Legislature(1999 - 2000)

04/08/1999 01:20 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
         HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                   April 8, 1999                                                                                                
                     1:20 p.m.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman                                                                                              
Representative Joe Green                                                                                                        
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                                                                  
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative Lisa Murkowski                                                                                                   
Representative Eric Croft                                                                                                       
Representative Beth Kerttula                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 108                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to the use, operation, and regulation of boats;                                                                
establishing a uniform state waterway marking system; and providing                                                             
for an effective date."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 108(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 77(JUD)                                                                         
"An Act prohibiting certain civil actions against firearms or                                                                   
ammunition manufacturers and dealers."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 77(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 34                                                                                                               
"An Act relating to the crime of misprision of a crime against a                                                                
child."                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 151                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to revocation and reinstatement of the driver's                                                                
license of a person at least 14 but not yet 21 years of age."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 82                                                                                                               
"An Act relating to immunity for certain claims arising out of or                                                               
in connection with the year 2000 date change; and providing for an                                                              
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 82(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 57                                                                                                               
"An Act relating to immunity for certain claims against the state,                                                              
a municipality, or agents, officers, or employees of either,                                                                    
arising out of or in connection with the year 2000 date change; and                                                             
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
(* First public hearing)                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 108                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: USE, REGULATION, AND OPERATION OF BOATS                                                                            
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HUDSON, Halcro, Phillips, Kerttula                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 2/22/99       278     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 2/22/99       278     (H)  TRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                                                             
 2/26/99       328     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS, KERTTULA                                                                    
 3/30/99               (H)  TRA AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 3/30/99               (H)  MOVED CSHB 108(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                
 3/31/99       618     (H)  TRA RPT  COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE(TRA)                                                                  
                            5DP                                                                                                 
 3/31/99       619     (H)  DP: COWDERY, SANDERS, HALCRO, HUDSON,                                                               
 3/31/99       619     (H)  MASEK                                                                                               
 3/31/99       619     (H)  FISCAL NOTE (ADMINISTRATION)                                                                        
 3/31/99       619     (H)  2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS, DNR)                                                                      
 3/31/99       619     (H)  REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                                                                               
 4/07/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/07/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 4/08/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB  77                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: LIABILITY RELATING TO FIREARMS                                                                                     
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) KELLY PETE, Ward, Donley, Taylor, Halford,                                                               
Green, Miller; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Dyson                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 2/18/99       286     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 2/18/99       286     (S)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 2/24/99       353     (S)  COSPONSOR(S): WARD                                                                                  
 3/08/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM                                                                                     
 3/08/99               (S)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 3/12/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM                                                                                     
 3/12/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 3/12/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/15/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 3/15/99               (S)  MOVED COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE (JUD) OUT                                                                
                            OF COMMITTEE                                                                                        
 3/15/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/15/99       546     (S)  COSPONSOR(S): DONLEY,TAYLOR, HALFORD,                                                               
 3/15/99       546     (S)  GREEN, MILLER                                                                                       
 3/16/99       563     (S)  JUD RPT  COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE 4DP                                                                   
                            NEW TITLE                                                                                           
 3/16/99       563     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, TORGERSON,DONLEY, HALFORD                                                               
 3/16/99       563     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COURT)                                                                            
 3/22/99       635     (S)  FIN REFERRAL WAIVED                                                                                 
 3/23/99               (S)  RLS AT 10:50 AM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 3/23/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 3/25/99       681     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR  AND 1 OR 3/25/99                                                                 
 3/25/99       684     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 3/25/99       684     (S)  JUD  COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE ADOPTED                                                                   
                            UNAN CONSENT                                                                                        
 3/25/99       684     (S)  ADVANCED THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT                                                                 
 3/25/99       684     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 77(JUD)                                                                   
 3/25/99       685     (S)  PASSED Y15 N5                                                                                       
 3/25/99       685     (S)  ELLIS  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                    
 3/26/99       703     (S)  RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                                                                        
 3/26/99       704     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 3/29/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/29/99       597     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/29/99       598     (H)  JUD                                                                                                 
 4/07/99       680     (H)  CROSS SPONSOR(S): DYSON                                                                             
 3/29/99               (H)  JUD RPT  HCS(JUD) 5DP 1NR                                                                           
 4/08/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB  34                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: REPORTING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN                                                                                  
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DYSON                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/19/99        27     (H)  PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99                                                                             
 1/19/99        27     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 1/19/99        27     (H)  JUDICIARY                                                                                           
 4/07/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/07/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD/SUBCOMMITTEE                                                                         
 4/08/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 151                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: REVOCATION OF MINOR DRIVER'S LICENSE                                                                               
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOTT, Austerman                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 3/22/99       531     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/22/99       531     (H)  JUD                                                                                                 
 3/24/99       562     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): AUSTERMAN                                                                             
 3/29/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/29/99               (H)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 4/07/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/07/99               (H)  TABLED                                                                                              
 4/08/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB  82                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: IMMUNITY:CLAIMS ARISING FROM Y2K PROBLEMS                                                                          
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG, Dyson, Halcro                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 2/05/99       144     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 2/05/99       144     (H)  L&C, JUDICIARY                                                                                      
 2/12/99               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 2/12/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 2/12/99               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 2/16/99       228     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): DYSON                                                                                 
 2/26/99               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 2/26/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 2/26/99               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 3/03/99               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 3/03/99               (H)  MOVED CSHB 82(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                 
 3/03/99               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 3/03/99       350     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): HALCRO                                                                                
 3/05/99       361     (H)  L&C RPT  COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE(L&C) NT                                                               
                            3DP 3NR                                                                                             
 3/05/99       361     (H)  DP: ROKEBERG, HALCRO, HARRIS;                                                                       
 3/05/99       361     (H)  NR: SANDERS, CISSNA, MURKOWSKI                                                                      
 3/05/99       361     (H)  2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, COURT)                                                                    
 3/05/99       361     (H)  REFERRED TO JUD                                                                                     
 3/24/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/24/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD SUBCMTE APPOINTED                                                                    
 3/24/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/08/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB  57                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: STATE & MUNI IMMUNITY FOR Y2K                                                                                      
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/22/99        64     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 1/22/99        64     (H)  CRA, JUDICIARY                                                                                      
 1/22/99        64     (H)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADMINISTRATION)                                                                   
 1/22/99        64     (H)  GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                                                                       
 2/04/99               (H)  CRA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                         
 2/04/99               (H)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 2/04/99               (H)  MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                         
 2/05/99       142     (H)  CRA RPT  5DP 1NR                                                                                    
 2/05/99       142     (H)  DP: DYSON, MORGAN, HARRIS, MURKOWSKI,                                                               
 2/05/99       142     (H)  HALCRO; NR: KOOKESH                                                                                 
 2/05/99       142     (H)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADMINISTRATION)                                                                   
                            1/22/99                                                                                             
 2/05/99       142     (H)  REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                                                                               
 3/15/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/15/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 3/15/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/17/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/17/99               (H)  MOVED CSHB 57(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                 
 3/17/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/07/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/07/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 4/08/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON                                                                                                           
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 108                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-3744                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 108.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SUE HARGIS, Boating Safety Specialist                                                                                           
Alaska Coast Guard                                                                                                              
PO Box 25517                                                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5517                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 463-2297                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 108.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator                                                                                                  
Division of Motor Vehicles                                                                                                      
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
PO Box 20020                                                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-5648                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 108 and HB 151.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
VICTOR GUNN, Legislative Administrative Assistant                                                                               
     for Senator Pete Kelly                                                                                                     
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 510                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-2327                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 77.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR PETE KELLY                                                                                                              
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 510                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-2327                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of SB 77.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Legal Counsel                                                                                      
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
130 Seward Street, Suite 409                                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-2450                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 34.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON                                                                                                            
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 104                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-2199                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 34.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director                                                                                                   
Public Defenders Agency                                                                                                         
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200                                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                                                                         
Telephone:  (907) 264-4400                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 34.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                      
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law                                                                                                               
PO Box 110300                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska 99801-0300                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-3428                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 34 and HB 151.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant                                                                                         
     for Representative Kott                                                                                                    
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 118                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-3777                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 151.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
LINDA WRIGHT                                                                                                                    
Good Legislation Assures Democracy                                                                                              
PO Box 105                                                                                                                      
Soldotna, Alaska 99669                                                                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 262-9694                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 151.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
DAVID HUDSON                                                                                                                    
Alaska State Troopers                                                                                                           
5700 East Tudor                                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                                                                         
Telephone:  (907) 269-5655                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 151.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MIKE FORD, Legislative Counsel                                                                                                  
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
130 Seward Street, Suite 409                                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-2450                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 57.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MIKE GATTI                                                                                                                      
350 East Dahlia                                                                                                                 
Palmer, Alaska 99645                                                                                                            
Telephone:  (907) 745-4801                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 57.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN SMITH, Joint Insurance Association                                                                                        
Alaska Municipal League                                                                                                         
217 Second Street                                                                                                               
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
Telephone:  (907) 586-1325                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Deferred to others present.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
JOHN CORSO, City Attorney                                                                                                       
City & Borough of Juneau                                                                                                        
155 South Seward Street                                                                                                         
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
Telephone:  (907) 586-5240                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested that a municipality's liability                                                                   
                    should be equivalent to the state's                                                                         
                    liability.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-24, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                
meeting to order at 1:20 p.m.  Members present at the call to order                                                             
were Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg, Murkowski, Croft and                                                                
Kerttula.  Representative James arrived at 2:07 p.m.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 108 - USE, REGULATION, AND OPERATION OF BOATS                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the first order of business is HB 108,                                                             
"An Act relating to the use, operation, and regulation of boats;                                                                
establishing a uniform state waterway marking system; and providing                                                             
for an effective date."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that the committee should have copies of the                                                                
proposed committee substitute (committee substitute) which reflects                                                             
the changes discussed at the April 7, 1999 hearing.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0097                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON, Sponsor of HB 108, noted that at the last                                                                
hearing there was concern regarding the failure to register being                                                               
labeled a class A misdemeanor which some felt was an excessive                                                                  
penalty.  Therefore, on page 9, line 7 the failure to register was                                                              
added to the list of violations.  Representative Hudson recalled                                                                
that there had been discussion regarding the need to restrict the                                                               
amount of meetings the Alaska Boating Safety Council could have.                                                                
Therefore, it was determined that two council meetings per year                                                                 
would be appropriate and such language was included on page 8, in                                                               
Section 7 (c).  He noted this would not restrict the council from                                                               
meeting electronically.  Both those changes are incorporated into                                                               
the proposed committee substitute, Version LS044\S, Ford, 4/7/99.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT believed that one of the concerns raised was in                                                                   
regard to Section 4, AS 05.25.040 which deals with reporting.                                                                   
There was discussion regarding the location of that in the proposed                                                             
committee substitute.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that he was looking at page 4 of                                                                
the proposed committee substitute, Version S.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0322                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the proposed committee                                                                      
substitute, Version LS044\S, Ford, 4/7/99, as the working document                                                              
before the committee.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT expressed concern with Section 11, the penalties                                                                  
section of the proposed committee substitute.  Section 11 (b) does                                                              
not include AS 05.25.030 which deals with rendering assistance                                                                  
reporting.  He stated, "That's the two main areas which would then                                                              
include that particular section in the penalty section which would                                                              
make it a class A misdemeanor."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SUE HARGIS, Boating Safety Specialist, Alaska Coast Guard,                                                                      
explained that AS 05.25.030 was not placed in the violations                                                                    
section was due to the issue of rendering assistance.  "So you                                                                  
could basically have a hit and run accident and then that would                                                                 
have been reduced to a violation by switching that whole section.                                                               
So, if you wanted to consider--previously the state had in the                                                                  
bill, that the person was guilty of a misdemeanor was not a                                                                     
classified misdemeanor.  So, if you want to reduce that to a class                                                              
B misdemeanor or something else.  But that's why, I think, the                                                                  
rationale and the discussions yesterday for not switching 030 [AS                                                               
05.25.030] into that violations section was strictly because of                                                                 
reducing the penalty for somebody who might be involved in a hit                                                                
and run accident rather than the reporting issue."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that in Section 4 which discusses                                                                     
reporting, one would remain subject to penalties under the class A                                                              
misdemeanor for not reporting.  To put someone away for up to a                                                                 
year with a fine up to $1,000 under a class A misdemeanor seems a                                                               
bit harsh.  Chairman Kott said that he would prefer a class B                                                                   
misdemeanor which carries up to 180 days in jail and a $500 fine.                                                               
Chairman Kott commented that would be a policy call for the                                                                     
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON agreed that a class A misdemeanor is probably                                                             
excessive, therefore it would be reasonable to change to a class B                                                              
misdemeanor.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT understood then that failure to render                                                                     
assistance would remain a class A misdemeanor while failure to                                                                  
report would be a class B misdemeanor.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that was the direction being taken.  The                                                                
committee should consider whether those two should be separated or                                                              
AS 05.25.030 placed in its entirety as a class B misdemeanor under                                                              
the penalty section.  Chairman Kott further clarified that the                                                                  
class A misdemeanor would be switched to a class B misdemeanor.                                                                 
This is a policy call.  He noted AS 05.25.030 could be placed in                                                                
the fine section and rendering assistance could be left as a class                                                              
A misdemeanor.  Chairman Kott thought that AS 05.25.030 should be                                                               
a class B misdemeanor so that anything other than those listed in                                                               
the penalties section would be a class B misdemeanor which would                                                                
cover rendering assistance and reporting.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0714                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he felt it important to separate                                                                      
subsection (b) which defines a violation from a class B                                                                         
misdemeanor.  Currently, there are two levels:  a misdemeanor and                                                               
a lower violation such as a traffic ticket.  Representative Croft                                                               
did not believe the bill included a class B misdemeanor; the bill                                                               
only includes a misdemeanor or a violation.  Placing AS                                                                         
05.25.030(b) under subsection (b) of the bill which defines only                                                                
violations would leave (a) as a misdemeanor and should accomplish                                                               
what Chairman Kott desired.  Would it be inappropriate to have the                                                              
failure to report within 20 days as a violation?                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. HARGIS stated that would be appropriate because the other                                                                   
portion in subsection (a) is negligent operations which she                                                                     
suggested should not be lowered.  Either meets the Coast Guard's                                                                
standards.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON agreed with Ms. Hargis.  If subsection (a) on                                                             
page 9, line 4 was left as is and AS 05.25.030 was placed under the                                                             
violation section, an adequate penalty appropriate to the offense                                                               
would be created.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT clarified that on page 9, line 7, after "AS                                                                       
05.25.020," the language "AS 05.25.030(b)" would be inserted.                                                                   
Therefore, failure to report would be subject to a fine of up to                                                                
$500.  The rendering of assistance section on page 4, lines 11                                                                  
through 14, would be left in tact as a class A misdemeanor.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0860                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT moved the following as a conceptual amendment.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 9, line 7, after "AS 05.25.020,"                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
          Insert, "AS 05.25.030(b)"                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, the conceptual amendment was adopted.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to page 10, line 16 regarding the fee                                                                    
schedule and the non-motorized boat registration which he                                                                       
identified as another policy call for the committee.  Currently,                                                                
non-motorized boat registration is set at $10 in this statute.                                                                  
Does the committee want that fee to be consistent with paragraph                                                                
(1) in Section 13 which requires a fee of $24.  This is an                                                                      
administrative function for the department.  Chairman Kott                                                                      
indicated the need for consistency whether it be $10 or $24.  He                                                                
noted that testimony from the Coast Guard at the March 7, 1999                                                                  
hearing stated that 30 percent of the fatalities occur within                                                                   
non-motorized vessels.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA informed the committee that she has an                                                                  
amendment prepared which would remove vessels such as canoes and                                                                
kayaks from the ambit of the bill.  This section was specifically                                                               
changed to reduce the fees to non-motorized vessels.                                                                            
Representative Kerttula noted that there is great concern regarding                                                             
registering everyone's canoe and kayak.  Representative Kerttula                                                                
opposed increasing non-motorized vessels to $24.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to whether Representative Kerttula would                                                              
consider making it $10 a year.  He believed that much of the money                                                              
collected goes towards education and publishing the pamphlet.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON informed the committee that this topic was                                                                
discussed at length in the first committee of referral.  During                                                                 
that discussion, the canoers and kayakers testified that they                                                                   
should not be included in this legislation because they are not in                                                              
the federal law.  Representative Hudson explained that this fee                                                                 
schedule attempts to generate a reasonable rate of return from                                                                  
every boater in Alaska in order to have an educational boating                                                                  
safety program. He indicated that the fee schedule was drawn from                                                               
the discussion of families who use a canoe a few times a year                                                                   
versus a motorized vessel which would probably be utilized more                                                                 
often.  Representative Hudson said he would like the committee to                                                               
consider leaving the fee schedule as it is.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT was not sure of the usage.  He reiterated that the                                                                
same administration is being done for both fees and the same                                                                    
boating safety pamphlet will be utilized by both types of boaters.                                                              
Chairman Kott acknowledged that the usage of non-motorized vessels                                                              
would be less than that of motorized vessels.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1237                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that it is the same low level of effort                                                              
to register a boat or a kayak.  To some extent, there is a                                                                      
distinction between the purchase price of a motorized and                                                                       
non-motorized vessel.  He inquired as to how onerous the fee should                                                             
be on a canoe owner versus a motorized boat owner.  The price of a                                                              
canoe is not in the same category as that of a motorized boat.                                                                  
Representative Croft drew a parallel between the fact that bikes                                                                
are not required to be registered although there may be a lot of                                                                
bike accidents; it is not the same level or cost as registering an                                                              
automobile.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if page 10, line 15 could include                                                                    
inflatables as well as non-motorized boats with regard to the $10                                                               
registration fee.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that the Coast Guard has not required                                                               
inflatables to be registered.  Representative Hudson said that a                                                                
motorized inflatable is different.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said there is not much chance of damage with                                                               
an inflatable, therefore the registration fee for an inflatable                                                                 
should be lower.   Representative Green  believed the question of                                                               
whether this is an attempt to recoup costs or make money should be                                                              
addressed.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated that her impression was that the                                                                
fees would cover the minor administrative costs, but more                                                                       
importantly the fees would be utilized for boating safety                                                                       
educational purposes.  In her mind, anyone using the water should                                                               
pay for some of these educational courses.  Furthermore, $10 for a                                                              
three year period seems minimal.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1452                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out that the registration fee is for                                                              
each non-motorized boat.  Often, people own more than one                                                                       
non-motorized boat.  In response to Representative Green,                                                                       
Representative Hudson clarified that this is an attempt to recoup                                                               
the costs for the management provided by the Division of Motor                                                                  
Vehicles(DMV) as well as establish a boating safety educational                                                                 
program.  Motorized boat operators believed that those responsible                                                              
for a third of the accidents should have registration fees.  On the                                                             
other hand, the non-motorized boat operators note that they are                                                                 
only on the water a few times a year and it does not seem equitable                                                             
for non-motorized boats to have the same registration fee as                                                                    
someone who is pulling crab pots every week.  He explained that                                                                 
this legislation has been a balancing act between motorized and                                                                 
non-motorized boats.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if these people with multiple                                                                        
non-motorized boats go out in a different boat each time, if their                                                              
argument is that they are only on the water a few times a year.  He                                                             
asked why these folks  do not use the same boat.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that those with multiple                                                                      
non-motorized boats could have single kayaks.  Therefore, a family                                                              
would have multiple kayaks requiring under this legislation a                                                                   
registration fee for each which would amount to more than the                                                                   
registration fee for a motorized boat.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT informed the committee that he has three                                                                   
non-motorized river rafting boats which are only used once a year.                                                              
He pointed out that one could own multiple non-motorized boats such                                                             
as three drift boats or three single kayaks which he indicated                                                                  
would not cost as much as a single motorized boat.  Representative                                                              
Croft emphasized that the registration requirement should not                                                                   
overburden the non-motorized boat owner.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested a compromise in which a multiple                                                                 
non-motorized boat owner would pay a registration fee of $24 for                                                                
the first boat and $10 for each boat thereafter.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that he shared the concerns of                                                                     
Representative Croft and Representative Green.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1791                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles,                                                                     
Department of Administration, stated that Representative Green's                                                                
suggestion would be an administrative nightmare.  Currently, those                                                              
with senior citizen exemptions are allowed to have the registration                                                             
of one vehicle free per year per household, if two or more vehicles                                                             
in which the registration fee is paid are owned by that senior.                                                                 
Ms. Hensley stressed that it is a nightmare to control due to the                                                               
difficulty in determining who owns which vehicle or in this case                                                                
boat.  The fees in HB 108 would generate revenue.  She estimated                                                                
that in fiscal year(FY) 2001 the revenue generated by HB 108 would                                                              
amount to about $1 million per year.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY informed the committee, in response to Representative                                                               
Croft, that there are approximately 75,000 motorized boats and                                                                  
100,000 non-motorized boats.  She noted that Ms. Hargis could                                                                   
provide better information.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to the net effect of making the motorized                                                             
boat registration and the non-motorized boat registration a $15                                                                 
fee.  With the approximately 175,000 registrations, as Ms. Hensley                                                              
approximated, the registration fee would generate approximately                                                                 
$2.5 million.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY clarified that DMV would process 58,000 registrations                                                               
per year of which 33,000 registrations would be non-motorized boats                                                             
and 25,000 for motorized boats.  Therefore, the result of 58,000                                                                
times $15 would be the net effect of a $15 fee for all boats.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if water skis would qualify as a boat                                                                
capable of being used as a means for transportation on water and                                                                
therefore, be charged a $10 registration fee.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY replied no.  She explained that water skis are a device                                                             
which the boat pulls.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the definition on page 10, line                                                                
30, which states, "'boat' means watercraft used or capable of being                                                             
used as a means of transportation on water,".                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY believed that unless the ski is being pulled it would                                                               
not be considered a method of transportation.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he did not believe skis were                                                                     
watercraft.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that water skis have never been                                                                 
declared as watercraft by the federal government.  He explained                                                                 
that he has attempted to take the federal program, rate,                                                                        
definitions, and intent in order to take over the federal boating                                                               
program.  The state would then administer the boating program and                                                               
assume those monies and expand the safety program.  He pointed out                                                              
that he has expanded the program to non-motorized boats that are                                                                
over 10 feet in length.  Representative Hudson expressed the hope                                                               
that the funds generated would be utilized towards saving lives.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2036                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if HB 108 had a fiscal note and                                                                   
indicated the need for a fiscal note.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY informed the committee that there would be a new fiscal                                                             
note as soon as the legislation passes from committee.  She said                                                                
that she could not prepare a final fiscal note on the proposed                                                                  
committee substitute.  Certainly, this will cost DMV to administer                                                              
the registration portion of the legislation.  The boat registration                                                             
fees will offset the administrative costs and in future years will                                                              
generate revenue for the general fund.  The revenue generated would                                                             
exceed the DMV's operation, therefore the rest of the money would                                                               
be placed in the  general fund in order to be appropriated for the                                                              
boat education, safety programs, and to meet the federal match, if                                                              
any, for federal tax dollars that go to the rest of the U.S.  Ms.                                                               
Hensley emphasized that in order for DMV to operate this program,                                                               
DMV would need the operational costs in the general fund.  Ms.                                                                  
Hensley further stated that DMV does not want its regular budget                                                                
reduced as a result of that.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the fiscal note dated March 25, 1999 was                                                                 
correct or were changes made adding non-motorized boats.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY stated that the March 25, 1999 fiscal note is not                                                                   
correct.  The final fiscal note will be different due to the                                                                    
addition of the non-motorized boats and the change in fee.  The                                                                 
proposed committee substitute would add an additional 100,000 boats                                                             
as well as additional personnel required to monitor this program.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that the distinction between motorized                                                                
and non-motorized vehicles, in this case boats, is an appropriate                                                               
distinction.  The distinction is appropriate because motorized                                                                  
vehicles can get one farther faster and in more trouble than a                                                                  
non-motorized vehicles.  Representative Croft commented that this                                                               
is why cars are registered and not bikes.  Bikes are registered in                                                              
order to protect them from theft, but there is not a state                                                                      
requirement or fee for bike registration.  He acknowledged that                                                                 
there are vehicles that fall in between such as a motorcycle which                                                              
is required to be registered.  Representative Croft expressed                                                                   
concern that good legislation would be hurt by requiring everyone                                                               
with a kayak or a canoe, similar to a bike, to have the same                                                                    
registration requirements as a motorized vehicle.  Representative                                                               
Croft stated that it made sense to have a less onerous registration                                                             
or none at all, which he preferred, for non-motorized vehicles.                                                                 
Representative Croft suggested that language on page 7, line 26 be                                                              
changed from "10 feet" to "20 feet".  Therefore, the bikes of the                                                               
sea world would not be included.  This is an onerous registration                                                               
requirement.  He acknowledged that the kayaking community is                                                                    
willing to be included at a lower level, but to treat them                                                                      
identical to a motorized boat creates a disproportionate intrusion.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to an article by a journalist in                                                              
Fairbanks who does not like HB 108.  The Fairbanks journalist's                                                                 
comments lead to Representative Murkowski's question regarding                                                                  
whether the boating safety regulations are a mirror image of what                                                               
is in the Lower 48 or have the regulations been adapted to Alaska.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained that the regulations are comparable                                                             
to some states in the Lower 49.  Some states do not include                                                                     
non-motorized boats while others do.  Representative Hudson                                                                     
believed that all states must apply its boating safety program to                                                               
all waters, not just federal navigable waters which the U.S. Coast                                                              
Guard is currently responsible for administering.  Representative                                                               
Hudson felt that if the interest is truly in saving lives, the                                                                  
regulations must apply to all the waters of the state.  There are                                                               
not many small rivers or unconnected lakes that would be added.                                                                 
Representative Hudson specified that under this legislation,                                                                    
operating a boat on any water in Alaska would have to comply which                                                              
he believed necessary to save lives.  Furthermore, expanding the                                                                
federal regulations to include all waters provides fairness to all.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2428                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to report CSHB 108, Version LS03445\S,                                                               
Ford, 4/7/99, as amended from committee with individual                                                                         
recommendations and the attached fiscal notes and final fiscal note                                                             
forthcoming.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that she has not had a chance to                                                              
explain the committee substitute and its changes to folks.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATE CSSB 77(JUD) - LIABILITY RELATING TO FIREARMS                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-24, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 0055                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is Senate CSSB
77(JUD), "An Act prohibiting certain civil actions against firearms                                                             
or ammunition manufacturers and dealers."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT informed the committee that HB 103, the companion to                                                              
SB 77, passed out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.  The                                                               
precedent is that the first legislation to pass to the other house                                                              
is the legislation to be used as the vehicle.  Chairman Kott noted                                                              
that he had requested that SB 77 be waived from committee, but the                                                              
committee objected due to amendments made to HB 103 that were felt                                                              
important to include in SB 77.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
VICTOR GUNN, Legislative Administrative Assistant for Senator Pete                                                              
Kelly, Alaska State Legislature, noted that SB 77 is basically                                                                  
identical to HB 103.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR PETE KELLY, Sponsor of SB 77, Alaska State Legislature,                                                                 
informed the committee that currently there is a move by many                                                                   
municipalities to sue firearm manufacturers for the lawful use of                                                               
firearms.  With the recent success of the tobacco suits,                                                                        
municipalities have looked to other manufacturers of legal products                                                             
to help with the municipality's general fund.  He believed this was                                                             
being fueled by entrepreneurial lawyers spurred by the tobacco                                                                  
suits and anti-gun advocates who are unwilling to enter into the                                                                
political discourse regarding the Second Amendment.  Senator Kelly                                                              
explained that SB 77 would preclude lawsuits against firearm                                                                    
manufactures for the lawful use of firearms, but it does not remove                                                             
the ability for civil actions for negligent design, breech of                                                                   
contract or warranty.  Senator Kelly stated that he had no                                                                      
objections to the amendments made to HB 103.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to adopt Amendment 1 which reads as                                                                  
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 8                                                                                                             
          Delete "related to"                                                                                                   
          Insert "based on"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 8                                                                                                             
          Delete "design, or marketing"                                                                                         
          Insert "or design"                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 10 after "design"                                                                                             
          Insert "a manufacturing defect,"                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0283                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report HCS CSSB 77(JUD), as amended,                                                              
out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying                                                               
zero fiscal note.  There being no objection, HCS CSSB 77(JUD) so                                                                
moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 34 - REPORTING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business is HB 34,                                                               
"An Act relating to the crime of misprision of a crime against a                                                                
child."                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0369                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the proposed committee                                                                      
substitute for HB 34, Version LS0241\D, Luckhaupt, 4/8/99, as the                                                               
working document before the committee.  There being no objection,                                                               
it was so ordered.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and                                                               
Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, informed the                                                                     
committee that the proposed committee substitute was developed with                                                             
Representative Dyson's office as well as the Department of Law.                                                                 
Mr. Luckhaupt explained that the proposed committee substitute                                                                  
changes the name of the offense from misprision of felony to the                                                                
failure to report the kidnapping or murder of a child.  This would                                                              
apply to murder, attempted murder, kidnapping or attempted                                                                      
kidnapping.  If a person witnesses one of those crimes committed                                                                
against a person under the age of 18, the person must report the                                                                
crime to the police in a timely manner or the person must come to                                                               
the aid of the individual.  Mr. Luckhaupt noted, "If you cannot                                                                 
timely report or you can't come to the aid immediately of the                                                                   
person, then you have an affirmative defense if you can't do so                                                                 
safely and without jeopardy to yourself."  He further noted that                                                                
the penalty is reduced to a class A misdemeanor.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to page 2, line 1 which states, "immediately                                                             
come to the aid of the child."  Chairman Kott recalled that in the                                                              
incident in Nevada, a person peered over the restroom stall and                                                                 
told the perpetrator to stop and then left.  Would that be                                                                      
considered immediately coming to the child's aid?                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT stated that question is one that he had not entirely                                                              
satisfied in his own mind yet.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0502                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON, Sponsor of HB 34, Alaska State Legislature,                                                               
informed the committee that he had discussed this issue with Anne                                                               
Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,                                                                       
Department of Law.  Perhaps, that language should be further                                                                    
defined if it poses a problem.  He suggested inserting the                                                                      
language, "rescue" or "attempt to rescue."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT said that "rescue" would imply that there is an                                                                   
attempt to remove the person from the dangerous situation.  Mr.                                                                 
Luckhaupt assumed that coming to the aid of a child meant more than                                                             
merely telling someone to stop.  Since no definition is provided,                                                               
the definition will be subject to whoever wins the argument of the                                                              
case.   Mr. Luckhaupt pointed out this is referring to the minimal                                                              
end of satisfying the statutory requirements.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to the net result of deleting the "or" on                                                             
page 1, line 14, and inserting "and".                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that such a change would impose a duty for                                                              
people to not only report, but also come to the aid of the child                                                                
which would be broader.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated, "Without that in there, you could come to the                                                             
aid, but not necessarily be required to report."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented that he liked that solution, but                                                                 
suggested using "and or" language.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0697                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that the "or" language is appropriate                                                               
because it allows an individual to report a crime if the person,                                                                
perhaps an elderly woman, and be in compliance without having to                                                                
come to the aid.  The "or" language also allows a person to come to                                                             
the aid of the child and be in compliance without having to report                                                              
the crime.  Representative Croft expressed concern with the "and"                                                               
language on page 2, line 3, and suggested that "and" be deleted and                                                             
"or" inserted.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN posed the following situation.  If                                                                         
Representative Green came across a situation in which a person is                                                               
seriously injured, but Representative Green made a mistake; would                                                               
this language increase Representative Green's liability?                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON pointed out that people coming to the aid in                                                               
such a situation would be covered under the Good Samaritan Act.  If                                                             
one makes a good faith effort to assist someone in danger or                                                                    
injured, that person would be covered.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he understood that in the context of                                                             
voluntarily taking action, however this language says that the                                                                  
person would be required to take action.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0808                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT clarified that under this legislation a person would                                                              
be required to notify the police or come to the aid of the person.                                                              
The Good Samaritan Act discusses the distinction between those                                                                  
persons paid to come to the aid and those who are not paid.  If you                                                             
are a person who is paid to perform a service, then that person                                                                 
would not fall under the Good Samaritan Act.  If a person                                                                       
voluntarily comes to someone's aid, that person would be covered by                                                             
the Good Samaritan Act to the extent of their training.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT clarified that if HB 34 creates a preexisting                                                              
duty, then would the person not be under the Good Samaritan Act.                                                                
He indicated that the police officer should still respond                                                                       
responsibly, but the citizen being forced to aid would be given                                                                 
more discretion.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT informed the committee that the immunity is provided                                                              
by AS 09.65.090 (a) which refers to, "A person at a hospital or any                                                             
other location who renders emergency care or emergency counseling                                                               
to an injured, ill, or emotionally distraught person...."                                                                       
Therefore, coming to someone's aid to stop an assault would not be                                                              
providing first aid to the person.  Mr. Luckhaupt further pointed                                                               
out that there is a distinction in AS 09.65.090 (b) which states,                                                               
"A member of an organization that exists for the purpose of                                                                     
providing emergency services...."  If such a person is paid for the                                                             
services, that person would not be covered under the Good Samaritan                                                             
Act.  Mr. Luckhaupt stated that Alaska's statute does not look to                                                               
whether one has duty to provide care to that person.  If one were                                                               
to provide emergency care to a person in need, the person rendering                                                             
assistance would be covered.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1027                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that the question would be regarding                                                             
how far one would be compelled or required to go.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT informed the committee of an early 1960's case in                                                                 
Alaska which discussed police officers having the duty to rescue.                                                               
A police officer stopped for coffee on the Alaska Highway where he                                                              
came across a child who had been grabbed by a caged bear.  In the                                                               
process of trying to shoot the bear, the officer shot the child.                                                                
The supreme court found that the trooper had a duty to do                                                                       
everything possible to rescue the child.  The trooper was immune                                                                
for those actions, as long as the actions were taken reasonably                                                                 
which the court found.  If there is a statute that requires one to                                                              
report a crime or come to the aid of a child in that crime, he did                                                              
not necessarily see that there is a preexisting legal duty to                                                                   
render legal aid to that person.  Mr. Luckhaupt stated that there                                                               
is a legal duty to report or come to the aid as the person sees                                                                 
fit.  This is a discretionary duty, one is not required to come to                                                              
the aid of the person by statute because there is an option.  He                                                                
did not see a problem with HB 34 in regards to the Good Samaritan                                                               
Act.  Mr. Luckhaupt pointed out that if the committee so desires,                                                               
immunity for persons coming to the aid could be provided.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON clarified that HB 34 only refers to children                                                               
who are being kidnaped or murdered.  He wondered if the language on                                                             
page 2, line 1 which reads, "come to the aid of the child" could be                                                             
changed to "act to stop or prevent the crime in progress."                                                                      
Representative Dyson said that was what he really desired.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that would be a good approach.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that there is an affirmative defense                                                             
to this if the person reasonably believes he/she would be placed in                                                             
substantial risk of physical injury.  However, that refers only to                                                              
the defendant.  "What happens if you reasonably believe, that by                                                                
reporting this, that little girl who has been kidnaped is going to                                                              
be killed? ... Can that be a reasonable affirmative defense, if you                                                             
think that there is going to be further harm to the victim, not                                                                 
just as to the defendant?"  She indicated this could be a                                                                       
legitimate issue in a kidnapping situation.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated agreement that in a kidnapping                                                                   
situation with ransom, parents are left to wonder if they should                                                                
involve the police.  Representative Dyson said that he would be                                                                 
open to inserting language indicating that it would be a positive                                                               
defense to be both afraid for your own life as well as possibly                                                                 
increasing the risk of the victim.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested on page 2, line 5, after "defendant",                                                                   
insert "and or another".                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted that in Minnesota law the language                                                                   
"without danger or peril to self or others" was added.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1444                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT offered Amendment 1 which reads as follows:                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 5 after "defendant"                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
          Insert "or others"                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was conceptually adopted.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that HB 34 originally required reporting,                                                             
but has been expanded to coming to the aid.  He asked if it was the                                                             
intent of the sponsor for one to come to the aid of someone without                                                             
requiring the crime be reported.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON specified that it was his intention to                                                                     
encourage people to act to prevent the crime and if that is not an                                                              
appropriate option for those reasons already discussed, the second                                                              
option is to report the crime.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the desire is to prioritize aid to the child                                                             
and if not feasible, then report the crime in a reasonable manner.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that it was not his intention to                                                                      
prioritize, but to provide an option to the individual.                                                                         
Representative Dyson did not want to place an individual in                                                                     
jeopardy of prosecution for not choosing the priority someone else                                                              
would have chosen.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned a New York Case, where if there                                                               
is a statutory mandate to aid, then the issue of what level of                                                                  
physical force can be utilized is brought into question.  Care must                                                             
be taken with a statutory mandate to aid.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1677                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA appreciated the intent of the legislation,                                                              
but subsection (b) on page 2 could create problems as mentioned by                                                              
Representative Rokeberg.  She believed including affirmative                                                                    
defenses would problematic.  Representative Kerttula supported                                                                  
cleaning up the failure to report rather than including the aid                                                                 
portion in this legislation.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON inquired as to whether Representative Kerttula                                                             
would feel more comfortable with the language, "act to stop a crime                                                             
in progress" versus "aid".                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated that it is problematic all together.                                                             
She reiterated that limiting the legislation to the failure to                                                                  
report issue could be addressed cleanly.  In response to Chairman                                                               
Kott, Representative Kerttula pointed out that even with the                                                                    
language "to reasonably act to stop or prevent the crime in                                                                     
progress", many questions remain.  She said that questions such as                                                              
what is reasonable, what is the degree of aid, what is immediate,                                                               
and what is substantial risk remain.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1858                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defenders Agency, testified                                                               
via teleconference from Anchorage.  He informed the committee that                                                              
he did not have the proposed committee substitute before him.  Mr.                                                              
McCune believed this to be a difficult question  because it                                                                     
attempts to achieve a level of moral behavior to which people are                                                               
held accountable.  Mr. McCune said, "I frankly, have problems with                                                              
this entire area.  I think the model penial code, when they                                                                     
thought--what they did was, you know, you don't have the duty to                                                                
report, you don't have the duty to come to the aid, but if you're                                                               
not--if you're in any way rendering assistance to someone who's                                                                 
committing a crime and had that rendering assistance very broadly                                                               
defined, you get at 99 percent of these problems."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to when an individual would know                                                               
when a crime is occurring.  If someone jumped into a movie set and                                                              
attempted to prevent a child's murder and someone was seriously                                                                 
harmed, what happens.  Representative Croft posed many examples of                                                              
situations in which it would be difficult to determine whether a                                                                
crime was occurring or not.  Representative Croft stated that the                                                               
risk must be allocated one way or another.  Either the individual                                                               
must take action and the risk that the individual may be wrong lies                                                             
with that individual or the individual must take the action and                                                                 
others must bear the risk that the individual acts erroneously.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that this will only be used in flagrant                                                             
cases.  When police arrive at the scene with a dead body, the                                                                   
police are going to look for the perpetrator.  If there was someone                                                             
present who could have presented the crime and did not, would this                                                              
be used.  Representative Dyson feared that all these "what if"                                                                  
scenarios could be problematic. The current situation is                                                                        
intolerable.  Representative Dyson reiterated that the individual                                                               
has the responsibility to "pick up the whistle and blow it."                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that an individual who is an                                                                  
accessory to a crime would have a defense due to this legislation.                                                              
The accessory could say that he/she did not report the crime                                                                    
because he/she felt it would place him/her in harms way.  Would a                                                               
defense attorney use such?                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-25, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0013                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,                                                                  
Department of Law, believed that the legislation is problematic                                                                 
with regards to the word "aid" and the need for a definition of                                                                 
that language.  Under this legislation, Ms. Carpeneti believed that                                                             
in the Nevada situation the individual who told the person                                                                      
committing the crime to stop would have been considered aiding the                                                              
victim and therefore, excused from reporting the crime.  Ms.                                                                    
Carpeneti stated that this legislation does not resolve the problem                                                             
of discouraging witnesses from reporting in a timely manner from                                                                
ever reporting.  If such a witness were ever found, immunity,                                                                   
although problematic, could be offered.  Immunized testimony is not                                                             
very good testimony and juries are instructed to look at such                                                                   
testimony with caution and distrust.  Ms. Carpeneti suggested that                                                              
if the desire is to make this work for the prosecution, then making                                                             
the bill only speak to reporting would be appropriate.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that reporting a crime at a time specific is                                                                 
very circular.  He believed that some form of prosecutorial                                                                     
discretion would be afforded in cases in which a person reported a                                                              
crime two weeks later.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI agreed, but noted that the problem is then that there                                                             
is a witness that has not been prosecuted, but the witness is                                                                   
subject to cross examination on that issue which lessens the                                                                    
impact.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said there will be prosecutorial discretion,                                                               
but legislation should be written to do what is intended and no                                                                 
more.  Criminalize what is intended and nothing more.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed, but was unsure as to how to deal with the                                                                 
dilemma surrounding what circumstances would warrant reporting a                                                                
particular crime two weeks after the fact.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI mentioned that the Y2K legislation allowed                                                             
"wiggle room" and therefore, intent language was included in that                                                               
legislation.  Perhaps, this legislation should be restricted to the                                                             
failure to reporting the crime with some intent language.                                                                       
Representative Murkowski agreed with Representative Dyson that                                                                  
there should be legislation that promotes people to do the right                                                                
thing.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 0448                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT mentioned that the substantive crime could be the                                                                 
failure to report and the references to coming to the aid of the                                                                
child could be removed.  Furthermore, an affirmative defense could                                                              
be provided for someone who comes to the aid of the child and stops                                                             
the commission of the crime.  Therefore, no one is required to come                                                             
to the aid of the child.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT interjected and stated that could be defined                                                               
very narrowly.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the drafting of the                                                                    
legislation could be such that discretionary language could be                                                                  
utilized.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON understood Representative Rokeberg to mean                                                                 
that the rendering of aid could be an option with permissive                                                                    
language, "may", while the reporting language could be mandatory.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT stated that such is achieved in criminal statute by                                                               
utilizing "shall" language, in this case the failure to report                                                                  
would be the crime.  Furthermore, the affirmative defense would be                                                              
provided by using permissive language, "may", regarding the aid                                                                 
issue which would negate criminal liability under the statute                                                                   
itself.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0685                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated the need to ensure that the Good                                                                 
Samaritan Act covers when an individual has the option to do that.                                                              
He believed it comes close, but suggested that there should be a                                                                
reference to that civil liability.  He acknowledged that there is                                                               
overlap with the rendering aid and preventing a crime, however he                                                               
indicated it should be clear that the individual would be covered.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT reiterated the problems with requiring someone to                                                                 
act.  He noted that the option for an affirmative defense is                                                                    
available for acting, but people are not compelled to act.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that the Good Samaritan Act                                                                    
returns to the question regarding what is one immunized from civil                                                              
liability from.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to discussions at the previous                                                                    
hearing which recognize in law that our young are fairly helpless                                                               
and therefore, need more care and stewardship.  The distinction                                                                 
between children and adults is important.  Representative Dyson                                                                 
said that he would be glad to do more work on HB 34.                                                                            
Representative Dyson informed the committee that he would like to                                                               
broaden the legislation to include rape and felonious assault.  He                                                              
asked the committee for guidance on that expansion.  Representative                                                             
Dyson specified that the goal is to stop a child from being hurt.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT requested that Mr. Luckhaupt work with the sponsor on                                                             
the additional language in order to have the legislation before the                                                             
committee tomorrow.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 151 - REVOCATION OF MINOR DRIVER'S LICENSE                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business is HB 151,                                                              
"An Act relating to revocation and reinstatement of the driver's                                                                
license of a person at least 14 but not yet 21 years of age."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1108                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee                                                                   
substitute, Version LS0492\N, Ford, 3/30/99, as the working draft                                                               
before the committee.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT, Sponsor of HB 151, Alaska State Legislature,                                                                     
informed the committee that HB 151 was introduced in response to                                                                
the "Use It, Lose It" legislation which passed four or five years                                                               
ago.  The "Use It, Lose It" legislation would take the license of                                                               
an underage person caught with the possession of alcohol.  Chairman                                                             
Kott believed that the "Use It, Lose It" legislation has had some                                                               
unintended consequences.  He noted that work on HB 151 has been                                                                 
done in conjunction with the Department of Public Safety as well as                                                             
the Department of Law.  Chairman Kott pointed out that Version N                                                                
eliminates all references to the youth court.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant for Representative Kott,                                                                
Alaska State Legislature, stated that often the "Use It, Lose It"                                                               
law incurs unintended results.  He explained that the desire is to                                                              
amend the law by requiring consumption of alcohol as a requisite                                                                
for revoking a license.  Currently, there is a probable cause                                                                   
standard which a police officer must find before the revocation of                                                              
a license.  He commented that requiring consumption arose from the                                                              
inequities that occur with possession.  Furthermore, the probable                                                               
cause standard is a very low finding.  Mr. Winchell pointed out                                                                 
that this legislation would remove "consecutive" penalties and run                                                              
them concurrently.  Some teens have accumulated multiple offenses                                                               
which result in many years of license revocation.  Running the                                                                  
penalties concurrently, allows those teens to mend their ways and                                                               
have their license returned pursuant to good behavior.  This                                                                    
legislation removes youth courts, therefore, administrative hearers                                                             
were authorized to re-issue licenses upon a showing of the                                                                      
following:  compliance with the statute and compliance with the                                                                 
title or department regulation.  He pointed out that the license                                                                
would allow the offender to attend school, care for a dependent                                                                 
child, or earn a livelihood without creating a danger to the                                                                    
public.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT specified that the legislation eliminates the                                                                     
possession.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. WINCHELL interjected that this legislation does not negate the                                                              
criminal liability of teens that possess alcohol.  Upon a probable                                                              
cause standard, possession is not the mere requisite for the                                                                    
revocation of a license under this legislation.  He pointed out                                                                 
that if an underage person is caught with alcohol, the underage                                                                 
teen can be charged.  Mr. Winchell informed the committee, "It was                                                              
within the purview, that there be about 2,500 revocations per year.                                                             
That number has jumped to over 4,500 a year."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1485                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to why the youth court                                                                     
provisions were deleted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. WINCHELL noted that he had spoken with the youth court.  The                                                                
youth court did not want the liability that could be associated                                                                 
with requiring these hearings and reissuing licenses to youth that                                                              
may end up in accidents.  Although the original youth court                                                                     
language was permissive, the concern resulted in the deletion of                                                                
the youth court.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles,                                                                     
Department of Administration, noted that she and Ms. Carpeneti have                                                             
worked on this issue a great deal.  Ms. Hensley passed out a graph                                                              
produced by the Department of Health & Social Services from the                                                                 
statistical information provided by Ms. Hensley.  When the law                                                                  
first passed in 1994, it was estimated that 2,500 licenses would be                                                             
revoked.  It was not anticipated that through 1995-1998, the number                                                             
would rise to 4,800 arrests.  In the calendar year of 1995, there                                                               
were 2,891 revocations.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to whether these statistics refer                                                              
to when the violation occurred or when the revocation of the                                                                    
license occurred.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY pointed out that a minor consuming is a violation, that                                                             
was decriminalized at the time of the "Use It, Lose It" law.  The                                                               
numbers on the first page indicate the numbers of incidents                                                                     
referred to the DMV in order to revoke the drivers license.  Ms.                                                                
Hensley clarified that the numbers strictly deal with the                                                                       
incidents.  The last page deals with the number of revoked licenses                                                             
during those calendar years.  The information provided indicates                                                                
the first offense, the second offenders, and the third and                                                                      
subsequent defenders.  She clarified that the difference between                                                                
the numbers of revoked licenses is due to some incidents being                                                                  
found that the officer did not have probable cause or the                                                                       
individual was under appeal.  She pointed out that less than 25                                                                 
percent of the individuals request an administrative hearing.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1718                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY pointed out the struggle with requiring chronic                                                                     
violators to seek treatment.  She requested guidance in that area.                                                              
Ms. Hensley referred to information from the 1994-1998 Fatality                                                                 
Analysis Reporting System, National Highway Traffic Safety                                                                      
Administration and the Alaska Highway Safety Planning Agency which                                                              
reports that there were a total of 13 crashes with a driver under                                                               
the age of 21 in 1994.  Of those 13 crashes, six were alcohol                                                                   
related.  Those 13 crashes resulted in 17 fatalities of all ages                                                                
and nine alcohol related deaths.  In 1998, there were a total of 16                                                             
crashes which resulted in 19 fatalities of all ages, but there was                                                              
only one alcohol related crash.  Ms. Hensley said that in some                                                                  
instances, the "Use It, Lose It" law has helped.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENSLEY explained that for a first offense revocation is 90                                                                 
days, the second offense results in revocation for one year, and                                                                
the third and subsequent offenses result in an additional three                                                                 
year license revocation.  The revocations are currently run                                                                     
consecutively.  There are some teens who will not receive their                                                                 
drivers license until the age of 30 or 50.  Currently, there is no                                                              
mechanism in the law which would allow review of those records                                                                  
after a certain time period.  Ms. Hensley believed that the sponsor                                                             
has addressed this issue and developed criteria that if met, would                                                              
return the license to the teen.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY informed the committee that there are approximately                                                                 
450,000 licensed drivers in Alaska of which 10 percent are picked                                                               
up for drunk driving.  Of that, 6.9 percent of the licensed drivers                                                             
are ages 16 to 20 of which 10 percent of those individuals are                                                                  
being picked up for drunk driving under the "Use It, Lose It" law.                                                              
Currently, there are approximately 9,400 "Use It, Lose It"                                                                      
revocations for second and subsequent offenders.  Of those 9,400 or                                                             
so, a little more than 700 have drunk driving convictions on their                                                              
record.  She mentioned that she would provide the committee with                                                                
information regarding those revoked licenses for the "Use It, Lose                                                              
It" law for their second and subsequent offenses.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 2008                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if these statistics attribute the                                                                 
second offense to driving without a license or because there is                                                                 
another offense under the "Use It, Lose It" law?                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY clarified that these statistics refer to the second and                                                             
subsequent offense for minors consuming.  There is nothing included                                                             
in the statistics regarding an additional charge of driving while                                                               
a license is revoked.  She noted that some of these individuals may                                                             
have an identification card, not a drivers license.  She specified                                                              
that what is being revoked is the privilege to obtain a license.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG believed a huge number of offenders of                                                                  
driving without a license would be created; are there statistics                                                                
regarding the number of minors charged with driving while license                                                               
revoked and no valid drivers license.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY said that she could provide that information.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that the original bill created                                                                   
criminals out of offenders.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY discussed some examples of those minors with multiple                                                               
offenses which she believed should be reviewed to determine if                                                                  
those individuals could be helped.  She reiterated that there is no                                                             
mechanism other than screening with regards to whether the minor                                                                
should attend a program.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2124                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to whether Ms. Hensley had any statistics                                                             
regarding whether those minors with multiple offenses were actually                                                             
using alcohol or were in the vicinity of an entire group that was                                                               
picked up.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY did not have such breakdowns, but did note that she                                                                 
knew that at least one of the minors with multiple offenses was                                                                 
using alcohol.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT submitted that there are many infractions in which                                                                
minors were guilty by association.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if there was any requirement for                                                                  
alcohol screening at all for these offenses.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY stated that alcohol screening only occurs at the time                                                               
the minor's license is reinstated.  Before the minor can receive                                                                
his/her drivers license, the minor must be enrolled in, compliant                                                               
with and complete an alcoholism rehabilitation program.  Ms.                                                                    
Hensley pointed out that there is no monitoring of the minor to                                                                 
ensure the alcoholism rehabilitation program because the program                                                                
does not go through the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP).                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,                                                                  
Department of Law, informed the committee that minor consuming used                                                             
to be a class A misdemeanor in Alaska.  Those minors charged with                                                               
consuming went to superior court and appeared before a judge who                                                                
would order whatever necessary for that minor with regards to                                                                   
rehabilitation and evaluation.   At the time the "Use It, Lose It"                                                              
law was adopted, minor consuming was reduced to a violation which                                                               
means that a minor in violation of such receives what is similar to                                                             
a traffic ticket, goes to district court, and pays a minimum fine                                                               
of $100.  Ms. Carpeneti believed that the rationale for reducing                                                                
minor consuming from a class A misdemeanor to a violation was that                                                              
the "Use It, Lose It" law would address the tragedy of alcohol                                                                  
abuse among young people in Alaska by focusing on an area important                                                             
to a teen, a drivers license.  Under the "Use It, Lose It" law, a                                                               
minor must be evaluated and complete whatever the evaluator                                                                     
suggests in order to have the license returned.  Perhaps, those are                                                             
not appropriate and minors in violation should go before a superior                                                             
court judge who can order treatment.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI agreed that the "Use It, Lose It" could use some work                                                             
in areas addressed by HB 151.  The Department of Motor Vehicles                                                                 
does need discretion with minors who have multiple offenses.  Ms.                                                               
Carpeneti supported the provisions in HB 151 which provides the                                                                 
Department of Administration and DMV that discretion; however, she                                                              
expressed concern with the elimination of the possession of                                                                     
alcohol.  She informed the committee that the police do not cite                                                                
minors who are not drinking.  The definition in Title 11 which                                                                  
specifies that the alcohol must be under the minor's immediate                                                                  
control or in their actual possession is used.  Currently, the                                                                  
violation for minor consuming includes consuming or possessing                                                                  
alcohol.  If the "Use It, Lose It" law is limited to consuming, the                                                             
program will be gutted.  When minor consuming prohibited consuming                                                              
only, a case could not be proven unless the police officer saw the                                                              
minor actually drinking.  Ms. Carpeneti emphasized that removing                                                                
possession hurts the effort to protect minors from the effects of                                                               
alcoholism.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-25, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY noted that currently, minor consuming is a violation in                                                             
which the police officer would write a citation to the minor and                                                                
order license revocation.  The minor is given a copy of the                                                                     
citation which is used as a temporary drivers license for seven                                                                 
days, if the minor has had a driving permit.  Within seven days,                                                                
the hearing must be requested.  Ms. Carpeneti informed the                                                                      
committee that she has heard many complaints regarding why the                                                                  
license can be revoked if the case was dismissed.  These are                                                                    
officer prosecutions and therefore, the officer cannot always be                                                                
present in court which results is dismissal of the ticket.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0051                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to how many minors were age 18 to                                                              
21 and how many were under the age of 18.  Although that would not                                                              
make a legal difference, it would seem to make a practical                                                                      
difference.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY informed the committee that in 1994, the law was in                                                                 
effect only six months, through the first three months of 1998,                                                                 
there were 2,753 revocations of minors 16 and under.  During that                                                               
same time, there were 1,274 revocations of minors age 20 and 1,955                                                              
revocations of minors age 18.  Ms. Hensely said that she would                                                                  
provide the committee with this information in graph by tomorrow.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented that the "Use It, Lose It" law                                                               
is not making an impression on minors, if there are minors with                                                                 
multiple offenses.  Representative Murkowski did not believe that                                                               
HB 151 would help because there is not an opportunity for                                                                       
administrative review.  The chronic repeat offenders are not being                                                              
addressed.  Is there an opportunity with HB 151 to address those                                                                
chronic repeat offenders?                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. HENSLEY deferred to Loren Jones, Director, Division of Drug &                                                               
Alcohol Abuse, Department of Health & Social Services who deals                                                                 
with this on a daily basis and is responsible for all the screening                                                             
programs.  One of the bills passed last year gave the Division of                                                               
Drug & Alcohol Abuse the authority for screening alcohol programs;                                                              
however, that was not funded.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0218                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LINDA WRIGHT, Good Legislation Assures Democracy (GLAD),testified                                                               
via teleconference from Kenai.  Ms. Wright indicated that the                                                                   
changes encompassed in HB 151 do help bring the "Use It, Lose It"                                                               
law into constitutional compliance, but not all the problems are                                                                
addressed.  Ms. Wright stated that GLAD is a unified group which                                                                
loves its children, fears for their safety, and is concerned for                                                                
the constitutional protection of their children.  Ms. Wright said                                                               
that GLAD does not condone under age drinking, but the current "Use                                                             
It, Lose It" law has become a roadblock to responsible behavior and                                                             
endangers children's development to responsible adulthood as well                                                               
as the child's safety.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT said that her concern for her son's behavior was                                                                     
overshadowed by the loss and abuse of her son's constitutional                                                                  
protection.  Ms. Wright discussed the designated driver program                                                                 
which she believed had the rug pulled out from under it by the "Use                                                             
It, Lose It" law.  In response to Chairman Kott, Ms. Wright                                                                     
informed the committee that her son was subject to the "Use It,                                                                 
Lose It" law.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
DAVID HUDSON, Alaska State Troopers, testified via teleconference                                                               
from Anchorage.  He stated that Ms. Carpeneti had already spoken to                                                             
his primary concern which is the elimination of possession of                                                                   
alcoholic beverages as a reason for license revocation.  This sends                                                             
a mixed message to minors and law enforcement officers.  He said,                                                               
"Clearly, under Alaska Statute 416.050 which has be decriminalized                                                              
... now a violation based upon the use of the "Use It, Lose It"                                                                 
law, it will create conflicts in the administration of that                                                                     
particular law.  We would hope that might be given some                                                                         
consideration."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Hudson was suggesting that                                                                 
minor possession is no longer a misdemeanor.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUDSON said that is correct; minor possession has been                                                                      
decriminalized to be a violation.  The purpose of that                                                                          
decriminalization was to allow the "Use It, Lose It" law to                                                                     
eliminate the criminal prosecution for a minor consuming.  In                                                                   
response to Chairman Kott, Mr. Hudson noted that he had not                                                                     
personally cited any minor under the "Use It, Lose It" law.                                                                     
However, Homer police officers and other troopers have cited minors                                                             
under the "Use It, Lose It" law.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to whether an 18 year old with                                                             
beer in the back seat of a car would be cited with the "Use It,                                                                 
Lose It"law.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUDSON replied no.  He informed the committee that he had                                                                   
attended numerous youth parties in the Homer area and there were                                                                
large amounts of alcoholic beverages.  Only those minors which it                                                               
could be determined had consumed alcoholic beverages were cited.                                                                
He added that he had responded to the Vice President of Students                                                                
Against Drunk Driving who was concerned that the designated driver                                                              
program would be hurt due to the possibility of the driver losing                                                               
his/her drivers license.  Mr. Hudson did not understand how that                                                                
could occur.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0540                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the statute mandates that the                                                                  
designated driver be cited or does the officer has discretion.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUDSON explained that if the designated driver has not consumed                                                             
any alcoholic beverage or does not have control or possession of an                                                             
alcoholic beverage, that designated driver should not be cited.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what would be happen if there was a                                                               
six pack of beer in the back seat.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUDSON stated that it would depend upon the circumstances.                                                                  
There could be circumstances in which the open container law could                                                              
come into play.  Mr. Hudson believed that the idea in law                                                                       
enforcement and society as a whole is to curb alcoholic beverage                                                                
use by youth.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to whether a designated driver with a six                                                             
pack of unopened beer in front of their seat would be interpreted                                                               
as the designated driver being considered in control or possession                                                              
of the beer.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUDSON said in that case, the designated driver would be                                                                    
considered to be in control for the purposes of the law, however                                                                
there is officer discretion.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what the culpability of the driver would                                                             
be when there is an open container in the car regardless of if the                                                              
driver is a juvenile or an adult.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUDSON believed that having an open container, whether the                                                                  
individual is driving or not, is a violation and would be treated                                                               
the same whether an adult or a juvenile.  He acknowledged that                                                                  
there are some mitigating circumstances.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that HB 151 would be held over to tomorrow.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he has received more                                                                     
complaints regarding the "Use It, Lose It" law than any other bill                                                              
passed in past years.  Representative Rokeberg said that he                                                                     
supported this legislation.  He discussed some instances in which                                                               
the "Use It, Lose It" law created problems.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
The committee stood at-ease from 4:02 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 82 - IMMUNITY:  CLAIMS ARISING FROM Y2K PROBLEMS                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business would be                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 82, "An Act relating to immunity for certain claims                                                              
arising out of or in connection with the year 2000 date change; and                                                             
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0901                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to adopt the proposed committee                                                                      
substitute, Version LS0398\K, Ford, 4/1/99, as the working document                                                             
before the committee.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG directed the committee to pages 1 and 2 of                                                              
the proposed committee substitute which now includes the finding                                                                
intent language.  He specified that the intent language can be                                                                  
found on page 2, lines 13 through 26.  Representative Rokeberg                                                                  
pointed out that Representative Croft's concern is addressed on                                                                 
page 2, paragraph (4) which reads, "if a party is unsuccessful in                                                               
asserting the year 2000 date change defenses created in this Act,                                                               
nothing in this Act would preclude a court or jury from awarding                                                                
compensatory or punitive damages as provided by law;".  He stated                                                               
that the intent language was requested in order to leave no doubt                                                               
as to what the bill does.  On page 3, line 4, the word                                                                          
"substantial" was inserted before "efforts" and on page 3, line 5,                                                              
the words "such as" were inserted.  He explained that inserting                                                                 
"such as" language allows the business to be in compliance without                                                              
having to achieve all the efforts listed under paragraph (1).  On                                                               
page 3, the first word of each subparagraph has added the suffix                                                                
"ing" in the proposed committee substitute.  He pointed out that on                                                             
page 3, line 15 the language has been changed to "generally                                                                     
accepted business practices of a business sector".                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted the intent language and the contract                                                             
language on page 4.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out the language on page 4, line 8                                                              
refers to "noneconomic losses" which he believed allowed for                                                                    
punitive and compensatory if (indisc.).                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1096                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to report CSHB 82, Version LS0398\K,                                                                 
Ford, 4/1/99, as amended, from the committee with individual                                                                    
recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.  There being no                                                              
objection, CSHB 82(JUD) so moved from the House Judiciary Standing                                                              
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 57 - STATE & MUNI IMMUNITY FOR Y2K                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the final order of business is HB 57,                                                              
"An Act relating to immunity for certain claims against the state,                                                              
a municipality, or agents, officers, or employees of either,                                                                    
arising out of or in connection with the year 2000 date change; and                                                             
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1207                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee                                                                   
substitute, Version GH1005\G, Ford, 4/8/99, as the working draft                                                                
before the committee.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MIKE FORD, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research                                                                  
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that on page 3 of                                                               
the proposed committee substitute a provision regarding the state's                                                             
immunity was deleted.  In Section 3, Mr. Ford inserted a new                                                                    
standard which is the same standard in HB 82 that applies to                                                                    
private businesses.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the proposed committee substitute                                                                 
maintains the state's immunity and provides the same immunity for                                                               
municipalities as provided for private businesses.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. FORD clarified that the standard for municipalities has changed                                                             
in which certain steps must be taken that are reflected on page 5                                                               
or reasonable care must be taken.  The state is immune.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to whether the state is immune to                                                              
intentional misconduct with regard to Y2K.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. FORD said that is not addressed.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what applies to gross negligence                                                                     
regarding Y2K by the state.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. FORD stated that it is simply in reference to the year 2000                                                                 
date change.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1308                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented, "Well, it's just the bad example                                                             
of if, you know, you have intentional misconduct.  You can still be                                                             
immune."                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. FORD agreed that is not excluded.  Mr. Ford did not believe                                                                 
that was ever addressed.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that there was language in an                                                                  
amendment which addressed that issue.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. FORD noted that could be addressed easily, but the legislation                                                              
does not at this point.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to how that was addressed in                                                                
HB 82.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. FORD explained that HB 82 utilizes the standard of reasonable                                                               
care.  Mr. Ford affirmed Representative Rokeberg's comment that the                                                             
committee adopted the reasonable care standard for the                                                                          
municipality, but not the state.  The state has a blanket immunity                                                              
while the municipalities have the qualified immunity.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that there are no resolution                                                                  
steps as in HB 82, therefore one would have to go straight to                                                                   
court.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. FORD agreed that there is no provision for that with the state.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1460                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MIKE GATTI, testifying via teleconference from the Mat-Su Valley,                                                               
inquired as to the rationale behind providing the state and                                                                     
municipalities blanket and qualified immunity, respectively.                                                                    
Municipalities provide the same type of necessary services as does                                                              
the state and therefore, should be given blanket immunity as well.                                                              
He urged the committee to review the reasoning behind the                                                                       
municipality having qualified immunity.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that there is no assurance that those                                                              
local bodies are taking the appropriate steps.  If those local                                                                  
bodies do have a plan, HB 57 provides them with protection.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN SMITH, Joint Insurance Association, Alaska Municipal League,                                                              
noted that John Corso would be explaining what the City & Borough                                                               
of Juneau would be doing.  Possibly the MIS Director for the                                                                    
Municipality of Anchorage is still on-line to inform the committee                                                              
of Anchorage's efforts.  He informed the committee that he also had                                                             
information regarding what 14 other municipalities are doing with                                                               
regard to this issue.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
JOHN CORSO, City Attorney, City & Borough of Juneau, informed the                                                               
committee that Y2K compliance is regarded as a public safety and                                                                
welfare issue which cities should do independent of liability.                                                                  
That is Juneau's approach.  Fear of liability does not provide                                                                  
anything particularly constructive.  Mr. Corso agreed with Mr.                                                                  
Gatti that municipalities should be treated more like the state.                                                                
Furthermore, municipalities should be treated differently than                                                                  
private businesses because private businesses are better able to                                                                
quickly adapt to the detailed list outlined in statute.  Mr. Corso                                                              
stated that it will be likely that creative plaintiff counsel will                                                              
hold defendants to exact compliance to the specific language of                                                                 
this statute.  Although municipalities such as Juneau may have met                                                              
the substance of Y2K preparedness, as government agencies there                                                                 
would be difficulty in complying with the technicality of the                                                                   
statute and may have to defend litigation not based on the merits.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1790                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Corso would be more                                                                        
comfortable if the multi-step plan was removed leaving only the                                                                 
reasonable care standard as set out on page 5, line 19.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. CORSO believed that subparagraph (B) on page 5, line 19 is the                                                              
legal standard that would apply.  Mr. Corso suggested that the                                                                  
statute should be as close to the state's liability which could be                                                              
achieved by inserting "." after "law" on page 4, line 29.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that it seemed to him that the state                                                                  
should be under the same standard as the municipality.  He                                                                      
indicated that the state is probably meeting its obligations now,                                                               
but he was not sure if that would continue.  Furthermore, the                                                                   
alternative dispute resolution which was in the original business                                                               
Y2K preparedness could be applied to the state in order to provide                                                              
an avenue other than the courts to reach resolution.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to whether Mr. Corso had                                                                    
reviewed the curative, mediative, and litigated steps prior to                                                                  
pro-litigation which HB 82 includes.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. CORSO replied no.  In further response to Representative                                                                    
Rokeberg, Mr. Corso stated that alternative dispute resolution                                                                  
could be helpful.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. GATTI pointed out that parties can already agree to alternative                                                             
dispute resolution.  He noted that he had not seen the HB 82                                                                    
provisions pertaining to that issue.  Mr. Gatti stated that he                                                                  
always advised his clients not to make alternative dispute                                                                      
resolution mandatory because it adds another step and cost to the                                                               
litigation process which could be agreed to independent of what is                                                              
expressly stated in a contract or legislation.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 2046                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT informed the committee that he intends to hold HB 57                                                              
and to review the provisions in HB 82.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the amendment regarding the                                                                  
REAAs could be adopted.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that the statute is unclear                                                                    
regarding what REAAs are, whether an REAA is a political                                                                        
instrumentality of the state, political subdivision, or a hybrid.                                                               
REAAs are treated differently in different statutes.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT reiterated that HB 57 would be held.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that the problem is                                                              
that the "state" is defined as including a REAA city or rural                                                                   
school district.  He recommended that the committee review that.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                  
meeting at 4:25 p.m.                                                                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects