'what            
if' and just about an exception to every rule that we have.  But               
that individual what if - is not going to happened enough to change            
my mind on this being appropriate position that is in without this             
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said Representative James discussed that we               
can fine or imprison with criminal or solely fine with civil.  He              
said it seems that if you're going to throw someone in jail based              
on evidence getting stale, you're going to do the greater thing,               
but you're not going to allow the victim recover.  It seems                    
backwards in that if you want to close off something at some point,            
you close off the one with the more egregious consequences and not             
the one with the less egregious consequences.  He said he isn't                
sure why there is an unlimited statute of limitations on this.                 
Representative Croft stated, "I think there are good reasons.  This            
is a thing that children often don't understand, sometimes can't               
fully understand, or that it takes them a long time because they're            
so embarrassed to tell.  And so it is an area that is particularly             
ill suited to restrictive statute of limitations - put the other               
way, it's particularly well-suited to giving them a lot of ...                 
Number 1090                                                                    
CHAIRMAN GREEN said if this was such a crime that it would cause               
monetarily correctable damage, the current statute allows for two              
years past the majority.  If it were going to be something where               
they would come back when they're 55 years old, it makes you wonder            
if the damage that was caused is correctable by some sort of                   
monetary disposition as opposed to incarceration.                              
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that another reason why a lot of            
these cases proceed to civil court and that is so the victims feel             
like they get their day in court and have the opportunity to make              
their accusation and to have a jury validate their injuries which              
is above and beyond the money on many occasions.                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the other one is the O. J. revisited as              
the evidence is more severely reviewed in a criminal case than it              
is in a civil case.  The burden of proof is different.  They could             
lose in a criminal case and then file a civil case.                            
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thinks that is one of the reasons                
that a distinction between an unlimited amount of time to go back              
on a criminal case and trying to do the came thing for a civil                 
case.  It significantly different as there is a very high burden of            
proof in criminal cases.  Representative Porter said he would                  
venture to say that you could count on one hand the amount of                  
successful prosecutions in this kind of situation that goes back 30            
or 40 years.  At the time that was put into statute, he would guess            
the repressed memory syndrome was popular.  Over the last few                  
years, it is becoming more and more evident that is a unlikely                 
occurrence.  He stated he would not support the amendment.                     
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated there is an amendment before the committee               
and an objection is maintained.  He requested a roll call vote on              
Amendment 1.  Representatives Rokeberg, Porter, James, Bunde and               
Green voted against the adoption of the amendment.  Representatives            
Berkowitz and Croft voted in favor the amendment.  Amendment 1                 
failed to be adopted by a vote of 5-2.                                         
Number 1271                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to move CSSB 323(FIN) am out of             
committee with individual recommendations and with the attached                
fiscal notes.  There being no objection CSSB 323(FIN) am moved out             
of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                     
HB 319 - EMPLOYEES: NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY                                  
Number 1343                                                                    
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would address HB 319, "An               
Act relating to an employee's expectation of privacy in employer               
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, prime sponsor of HB 319, explained             
the committee has been provided with Version B, Cramer, 4/27/98.               
He said he presents the committee substitute for the consideration             
of the committee.                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated he had missed some of the prior                 
discussion regarding the bill.  He referred to the prior version               
and said, "There was an exception in the prior one exempting us.               
Is that out?"                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated it is still in the bill on page              
2, line 16.  He noted it is there so that the presiding officer                
can't snooping in your files.                                                  
Number 1460                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE moved that the proposed committee                     
substitute be adopted.                                                         
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection to the adopted of               
CSHB 319, Version B.                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected for the purpose of knowing what it               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said on page 1, lines 5 and 6, the words               
"between an employer and a employee of an employer" was added.  He             
referred to line 11 and said he believes the committee adopted the             
wording "not hinder or obstruct".  The word "from" was included on             
line 12.  It would then read, "The employee may not hinder or                  
obstruct the employer from access..."  Representative Rokeberg                 
explained the major changes begin on page 1, line 15.  It would                
read, "This section does not waive and employee's expectation of               
privacy with respect to (1) a personal telephone call; (2) premises            
or equipment, including a computer and computer information, owned             
by the employee but used in the employee's employment for the                  
employer even if the equipment is connected to the employer's                  
equipment or service for the equipment is supplied by the                      
employer."  He said you could bring your own computer in and plug              
it in to the data line and they still can't eavesdrop on you.                  
Representative Rokeberg stated he believes this wording meets the              
concerns the committee had voiced.  Representative Rokeberg said,              
"Also, a personal telephone call - this one is a little bit                    
problematic for myself, but this is what the committee wished.  I'm            
not sure what a personal telephone call is, it's a personal                    
telephone call."                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he believes the testimony             
received by committee staff regarding the level of law, in terms of            
privacy in this state, was correct.  Staff provided him with the               
Neighbors v. Ludkey (ph.) case and said it indicates that is the               
case, in terms of the private sector of the state, there should be             
no expectation or right of privacy other than what's provided by               
case law.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 2, (c)(1), line 8,                    
"'elected official' means the governor, the lieutenant governor, a             
member of the legislature, a justice or judge, or a person elected             
to municipal office;", which includes school board members as seen             
in the memorandum of April 27.  He said "employee" is defined to               
mean, "a person employed by an employer and includes (i) a                     
permanent, seasonal, probationary, or temporary employee whether               
employed full-time or part-time; (ii) an independent contractor and            
an employee of an independent contractor retained by the employer;             
(B) does not include an elected official;".  He stated those are               
the additions made in the committee substitute.  Representative                
Rokeberg said at this time he would not object to a personal                   
telephone call.                                                                
Number 1657                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would not interpret the wording to               
mean that an employee, anywhere, is entitled to make personal phone            
calls.  If an employer has a policy against personal phone calls,              
that would supersede.  If the person, short of that, has personal              
phone calls or even makes one against the policy, it should be                 
private.  It doesn't mean you can't get fired for having personal              
phone calls.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "Representative Porter makes the                
point that I tried to make with an amendment that said, 'absent a              
specific written agreement should be contrary, an employee has an              
expectation of privacy.'  That expressly drawn up policy precluded             
personal phone calls -- is the type of agreement that an employee              
enters into when they sign on.  What this whole bill does is turn              
that notion upside down saying that you can't make a personal phone            
call ever unless the employer says it's okay."                                 
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the objection is maintained to adopt                   
Version B.                                                                     
Number 1748                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT withdrew his objection.                                   
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said if the condition had been that the               
employer had to specifically say, "You have no expectation of                  
privacy for whatever reasons and whatever instances," the default              
position is the expectation of privacy.  The bill flips the default            
around saying, "You have no expectation of privacy," meaning that              
the only time you can expect privacy on the premises is when the               
employer grants it to you.                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thinks it is exactly the opposite.               
The bill says, "This section does not waive an employee's                      
expectation of privacy with respect to a person phone call."  It               
doesn't say anything else about personal phone calls.  He said this            
should not be used to indicate that personal phone calls are                   
allowed or not allowed by employer policy.                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "And I agree with that, but it's the            
exception that we carved out with this line.  Now if, for example,             
you're having a personal conversation with somebody, you have no               
expectation of privacy in that personal conversation because this              
bill says you have no expectation of privacy on the premises, and              
we haven't carved out an exception for that conversation."                     
Representative Berkowitz said if he and Chairman Green were having             
a conversation, and are working for somebody, there is no                      
expectation of privacy in that conversation because there isn't an             
exception in the bill that covers the conversation.                            
Number 1873                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said because the bill specifically says that              
you have an expectation of privacy in phone calls, and because it              
doesn't specifically mention any other situation, the expectation              
of privacy doesn't go anywhere else because it is only delineated              
in one area.   He asked if that is correct.                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that is correct.                                     
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that the committee is talking about phone calls            
and with a phone call you have that right of privacy.  He said he              
doesn't quite follow the fact that you don't have it.  The section             
doesn't waive that expectation of privacy.                                     
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained there is case law on what a                    
legitimate expectation of privacy is and isn't and the environment,            
et cetera, comes into play.  He said you couldn't write a statute              
to take all that in.                                                           
Number 2055                                                                    
MR. JARDELL said he believes there should be an understanding of               
the distinction between the constitutional right and the policy                
right that our courts have interpreted in the right to privacy.                
The courts have found there is no constitutional right to privacy              
in a private matter, citizen on citizen..  Only when there is                  
government action is there a constitutional right to privacy.  They            
look to a policy reasoning behind rights to privacy.  He noted the             
case law dealt mostly with drug testing in nongovernmental                     
businesses and how far they can go to drug test an individual that             
is working with them.  The court went through a long process of                
setting out that this is a policy call and not a constitutional                
call, which places a great deal of emphasis on what the committee              
decides and what eventually passes the legislature.  Mr. Jardell               
explained he believes the point of the legislation was to set out              
a basic policy statement that when you're within an employer's                 
premises you do not have an expectation of privacy.  He noted that             
is the employer's premises and it is the premises where you do the             
work.  If you're there doing work, you have no expectation of                  
privacy in an office or anything else that's being provided to you             
at work station.                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "What about closed doors?"                                
MR. JARDELL said, "Again, without this legislation, the courts                 
would go through a, 'Would a reasonable person have an expectation             
of privacy?'  Depending on the specific facts around that, the                 
court may go one way or another.  For instance, if you had an                  
employer who told people, 'Look I'm listening, I'm going to be                 
coming around and I'm going to be listening in on doors to make                
sure you're working,' you may not have an expectation of privacy               
there whereas if you were in a private sector, you're a legislator,            
and you conduct a lot meetings closed door, you may have a little              
more of an expectation of privacy than some other situation.  But              
it is a case-by-case specific.  Where are facts of the                         
Number 2182                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he agrees with what Mr. Jardell said                
right up to the point where he said that you shouldn't have any                
expectation of privacy on somebody else's business premise.  He                
stated that he disagrees.  Representative Porter suggested under               
"the expectation of privacy" he would suggest that the committee               
add "a personal oral conversation where a rational expectation of              
privacy exists."  He stated he doesn't think anybody would expect,             
unless they were specifically put on notice, that the entire                   
business premise in which you work is bugged and somebody is                   
listening to everything, but it certainly is totally                           
technologically feasible and probably happens.  To the extent that             
we have a right to privacy in our constitution, he believes it is              
only appropriate that should be recognized statutorily.                        
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that they are trying to recognize             
various different areas where employees have reasonable                        
expectations of privacy in the workplace.  He said he believes                 
there are areas in a workplace where is there is a reasonable                  
expectation of privacy.  Representative Croft said, "A telephone               
call makes sense to me, your own computer makes sense to me, a                 
purse that you stick in the file cabinet of the employer makes                 
sense to me and the conversation makes sense to me.  That's why the            
bill doesn't makes sense to me.  I mean I think we should say,                 
instead, the opposite.  An employee has a reasonable expectation in            
the workplace under certain situations and we can't identify them              
all, but rather than saying they don't we keep coming up with                  
specific defensible where they do."                                            
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to constitutional provisions and said            
they normally only act to limit the government's power.  He                    
explained that our constitutional privacy provision says, "The                 
legislature shall implement this provision."  He said we have a                
reasonable expectation of privacy and it's the legislature's job to            
protect it, not violate it even with exceptions.  Representative               
Croft said  he doesn't see that all the different amendments will              
solve the problem.                                                             
Number 2363                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the idea is to balance legitimate                   
requirements of an employer to operate a business.  He referred to             
the individual rights of employees and said they are in a                      
subordinate position as an employee.  If they don't like that, they            
should go start their own business.                                            
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she agrees with Representative Porter.             
She said, "Having worked in a large corporation for ten years and              
knowing what can happen when employees have the right to privacy of            
everything they do and say or not is certainly critical for                    
employers also having been done for small employers for 30 years,              
I understand that need.  When you are on the employer's premise and            
you're being paid for you services, we need to be sure that what               
you're doing is worth paying.  And I don't necessarily mean to                 
bring this amendment in because it's not a part of our discussion,             
but an area or compartment used to store an employee's personal                
belongings -- we live in an age now where people's personal                    
belongings can be disruptive to the business.  There are all                   
different kinds of things that people can do like talking to one               
another, or whatever, should not necessarily be presumed to be                 
private.  If they're having a private personal conversation with a             
family member or somebody on the telephone..."                                 
TAPE 98-76, SIDE B                                                             
Number 0001                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued, "...there are obligations that                 
(indisc.) to them and to say that they can do things under the                 
guise of privacy while they're on the paycheck, I disagree with.               
And I like this bill, and I think it should be that they shouldn't             
have the presumption of privacy when they're on the employer's                 
premises doing the employer's work.  If they want privacy, they                
could go off of the premises and have it there."                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that the university grounds                 
would be  university premises, so there would be no expectation of             
privacy anywhere in the university.  He said you could argue that              
state lands are state premises, so state employees on state lands              
have no expectation of privacy.  Representative Berkowitz explained            
that if you can't have an expectation of privacy in academic                   
setting, that's is disruptive to the sort of academic freedom of               
people.  He referred to having closed caucuses and said they are               
closed so that we can be free with what we're doing.  We want to               
ensure our privacy isn't infringed.  Representative Berkowitz                  
referred to he proposed amendment and said Section 22 of the                   
constitution says, "The right of people to privacy is recognized               
and shall not be infringed."  He stated that there are residual                
personal privacy rights that everyone has.  He said he doesn't                 
think the employer should the ability to reach into the employee's             
privacy.  Representative Berkowitz said all he is suggesting is                
that the employee's right to privacy should only be infringed when             
the employer tells them, "Don't send personal mail, don't make                 
personal phone calls except during lunch hour, you can have your               
door closed but I might be listening in."                                      
Number 0169                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he would offer Amendment 1.  On page              
2, add a new "(2)", and then renumber.  The section would say, "a              
personal oral conversation or where a reasonable expectation of                
privacy exists."                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the wording, "personal oral                   
conversation" and "personal telephone call," and indicated he isn't            
sure how that would be implemented.  He said, "They get to bug my              
phone, but when they hear me talking personally they have ring off?            
I mean they get to record my calls but then they have a duty to                
erase the ones they listened to deemed to be kind of personal as               
opposed to business."  He stated he would removal "personal."                  
Number 0301                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he has an objection to the word                  
"oral" in the proposed amendment as he has done a little bit of                
work with the deaf and hard of hearing community.                              
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "I suppose we should cover that since this is             
more than just those of us who have hearing."  He asked                        
Representative Berkowitz if he is offering that as a friendly                  
Number 0327                                                                    
MR. JARDELL explained that if "oral" is taken out, it could be                 
interpreted to include e-mail as conversation - electronic                     
conversations.  Mr. Jardell noted his previous comments were                   
strictly based on his understanding of the bill and he wasn't                  
advocating one policy or another.                                              
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to Representative Berkowitz bringing             
up the university campus and asked about dormitories.  She said she            
believes employers have a right to expect their people, who are                
working today, to not be doing a lot of private things that could              
disrupt the employer.  Employees shouldn't have the expectation                
that anybody overhearing them say something that has a negative                
effect is okay and they wouldn't be able to use the right to                   
privacy as a defense.  However, it seems that there are times and              
places where mostly what you're doing are personal things in which             
you should be able to expect privacy such as in a university                   
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out it says, "reasonable expectations."                 
Number 0430                                                                    
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman                    
Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee.  She            
referred to Representative James' concern and said the bill deals              
with employees and not students.  She stated the bill was amended              
in the House Labor and Commerce Committee so that residential                  
housing units would not be covered.                                            
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked why the bill didn't just say, "an                   
expectation or reasonable expectation of privacy exists except                 
where written agreements are entered into by the employer and the              
MS. SEITZ explained the drafter of the bill was approached with the            
concept that they wanted the employer and employee to sign an                  
agreement and this was how the drafter felt it could best be put               
into language.  She said she thinks that Representative Rokeberg               
wants the employees to know that they don't have a reasonable                  
expectation of privacy except in certain circumstances.  She said              
they are approaching more from an employer's aspect, but are still             
giving the employees some protection because they can have a                   
written agreement that delineates parameters.                                  
Number 0512                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to Representative Bunde's concern               
and said, "In addition ... to the who is the boss and who is the               
employee consideration, in a state that has an individual right to             
privacy undefined in its constitution, if you get into these areas             
and approach it from that perspective, you would be surprised what             
you could end up with in terms of individual rights."                          
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to removing the word "oral" and said            
he would not see it as a friendly amendment.                                   
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Representative Porter to read his                   
amendment again.                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said under the wording "(1) a personal                   
telephone call;", add a new "(2)" and renumber.  He said the new               
"(2)" would read "a personal oral conversation where a reasonable              
expectation of privacy exists."                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested the wording read, "oral or sign             
language conversation...."                                                     
CHAIRMAN GREEN said it's conversation whether it's oral or sign.               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "By the very nature of sign language,              
unless you're in a room by yourself, you do not have an expectation            
of privacy when you think that there may be someone who can read               
it.  It isn't an audible transmission."                                        
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out you could have sign language                  
conversations where you're doing it in the palm of the hand or                 
whatever.  So you can whisper in sign language, but it's not easy              
to do.  There can be a conversation in sign language where                     
reasonable expectation of privacy would exist.                                 
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he wouldn't consider adding the wording,            
"or sign language" as a friendly amendment to his amendment.                   
Number 0633                                                                    
MR. JARDELL suggested saying, "a personal conversation" and then               
put an exclusionary clause in that says, "not to include electronic            
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated a telephone is an electronic conversation.               
He asked Representative Porter if he wishes to pursue Mr. Jardell's            
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded in the negative.                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there is objection to Amendment 1, item                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected.                                                 
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote.  Representatives Bunde,             
James, Porter and Green voted in favor of adopting the amendment.              
Representatives Berkowitz, Croft and Rokeberg voted against the                
amendment.  Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4 to 3.                       
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved Amendment 2 which would include the             
wording, "or sign language" after the word "oral" in Amendment 1.              
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.                                                 
Number 0722                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that what was done by adding (1) and the            
new (2) is codify an area of the law that is very clear.  Where the            
law may be on sign language, as a language, or demonstrative                   
gestures, is an area of the law he doesn't think we want to jump               
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he does know that the American                
sign language (ASL) is a recognized language.  He noted there is               
another, but he can't remember the name.  If the committee includes            
ASL then those who advocate the other language will want it                    
included.  Representative Bunde said he thinks it would cover most             
people if the wording, "ASL sign language" were to be included,                
which is taught in schools.  He stated that you can get a degree in            
ASL at the University of Alaska - Anchorage.                                   
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Representative Bunde if that is a friendly                
amendment to Amendment 2.                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "We've said oral conversation that              
would include English, Spanish, Yupik, Yupiit, Yup'ik.  There are              
different types of sign language, there's French, there is English,            
there is American.  Sign language is just a means of communication             
for people who are not communicating orally."  Representative                  
Berkowitz said another point is he would think the Americans with              
Disabilities Act (ADA) and the equal protection clause would compel            
the committee to make some kind of accommodation.                              
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Representative Berkowitz if he considers the              
suggestion by Representative Bunde a friendly amendment.                       
Number 0836                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he considers it an extended hand, it             
come part of the way but not fully.                                            
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that somebody who uses ASL can also             
converse in French.  He pointed out that ASL is a style as much as             
a vocabulary.                                                                  
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the concept of sign language would cover               
the issue even though it may not be a specific kind.  Somebody must            
be able to understand it otherwise you don't have communication.               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated he would think about "ASL," but the            
term "sign language" gets back to an example of himself and                    
Representative Croft talking in a corner and one of them decides to            
put up three fingers to indicate something.  That is communication             
with sign.  He asked where it begins and stops.                                
Number 0899                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "I would like to know if this                    
includes disallowing or making it legal of steeling of baseball                
signs.  That's what it would do."  He said he objects to the                   
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said if you were playing ball in a company            
yard, you don't have any expectation of privacy in those signs.                
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to amend Amendment 2 to add the             
term "ASL."                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.                                              
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that "ASL" would be a substitute for                 
"sign language."                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it would say "or ASL."                                 
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said where it says "or sign language," say "or            
American sign language."                                                       
CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the amendment to the amendment would             
include the word "American" in front of "sign language."  He stated            
the objection is maintained.                                                   
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the amendment to                  
Amendment 2.  Representatives Berkowitz, Rokeberg, Porter, Green               
and James voted against the amendment to the amendment.                        
Representatives Bunde and Croft voted in favor the amendment to the            
amendment.  So the amendment to Amendment 2 failed to be adopted by            
a vote of 5 to 2.                                                              
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated there was an objection to the adoption of             
Amendment 2.  He requested a roll call vote.  Representatives                  
Bunde, James, Porter, Rokeberg and Green voted against the adoption            
of Amendment 2.  Representatives Berkowitz and Croft, voted in                 
favor of Amendment.  Amendment 2 failed to be adopted by a vote of             
5 to 2.                                                                        
Number 1078                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered Amendment 3 which read:                           
     Page 2, line 6, following "employer":                                     
          Insert "; or                                                         
                  (3) an area or compartment used to store and                 
                      employee's personal belongings"                          
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.                                              
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said you either agree that I have the right to            
go back and look through Roxanne's's purse or you don't.  He named             
the amendment the "purse amendment."                                           
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the amendment doesn't say             
"purse."  It says in a compartment or area and that's why the                  
provisional contracts are in the bill.                                         
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it the area used to store personal               
belongings such as the locker you give them or the purse they have             
in the file cabinet.                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said a purse is not business (indisc.).                
You have an expectation of privacy.                                            
Number 1137                                                                    
CHAIRMAN GREEN informed the committee members the problem he has               
with the amendment is it would preclude any random searching for               
drugs.  He indicated he believes that has been upheld.                         
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks that random searching for drugs            
could not be allowed under the amendment unless there is some                  
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that it probably would be in an                    
employer's best interest to say that, as a policy, we will do                  
random drug inspections in personal lockers.  He referred to                   
Representative Croft's amendment and said there is a question as to            
whether the employer would be able to do that or not.                          
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he doesn't think they could do a random              
search under the amendment.  He said, "They could do a                         
individualized reason to..."                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it has been established that they have              
an expectation of privacy in this area.  It doesn't say, "except"              
unless it's taken away by (indisc.) the employer.                              
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "Even recognize reasonable expectations             
of privacy, once you get there it ain't 100 percent even then.  I              
mean you can then -- that's the first part of it.  Is there a                  
reason then to infringe upon it?  So you can have justifiable                  
reasons too.  If you don't have any reasonable expectation of                  
privacy, there is no protections at all.  It's just public.  Even              
with a reasonable expectation of privacy, there's no protections at            
all, it's just public.  Even with a reasonable expectation of                  
privacy, ... there are then legitimate reasons to infringe it."                
Number 1259                                                                    
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Representative Rokeberg if he still maintains             
his objection to Amendment 3.                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded in the affirmative.                          
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote.  Representatives                    
Rokeberg, Porter, James, Bunde and Green voted against the                     
amendment.  Representatives Berkowitz and Croft voted in favor of              
the amendment.  Amendment 3 failed to be adopted by a vote of 5 to             
Number 1296                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the sponsor's representative has stated            
that it is not supposed to be residential.  He said he has seen                
some business premises, off-site locations, where you're sleeping              
in bunk beds.  He suggested including a conceptual amendment that              
says, "non-residential" wherever it is appropriate.  It addresses              
Representative James' dormitory concern and a number of other                  
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to the construction of the pipeline              
and said he thinks the company has a right to search rooms for                 
contraband.  He said he thinks the amendment would preclude that.              
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "As part of the record I'm (indisc.)             
memorandum from Terry Cramer, legislative counsel, on March 24th,              
indicating (indisc.--mumbling) privacy even to housing supplied to             
an employee by an employer.  As I discussed with Jan on the                    
telephone this unintended extension of the bill to a person's                  
living quarters (indisc.--mumbling) against a constitutional                   
challenge based on an individuals right of privacy.  Amendment A.3             
clarifies that the bill applies only to business premises in this              
amendment (indisc.) the bill is so limited in scope.  We talked                
about this in the original draft of the bill.  This is only on                 
business premises (indisc.) of this bill does not apply to those               
areas used for residential use or domicile (indisc.)."                         
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said there should be no objection to the                  
amendment.  He said he is trying to clarify that it is in the                  
record.  Not everybody goes back to the words said in the committee            
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated that on the North Slope, they do random               
searches and have the right.  He noted that it may be by contract              
or an agreement.  The amendment, he believes, would preclude that.             
Number 1472                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he doesn't want to hinder any              
of the existing policies, contracts or agreements that are in                  
place.  That is why the bill specifically provides for contractual             
agreements.  The purpose of the legislation is to make sure                    
companies have policies in place.  There are certain circumstances             
where they will want to be able to have access to those (indisc.).             
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ how it will work at sea on a ship.                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he thinks the same answer would apply             
to a vessel.                                                                   
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked about a vessel being licensed with the state              
of Alaska.  He said if it is at high-sea, is it considered within              
the state.                                                                     
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on Amendment 4.                      
Representatives Bunde, James, Rokeberg and Green voted against the             
amendment.  Representatives Berkowitz and Croft voted in favor of              
the amendment.  So Amendment 4 was failed to be adopted by a vote              
of 4 to 2.                                                                     
Number 1693                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated he had another amendment.  He said,             
"In a specific written agreement they have no privacy.  I just --              
a conceptual amendment that there will be some notice to the                   
employee of what things they can or intend to bug ... we're going              
to randomly search your locker, we monitor phone calls or we don't.            
Whatever it is that they're doing in this area they tell them.  One            
page, if they're doing a lot of it more.  I wouldn't think it would            
be a big burden on small employers.  But to say if we're going to              
be infringing on some of these areas, we search your hard disk once            
every month for stuff.  Don't have to tell them what it is, you may            
not even have to tell them once every month but tell them..."                  
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "...you're subject to it."                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he strongly objects as he believes in             
paperwork reduction.  He doesn't believe in adding more burdens or             
giving notice for doing something you have a common law right to do            
Number 1765                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said if there is a common law right, it               
seems that the common law expectation of privacy would be taken                
away.  If something is being taken away from people, they should at            
least be told about it.                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said you could develop any number of                   
scenarios and make that argument one way or another.  If you start             
requiring notification for activities which are currently being                
done and upset the course of commerce by adding additional hurdles,            
it just becomes an additional expense.  Representative Rokeberg                
stated the bill is intended to protect the privacy rights of                   
employees in a large part.  He said he doesn't believe there needs             
to be anymore hurdles.                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated it is a very (indisc.) way to                  
protect employee privacy rights - to take away their expectation of            
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he objects to Representative                      
Berkowitz's statement.  That is not what the intent of the bill is.            
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote on the adoption of                   
Representative Croft's conceptual amendment.  Representatives                  
Bunde, James and Rokeberg voted against the adoption of the                    
amendment.  Representatives Berkowitz, Croft and Green voted in                
support of the amendment.  The amendment failed to be adopted by a             
vote of 3 to 3.                                                                
Number 1899                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move HB 319, as amended, out             
of committee with individual recommendations and with the attached             
fiscal notes.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.  He said he thinks this is a                
very peculiar way for the legislature to implement the people's                
right to privacy.  He stated he understands that businesses need to            
have ability to monitor their employees -- the preferable way for              
them to articulate exactly what it is they're going to do and                  
specify where the employee's expectation of privacy is diminished.             
Representative Berkowitz explained the bill turns his notion of                
privacy on its head.  It says that he doesn't have privacy unless              
someone gives it to him.                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained she believes the legislation is an              
excellent way to give employers the control over the people who are            
in their employ, while still allowing them to maintain the                     
expectation of privacy on the issues that really matter.  The                  
legislation is a good way to address that.                                     
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.  Representative                     
Rokeberg, James, Bunde and Green voted in favor of moving the bill.            
Representatives Berkowitz and Croft voted against moving the bill.             
So CSHB 319(JUD) moved out of the House Judiciary Standing                     
HB 452 - NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS DISCLOSURES                                    
Number 2070                                                                    
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business would be HB 452,            
"An Act relating to registration, disclosures, and reports by                  
certain nonprofit corporations."  As sponsor, he called upon Jeff              
Logan to explain changes in the new proposed committee substitute.             
Number 2085                                                                    
JEFFREY LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green,              
Alaska State Legislature, reminded members that at the previous                
hearing he had illustrated how money from organizations outside of             
Alaska is directed to in-state organizations for the purpose of                
affecting or steering public policy debates one way or another.                
The proposal was to require disclosure by the outside or foreign               
corporations when they donated large sums of money.  Mr. Logan                 
noted that testimony from the Division of Banking, Securities and              
Corporations had been that such an arrangement would be virtually              
unenforceable.  He stated, "However, we heard support from the                 
committee for the end result, for the policy goal that would be                
achieved by such a law."  As a result, he said, they had worked                
with the division and the drafter, and had come up with Version F,             
0-LS1324\F, Bannister, 4/27/98.                                                
MR. LOGAN went through the bill section by section.  He told                   
members Section 1 simply amends AS 10.20.325 to include failing to             
file the disclosure report required by the new Section 5 of this               
bill, as a reason for involuntary dissolution by the commissioner.             
It lists that offense with several others.  Mr. Logan said this is             
substantially conforming language.                                             
Number 2245                                                                    
MR. LOGAN advised members that Section 2 says the commissioner's               
power to dissolve ceases if the report is filed in a timely manner.            
Section 3 addresses not the corporations themselves but the                    
organizations doing business in the state under a certificate of               
authority; it allows the commissioner to revoke the certificate if             
the report required by Section 5 of the bill is not filed.  Section            
4 limits the commissioner's power to do so if the report is filed.             
Number 2300                                                                    
MR. LOGAN reported that Section 5 is the substance of the bill.  It            
states that a public benefit corporation that is a domestic or                 
foreign corporation transacting business in the state, that has                
received an aggregate of $5,000 or more during the calendar year,              
shall file with the department, by July 1 of each year, on forms               
provided by the department, a report that lists the payments                   
received.  He noted that the $5,000 is the same threshold used in              
the previous bill version.  The list must include the name and                 
address of the corporation, the amounts of the payments, and their             
purpose.  On page 3, line 27, it also adds definitions of "foreign             
nonprofit corporation," "nonprofit corporation," and "public                   
benefit corporation."  Section 6 contains conforming language.                 
Number 2401                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned the $7.5 million general fund                
fiscal note.                                                                   
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that was an error and should read 7.5 thousand             
dollars, for notification.  He had talked with people in the                   
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, and he said less              
notifications have been absorbed by the departments, using the                 
words "essentially no additional impact."                                      
TAPE 98-77, SIDE A                                                             
Number 0006                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what "foreign" means for a corporation.             
CHAIRMAN GREEN said it means anything outside of the state.                    
Number 0057                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 4, Section 6, and asked               
whether failure to file applies to all of these, with only a $5                
MR. LOGAN said this question came to the sponsor's attention as                
well.  People at the division had informed them that this penalty              
is in addition to the filing fee.  Usually the filing fee is $15,              
and if a corporation files late, it would be a total of $20.                   
Number 0128                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested there is no hammer here.                     
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the hammer would be the threat of losing              
their license, unless the committee wanted to create a significant             
fine.  He noted that unfortunately a corporation could refile with             
a new name.                                                                    
Number 0299                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed that the ultimate hammer is the                    
involuntary dissolution.  He made a motion to adopt a conceptual               
amendment, on page 3, lines 17, 19, 20 and 22, to remove                       
"nonprofit," so that it would say "foreign corporation."  He added             
that they would not need lines 27 through 30, page 3, anymore,                 
because they already know what "foreign corporation" means.                    
Number 0293                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG and CHAIRMAN GREEN objected.                           
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that what is good for the goose is              
good for the gander.  To the extent they want to know who is                   
contributing to and influencing decision making of public benefit              
corporations, they also need to know about profit-making foreign               
entities that contribute.  They need to know, regardless of whether            
it is the Rockefeller Foundation or Exxon or any other major                   
business entity.  Representative Croft noted that people outside of            
the state have interests in the state on both sides of issues.                 
Whatever burden it adds, he said it is important to do for both                
nonprofit and for-profit corporations that intend to influence                 
Number 0401                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would assume the amendment would               
gut the bill.  He asked whether they were deleting "nonprofit" or              
adding "profit."                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that it would only be for the                 
Number 0446                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT specified that it was to delete "nonprofit,"              
so that any public benefit corporation that receives money would               
reveal the foreign corporation sources, whether nonprofit or for-              
CHAIRMAN GREEN said he had misunderstood, and he apologized.  He               
suggested people know why for-profit corporations contribute,                  
Number 0523                                                                    
MR. LOGAN added that throughout the law, for-profit and nonprofit              
corporations are treated entirely differently.  Nonprofit                      
corporations are essentially tax-free corporations, and society has            
made a deal with these groups, which are supposed to do essentially            
benevolent and beneficial things with this money, not use it for               
political purposes.  Mr. Logan said these entities are not the same            
and shouldn't be treated the same way.                                         
Number 0602                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested they basically want to follow the               
money for nonprofits.  If some major corporation wants to influence            
a nonprofit in Alaska, for good or ill, but Alaskans don't know who            
is pulling the strings, nothing prevents them from creating a                  
nonprofit and then "laundering" the money through that.  This would            
shorten the laundry list a little bit by taking out the nonprofit              
end.  If some major corporation was putting money into a nonprofit,            
this would give a better idea of who they were.  He said he didn't             
know that it is absolutely needed, but he doesn't see that it                  
causes any harm.                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN said the concern is that under a benign name, the               
message might be different from the name.                                      
Number 0696                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that Representative Croft's amendment              
certainly has merit, because this legislation requires nonprofits              
or public benefit corporations operating within Alaska to report               
where they got their money, if it is $5,000 or more.  To only                  
include money received from foreign nonprofit corporations doesn't             
tell the whole story.  She pointed out that it would not be a                  
burden for the for-profit corporations, because it would be the                
public benefit corporation within the state doing the reporting.               
Number 0820                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG proposed that they shouldn't delete                    
"nonprofit" but should add "for-profit."                                       
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested they could do it either way.                    
Number 0857                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT concurred.  He said he thinks they both do the            
same thing, but if there is some legal, technical or other reason,             
they could use "foreign nonprofit and for-profit corporations."                
Number 0876                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked why they are excluding individuals.             
He said in a way this is a lot like the campaign disclosure                    
requirements.  He suggested the best antidote is to disclose, which            
allows people to review information and make their own                         
Number 0936                                                                    
MR. LOGAN said initially the problem defined involved large foreign            
corporations called foundations that provide large sums of money.              
He said if they had seen a problem with individuals, he supposed               
they would have been incorporated into the draft.                              
Number 1052                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed with Representative Berkowitz                   
regarding the follow-the-money theory, mentioning a possible                   
limitation like the $250 used by the Alaska Public Offices                     
Commission (APOC).  He also expressed concern about the language,              
"derives more than 10 percent of its annual income from donations",            
noting that some foundations are entirely self-funded.                         
MR. LOGAN suggested a representative from the division could                   
clarify that.  He said that language is from the American Bar                  
Association model nonprofit corporations code, and it is the                   
definition of a public benefit corporation.  He added, "And, again,            
I'm not sure that an organization that is organized under this                 
chapter, and that meets ... (B), 'derives more than 10 percent of              
its annual income from donations,' is the problem."                            
Number 1140                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said her concern is that whenever they pass               
legislation, it ought not to be just for a specific purpose.  There            
are public benefit corporations that are not necessarily                       
controversial.  She suggested there could be a benefit to some                 
larger for-profit corporations from the reporting because it would             
be picked up by the news media.  Representative James said she                 
likes the idea of having everything that is in aggregate over                  
$5,000 be reported annually for these public benefit corporations,             
whether it comes from nonprofit or for-profit corporations.                    
However, she questioned the value of having individuals in there,              
and the benefit of just knowing a person's name.  She said they                
shouldn't lose track of the reason for doing this, which is                    
knowledge of where the money comes from that tries to affect policy            
or public attitudes.                                                           
Number 1276                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to individual foundations and                 
suggested use of the word "person" would catch all.  He said he can            
think of many individual foundations that don't receive                        
contributions, at least not 10 percent of their annual income.  He             
cited examples.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that it says "or."                            
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ specified that it is on page 4.                       
Number 1342                                                                    
CHAIRMAN GREEN called a brief at-ease, then called the meeting back            
to order.   He offered a friendly amendment, "that throughout where            
we have 'from a foreign nonprofit corporation,' that we just drop              
'foreign nonprofit' and say ... whether it's contributions from                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed to that.                                           
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that it would cover in-state and out-of-            
state corporations both.                                                       
CHAIRMAN GREEN said in-state, out-of-state, for-profit and                     
Number 1386                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested it would require a title change.            
CHAIRMAN GREEN concurred.                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that subsection (1) on the bottom of             
page 3, the definition of "foreign nonprofit corporation," would be            
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed, specifying that they would delete lines 27              
and 28 of page 3.                                                              
Number 1402                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that they are picking up all              
kinds of groups, including churches.                                           
MR. LOGAN said under the definition listed on page 3, line 31, a               
public benefit corporation does not include a religious                        
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why it wouldn't include a church.                
MR. LOGAN replied that a religious organization is not organized               
for a public or charitable purpose.                                            
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it is an "or."                                       
Number 1441                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested it would also sweep up things               
like boys' and girls' clubs, Special Olympics, and so forth.                   
MR. LOGAN asked someone from the department to correct him if he               
was wrong, then said he believes those organizations would be                  
defined as mutual benefit corporations.                                        
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed concern that they might be                  
putting a burden on apolitical organizations.                                  
Number 1501                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired about putting in mutual benefit               
corporations and defining them, so that there is clear statutory               
grounds for those reading the law.  He asked whether it is already             
in statute.                                                                    
Number 1530                                                                    
MR. LOGAN replied that he doesn't believe it is in statute, and he             
isn't sure the drafters would add it if it isn't referred to in the            
bill.  He suggested saying a public benefit corporation does not               
mean a mutual benefit corporation.                                             
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that would be a good idea.  He suggested                   
including that as part of subsection (3), in the same conceptual               
Number 1559                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that he would prefer to keep it clean.            
He proposed doing that as a second amendment.                                  
Number 1565                                                                    
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed to that.  Noting that conceptual Amendment 1             
was dropping "foreign nonprofit", he asked whether there was an                
objection.  There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.                         
Number 1588                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to add, in the vicinity of               
lines 6 and 7 on page 4, the exclusion of mutual benefit                       
corporations, and to add a definition, as appropriate, for mutual              
benefit corporations, with the understanding that these are usually            
religious, youth and other activities.  He asked Mr. Logan where               
that is defined.                                                               
MR. LOGAN replied that it is an organization organized for the                 
mutual benefit of its members, such as a country club or a booster             
club at the high school.  It is defined in the American Bar                    
Association model nonprofit corporations code.                                 
Number 1635                                                                    
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed to use that definition.  He asked whether                
there was any objection to Amendment 2; there was none.                        
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE questioned whether the $15 registration fee               
would cover paperwork costs.  He said he didn't want to make an                
amendment, then suggested the House Finance Committee get testimony            
about the actual cost and have the application fee reflect that.               
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that seems reasonable.                                     
MR. LOGAN noted that the bill has no House Finance Committee                   
referral because there is not a fiscal note.                                   
CHAIRMAN GREEN added that there is a zero fiscal note to offset the            
$7.5 million error.                                                            
Number 1677                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE recommended that some note go along with the              
bill, in case it gets to the House Finance Committee.                          
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded, "If it ends up there, we certainly                   
Number 1714                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HB 452 [Version F, as               
amended] from committee with individual recommendations and                    
attached fiscal note.                                                          
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection.  There being             
none, CSHB 452(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing                    
CSSB 284(STA) - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS                                             
Number 1759                                                                    
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the final item of business would be CSSB
284(STA), "An Act relating to cruelty to animals."                             
Number 1774                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSSB 284(STA) from                  
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that it would be with individual                    
recommendations and any attached fiscal notes.                                 
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection.  There being             
none, CSSB 284(STA) moved from the House Judiciary Standing                    
Number 1822                                                                    
CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee                
meeting at 3:08 p.m.                                                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects