Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/08/1999 01:20 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
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.