Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/12/1999 01:52 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE May 12, 1999 1:52 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 OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Fred Dyson COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 213 "An Act relating to the medical use of marijuana; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 213(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 11(JUD) "An Act relating to good time credits for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for certain murders." - MOVED CSSB 11(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the repeal of regulations by the legislature. - MOVED SJR 3 OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 110(RLS) am "An Act relating to liability for the release of hazardous substances involving certain property acquired by a governmental entity; relating to making a determination as to when a hazardous substance release has occurred; relating to liability of a party other than the party responsible for the initial release of a hazardous substance; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HCS SB 110(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 219 "An Act relating to the rule against perpetuities, nonvested property interests, and powers of appointment; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HB 219 OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 4(FIN) "An Act relating to victims' rights; relating to establishing an office of victims' rights; relating to compensation of victims of violent crimes; relating to eligibility for a permanent fund dividend for persons convicted of and incarcerated for certain offenses; relating to notice of appropriations concerning victims' rights; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency Rules, and Rule 501, Alaska Rules of Evidence; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HCS CSSB 4(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 213 SHORT TITLE: MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 4/27/99 1026 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 4/27/99 1027 (H) HES, JUD 5/03/99 (H) HES AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 106 5/03/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 5/04/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 5/04/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 213(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE 5/05/99 1177 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 3NR 2AM 5/05/99 1177 (H) NR: DYSON, WHITAKER, BRICE; AM: COGHILL, 5/05/99 1177 (H) KEMPLEN 5/05/99 1177 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DHSS) 5/05/99 1177 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 5/05/99 1177 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY 5/11/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 5/11/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 5/12/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 11 SHORT TITLE: PRISON TIME CREDITS FOR MURDERERS SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY, Leman, Taylor Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/19/99 16 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/8/99 1/19/99 16 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/19/99 16 (S) JUD, FIN 2/17/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 2/17/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD 2/17/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 2/22/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 2/22/99 (S) MOVED CS (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE 2/22/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 2/23/99 337 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 1NR NEW TITLE 2/23/99 337 (S) DP: HALFORD, DONLEY; NR: TORGERSON 2/23/99 338 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (COR) 2/24/99 350 (S) INDETERMINATE FN TO SB & CS (ADM) 3/11/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 3/11/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD 3/18/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 3/18/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 4/07/99 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532 4/07/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE 4/08/99 (S) RLS AT 11:40 AM FAHRENKAMP 203 4/08/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 4/08/99 821 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 1DNP 2NR (JUD) CS 4/08/99 821 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS, 4/08/99 821 (S) PETE KELLY, LEMAN, DONLEY; 4/08/99 821 (S) NR: GREEN, WILKEN; DNP: ADAMS 4/08/99 821 (S) PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN (ADM) 4/08/99 821 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (COR) 4/09/99 846 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 4/9/99 4/09/99 849 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 4/09/99 849 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 4/09/99 849 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 4/09/99 849 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 11(JUD) 4/09/99 850 (S) PASSED Y16 N3 E1 4/09/99 850 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 4/12/99 884 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP 4/12/99 885 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 4/13/99 786 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 4/13/99 786 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 4/21/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 4/21/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD 4/22/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 4/22/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 4/22/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 5/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 5/07/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD 5/12/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SJR 3 SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Kelly Tim, Phillips; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Harris Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/21/99 43 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/21/99 44 (S) STA, FIN 1/28/99 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 1/28/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE 1/28/99 (S) MINUTE(STA) 2/01/99 125 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1DNP 2/01/99 125 (S) DP: WARD, PHILLIPS, MACKIE; DNP: ELTON 2/01/99 125 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S. STA) 2/05/99 164 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/11/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 2/11/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD 2/11/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 2/11/99 227 (S) FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/16/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 2/16/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE 2/16/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 2/16/99 256 (S) FIN RPT 2DP 4NR 1DNP 2/16/99 256 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL; NR: GREEN, 2/16/99 256 (S) PETE KELLY, WILKEN, LEMAN; DNP: ADAMS 2/16/99 256 (S) PREVIOUS FN (GOV) 3/15/99 (S) RLS AT 1:40 PM FAHRENKAMP 203 3/15/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 3/16/99 564 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/16/99 3/16/99 570 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 3/16/99 571 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y14 N4 E2 3/16/99 571 (S) THIRD READING 3/17 CALENDAR 3/17/99 585 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 3 3/17/99 585 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TIM KELLY, PHILLIPS 3/17/99 586 (S) PASSED Y14 N4 E2 3/17/99 586 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 3/17/99 587 (S) RECON TAKEN UP SAME DAY UNAN CONSENT 3/17/99 587 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 3/23 CALENDAR 3/23/99 650 (S) BEFORE THE SENATE ON RECONSIDERATION 3/23/99 651 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N5 3/23/99 652 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 3/24/99 544 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 3/24/99 544 (H) STA, JUD, FINANCE 3/24/99 562 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): HARRIS 4/08/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/08/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE 4/08/99 (H) MINUTE(STA) 4/08/99 687 (H) STA RPT 4DP 2DNP 1NR 4/08/99 687 (H) DP: JAMES, COGHILL, WHITAKER, OGAN; 4/08/99 687 (H) DNP: SMALLEY, KERTTULA; NR: HUDSON 4/08/99 687 (H) SENATE FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/11/99 4/26/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 4/26/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 4/26/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 4/28/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 4/28/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 4/28/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 5/12/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 110 SHORT TITLE: HAZARDOUS SUBST. RELEASE: GOVT ENTITY SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WILKEN Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 3/18/99 601 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 3/18/99 601 (S) JUD 4/12/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211 4/12/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 4/23/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211 4/23/99 (S) MOVED CS(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE 4/23/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 4/29/99 (S) RLS AT 11:50 AM FAHRENKAMP 203 4/29/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 4/29/99 1169 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 2NR 1DNP NEW TITLE 4/29/99 1169 (S) DP: TAYLOR; NR: TORGERSON, DONLEY; 4/29/99 1169 (S) DNP: ELLIS 4/29/99 1169 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DOT, DEC) 5/04/99 (S) RLS AT 3:15 PM FAHRENKAMP 203 5/04/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 5/05/99 1249 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR W/CS 1 OR 5/5 SAME TITLE 5/05/99 1249 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DEC, DOT) 5/05/99 1251 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 5/05/99 1252 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED Y11 N9 5/05/99 1252 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 5/05/99 1252 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 110(RLS) 5/05/99 1253 (S) PASSED Y17 N3 5/05/99 1253 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 5/05/99 1253 (S) TAYLOR NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 5/06/99 1277 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 5/06/99 1277 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR RESCIND MOTION UC 5/06/99 1277 (S) MTN TO RESCIND ACTION IN ADPTNG RLS CS 5/06/99 1278 (S) ACTION RESCINDED ADPTNG RLS CS Y11 N9 5/06/99 1279 (S) HELD IN 2ND W/QUESTION PENDNG TO 5/7 CAL 5/07/99 1299 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 5/07/99 1299 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING 5/07/99 1300 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 1 UNAN CONSENT 5/07/99 1300 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED 5/07/99 1300 (S) AM TO AM 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 5/07/99 1300 (S) AM NO 1 AS AMENDED ADOPTED Y20 N- 5/07/99 1302 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING 5/07/99 1302 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y20 N- 5/07/99 1303 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 5/07/99 1308 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 5/08/99 1256 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 5/08/99 1256 (H) CRA, JUD 5/11/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 5/11/99 (H) MOVED CSSB 110(RLS)AM OUT OF COMMITTEE 5/11/99 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 5/11/99 1315 (H) CRA RPT 5NR 1AM 5/11/99 1316 (H) NR: DYSON, JOULE, MORGAN, HARRIS, 5/11/99 1316 (H) HALCRO; AM: MURKOWSKI 5/11/99 1316 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (DEC) 5/11/99 1316 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY 5/12/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 219 SHORT TITLE: RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 5/04/99 1158 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 5/04/99 1158 (H) JUDICIARY 5/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 5/07/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD 5/10/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120 5/10/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 5/10/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 5/12/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 4 SHORT TITLE: OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD, Donley, Green, Leman, Taylor, Wilken, Kelly Tim, Lincoln, Ellis, Parnell, Mackie, Miller, Kelly Pete, Ward; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Porter Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/19/99 13 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/8/99 1/19/99 14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/19/99 14 (S) JUD, FIN 1/22/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 1/22/99 (S) MOVED CS (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE 1/22/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 1/25/99 77 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 1NR SAME TITLE 1/25/99 77 (S) DP: TAYLOR, HALFORD, ELLIS; NR: TORGERSON 1/25/99 77 (S) FNS TO SB & CS (LAA, DPS, COR) 1/25/99 77 (S) INDETERMINATE FN TO SB & CS (LAW) 1/25/99 77 (S) ZERO FNS TO SB & CS (ADM-2, DPS) 3/30/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 3/30/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD 3/30/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 3/30/99 740 (S) COSPONSOR(S): WILKEN 4/22/99 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532 4/22/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD 4/27/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 4/27/99 (S) MOVED CS (FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE 4/27/99 1130 (S) FIN RPT CS 7DP 1NR NEW TITLE 4/27/99 1131 (S) LETTER OF INTENT WITH FIN REPORT 4/27/99 1131 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS, GREEN 4/27/99 1131 (S) PETE KELLY, DONLEY, WILKEN; NR: ADAMS 4/27/99 1131 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM-2, DPS) 4/27/99 1131 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (COR, DPS) 4/27/99 1131 (S) PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN (LAW) 4/28/99 (S) RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 203 4/28/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 4/28/99 1148 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DPS) 4/29/99 1170 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/29/99 4/29/99 1171 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 4/29/99 1172 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 4/29/99 1172 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 4/29/99 1172 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 4(FIN) 4/29/99 1172 (S) (S) ADOPTED FIN LETTER OF INTENT 4/29/99 1172 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TIM KELLY, LINCOLN, ELLIS, 4/29/99 1172 (S) PARNELL, MACKIE, MILLER, PETE KELLY, 4/29/99 1172 (S) WARD 4/29/99 1173 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2 4/29/99 1173 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 4/29/99 1173 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 4/29/99 1175 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 4/30/99 1101 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 4/30/99 1101 (H) JUD, FIN 5/03/99 1145 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): PORTER 5/10/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120 5/10/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD SUBCMTE APPOINTED 5/10/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 5/12/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120 WITNESS REGISTER AL ZANGRI, Chief Vital Statistics Division of Public Health Department of Health & Social Services PO Box 110675 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0675 Telephone: (907) 465-3392 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided clarification of Amendment 8. MIKE PAULEY, Legislative Assistant to Senator Leman Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 155 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2095 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Senator Leman's view on various aspects of HB 213 and amendments before the committee. DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General Legal Services Section-Juneau Criminal Division Department of Law PO Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Telephone: (907) 465-3428 POSITION STATEMENT: Offered the Department of Law's opinion on various aspects of HB 213 and amendments before the committee. DAVID FINKELSTEIN Alaskans for Medical Marijuana P.O. Box 102320 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Telephone: (907) 277-2567 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 213 and amendments. GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney Legislative Counsel Legislative Legal and Research Services Alaska State Legislature 130 Seward Street, Suite 409 Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105 Telephone: (907) 465-2450 POSITION STATEMENT: Offered opinions on HB 213 and amendments. DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner Department of Public Safety PO Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200 Telephone: (907) 465-4322 POSITION STATEMENT: JOHN KIMMEL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 30 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4906 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 3 on behalf of Senator Taylor. SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 30 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-4906 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of SJR 3. ELIZABETH HAGEVIG, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Gary Wilken Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 514 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3018 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 110 on behalf of Senator Wilken. LARRY DIETRICK, Acting Director Division of Spill Prevention and Response Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-5250 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 110. ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Loren Leman Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 115 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-5149 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 110. VIRGIL NORTON P.O. Box 141796 Anchorage, Alaska 99514 Telephone: (907) 776-5481 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 110. CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott; and Committee Aide, House Judiciary Standing Committee Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 118 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4990 POSITION STATEMENT: As committee aide, explained rule of perpetuities, relating to HB 219. KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 214 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-6791 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 4. BRETT HUBER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Rick Halford Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 121 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4958 POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed changes encompassed in HCS CSSB 4, Version K. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-66, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:52 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Kott, Rokeberg, James, Murkowski, Croft and Kerttula. Representative Green joined the meeting at 5:22 p.m. HB 213 - MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 213, "An Act relating to the medical use of marijuana; and providing for an effective date." Chairman Kott noted that the next amendment before the committee would be Amendment 5. In response to Representative Croft, he confirmed that at the last hearing Amendment 4 was adopted without objection. Number 0081 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt Amendment 5 which reads as follows: Page 11, line 10, following "possess": Insert "in the aggregate" There being no objection, Amendment 5 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt Amendment 6 which reads as follows: Page 3, line 6, following "investigation" Insert "of an individual suspected of a violation of AS 11.71. AS 17.30. or this chapter" There being no objection, Amendment 6 was adopted. The committee took a brief at-ease from 1:55 p.m. to 1:56 p.m. CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the sponsor of Amendment 7 has withdrawn Amendment 7, labeled M2. Number 0312 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to adopt Amendment 8, labeled G.13, which reads as follows: Page 5, line 8, following "marriage" Insert ". Notwithstanding this limitation, upon the written request of a patient, the department may list a person as the primary caregiver for more than one patient if (1) that listing would avoid unnecessary hardship to the patient; or (2) the patient's care is being provided in a hospice program licensed under AS 18.18" REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purposes of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 8 would provide the department discretion to allow a primary caregiver to be other than a relative if under a hardship or a hospice program. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that there is a syntax problem in subsection 2. When hospice enters into a patient's care there can be various scenarios such as joint care. He did not mind the concept, but did not like the structure of the language which seems singular. Is the intention to allow the hospice caregiver the ability to obtain the marijuana? REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied no. Amendment 8 speaks to the patient illustrating hardship and that he/she is being cared for in a hospice program. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated concern with a primary caregiver having more than one patient. Is the idea to have a professional caregiver with multiple patients? REPRESENTATIVE JAMES interjected that is like the hospice program. Number 0570 AL ZANGRI, Chief, Vital Statistics, Division of Public Health, Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), explained that the intent with Amendment 8 is to allow a licensed hospice program to provide a primary caregiver for more than one patient in such a setting. Mr. Zangri noted that the licensing apparatus for hospice programs should preclude establishing group marijuana distributors. This is identical to the current regulations under the initiative. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to how the marijuana would be provided to a patient with a hospice program as the primary caregiver. MR. ZANGRI said that he believed, in this case, that the hospice program would be allowed to provide medical marijuana to the patients. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that would be a group. Will a blanket provision be given to do that? MR. ZANGRI explained that the individual patient has to have a card. He expected this to work such that the hospice program would be limited in its ability to possess or distribute medical marijuana to the aggregate amount of the number of ounces or number of plants that the patients under the program's care had the right to. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern that a Rastafarian group could establish a hospice program. MR. ZANGRI stressed that the Rastafarian group would have to meet the necessary qualifications. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that if all qualifications are met, the nationality of the group would not be relevant. MR. ZANGRI clarified that a patient, under Amendment 8, would have to illustrate a hardship "or" that the patient is receiving hospice care, but not both. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to what DHSS would define as "unnecessary hardship to the patient." MR. ZANGRI acknowledged that the language is currently not defined, but noted it will be defined in regulation by DHSS. Mr. Zangri said, "It's currently in regulation, but the hardship that will be looked at, in terms of each individual case, the commissioner won't be making those decisions. And we're talking about situations where you have one primary caregiver or -- a couple of patients, ..., that don't have any relatives in the area, that don't know of any source, that no way of obtaining medical marijuana and an individual says, I'll grow it for you or whatever." Mr. Zangri believed it would be extremely rare that such a hardship exemption would be granted. However, it is an option for those with no other alternative. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if there is anything in the regulations that would prevent an individual acting as a primary caregiver to 26 different patients because the aforementioned requirements can be demonstrated. How can this be monitored? MR. ZANGRI stated that this would have to be a judgement call under the current structure by the commissioner. In further response to Representative Murkowski, Mr. Zangri said the department has not reviewed limiting the number of patients that one caregiver can service. He indicated that the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Law do not like this provision. Number 0999 MIKE PAULEY, Legislative Assistant to Senator Leman, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee that he had faxed Amendment 8 to Mr. Dean Guaneli, Department of Law, who indicated that the Department of Law is opposed to Amendment 8. The Department of Law's primary concern is the maintenance of the one-to-one relationship between the patient and the primary caregiver in order to avoid those circumstances eluded to by Representative Murkowski. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if discussions of the Senate's companion bill spoke to limitations on the number of patients a caregiver could serve. MR. PAULEY said this issue was discussed in earlier hearings. There is concern with Amendment 8 because, if adopted, it would also impact possession limits. In a worst case scenario, a primary caregiver serving numerous patients could have a greenhouse full of plants using the argument that each patient is allowed an aggregate of one ounce usable marijuana and six plants. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed that to be a legitimate point and said that he did not mind placing an upper limit in this section with regard to how many patients one primary caregiver could serve. Representative Croft moved to amend Amendment 8 by inserting "but not more than four patients" before "if" on line 4 of the printed Amendment 8. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was objection to the amendment to Amendment 8, There being no objection, the amendment to Amendment 8 was adopted. Therefore, Amendment 8 as amended would read as follows: Page 5, line 8, following "marriage" Insert ". Notwithstanding this limitation, upon the written request of a patient, the department may list a person as the primary caregiver for more than one patient but no more than four patients if (1) that listing would avoid unnecessary hardship to the patient; or (2) the patient's care is being provided in a hospice program licensed under AS 18.18" MR. PAULEY said that Senator Leman would be opposed to this amendment. Through the process of this legislation, Senator Leman has been reluctant to make changes without consensus from DHSS, the Department of Public Safety, and the Department of Law. He reiterated that the Department of Law opposed Amendment 8 in its original form. Number 1354 DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, commented that the notion of limiting the number of patients a primary caregiver can serve grew out of California's experience. When one person supplies marijuana to multiple people, fairly large growing operations result. From the experience of law enforcement officials with growing operations in Alaska, Mr. Guaneli informed the committee that in small basements growing operations can net over $100,000. The average grown plant (obtained by state troopers) that has been trimmed, leaves and seeds dried, produces four ounces of marijuana which is worth a couple thousand dollars. When that potential for profit making is injected into a humanitarian/medical operation, problems ensue. Furthermore, police officers could find those with more than one ounce which could result in a dispute regarding how many patients are being cared for. Mr. Guaneli did not see a need for one person to be the supplier for a group. MR. GUANELI turned to the issue of hospice programs. There must be a distinction between a primary caregiver, which is defined in statute as someone who supplies a person with marijuana, and that person's nurse who provides care. Mr. Guaneli explained, "If a terminally ill patient in a hospice situation, is there with some marijuana in the nightstand and every four hours smokes a little bit. The person who possesses that marijuana is the patient and ... that person can legally do it. It's not the hospice worker's or the janitor, it's not anybody else. I mean, if the hospice worker takes it out the drawer and gives it to the patient, that's not illegal. ...they are not possessing it for purposes of the criminal law, they are simply assisting the patient in taking it just as they would do with if it were narcotic pain pills; and they don't have to be a licensed physician to assist the patient in taking those pills." Therefore, Mr. Guaneli did not view the hospice situation as a problem nor did he believe these changes necessary to make the program work. He viewed the changes as potentially creating some confusion with law enforcement officers and additional inappropriate amounts of marijuana. Number 1643 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA understood that with the registration requirements anyone listed as a caregiver would have to be registered. MR. GUANELI agreed with Representative Kerttula's understanding. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested that it would be easier to have less people carrying the marijuana or being the caregiver. The possession would not be as spread out if one caregiver served four patients. MR. GUANELI commented that could be taken to an extreme, having one caregiver for 10 patients or one caregiver for an entire city. However, the more patients being served increases the potential for profit motivation and the situation getting out of control. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that this is not our place to plan. She indicated that a caregiver serving more than one patient already seems to be allowed in the legislation. It seemed that this would be dictated by the ill person needing marijuana. MR. GUANELI expressed the need to return to the goals which was to limit the spread of marijuana with regard to who could have the marijuana and how much. Beyond those specifics, Mr. Guaneli guessed that it was up to the patient to make those arrangements. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that although the departments have concerns that we want to try to meet, these are people with debilitating conditions. Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted in favor of Amendment 8 as amended and Representatives Rokeberg, James, Murkowski, and Kott voted against Amendment 8 as amended. Representative Green was not present. Therefore, Amendment 8 as amended failed to be adopted with a vote of 2-4. Number 1872 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved the following conceptual amendment, labeled Amendment 9: Page 5, line 8, following "marriage" Insert "or a bonafide member of a hospice program licensed under AS 18.18, prior to November 1, 1998" REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained, in response to Representative Kerttula, that the November 1, 1999 date was chosen because the program had not been established prior to voter approval of the ballot initiative. Upon review of AS 18.18 regarding licensure of hospice programs, Representative Rokeberg felt that it would be relatively easy to establish a marijuana club under the current licensing law. Representative Rokeberg commented that he is a strong supporter of hospice programs. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI objected for discussional purposes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that in statute there is a standard hospice program and a volunteer hospice program which has lower limits for membership. Therefore, he believed that current statutes could allow the establishment of a hospice program of the aforementioned problematic type. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that this legislation is getting more complicated. She asked if a caregiver referred to only providing the marijuana or would other services be provided for the patient. She was confused as to why a patient would need hospice services unless the patient is receiving other hospice services besides the receipt of marijuana. Number 2083 DAVID FINKELSTEIN, Alaskans for Medical Marijuana, said that the amendment is great, although it is only a small portion of what was originally intended. He noted that the original intention, "was that anyone could end up with more than one patient per caregiver..." Therefore, any improvement is welcomed. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to how many people a hospice person could serve marijuana. MR. FINKELSTEIN stated that he was not very familiar with hospice programs. He believed that limiting availability to pre-existing hospices would eliminate the possibility of abuse. He reminded the committee that these patients will be in a set circumstance. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that in Anchorage there are very large inter-disciplinary teams that operate under hospice. However, there is generally only one or two registered nurses on duty, who are licensed to administer pain medications. Therefore, there would be a limited number of people to administer a drug such as morphine. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI returned to Mr. Guaneli's comments that the caregiver's role is to provide the patient with marijuana. Therefore, we are placing the hospice in a situation of being a grower and a supplier with which she is not comfortable. She believed placing the hospice program in the situation of being the supplier is problematic. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stressed that the hospice program would not be growing the marijuana. The hospice program would merely be the conduit for the administration of the marijuana. Representative Rokeberg commented that the hospice program usually only comes into play during the last few days of a person's life. He envisioned the primary caregiver giving the marijuana to the nurse. The issue of possession should be addressed in order to provide the hospice program comfort with regard to handling marijuana. The hospice program should be provided some statutory relief from handling the marijuana. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that Representative Rokeberg's amendment does not seem to achieve his intent. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further objection to Amendment 9. REPRESENTATIVES JAMES and MURKOWSKI objected. Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Rokeberg, Croft, and Kerttula voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 9 and Representatives James, Murkowski, and Kott voted against the adoption of Amendment 9. Representative Green was not present. Therefore, Amendment 9 failed to be adopted with a vote of 3-3. Number 2369 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee adopt Amendment 10, labeled G.11, which reads as follows: Page 11, line 7, following "except that": Insert "(A)" Page 11, line 9, following "," Insert "and "(B) if the patient does not receive any compensation in any form in exchange for the marijuana, a patient may give marijuana to another patient who is registered under AS 17.37.010 and who is in physical possession of a registry identification card;" CHAIRMAN KOTT objected for purposes of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 10 would allow one patient to give marijuana to another patient who physically possesses a registry identification card. MR. GUANELI reminded the committee that a person is prohibited from smoking marijuana in a place open to the general public, so a person could smoke marijuana in an Elk's Club, a private club. Therefore, Mr. Guaneli said that patients could form their own private club and under this provision, patients could give marijuana to other patients. He likened this to the marijuana clubs that sprang up in California which is the danger. If that were to happen, law enforcement officials probably cannot do much beyond obtaining a search warrant to enter the club. The proposed provision would allow the use of marijuana in a club setting which would again create the danger of someone profiting from marijuana. TAPE 99-66, SIDE B REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the language addressed providing marijuana without compensation. He inquired as to how that would expand the places or context in which a person could use marijuana. MR. GUANELI reiterated that combining the two provisions results in the ability to create a private club where marijuana can be used and marijuana can be exchanged. He did not believe that to be the purpose of the initiative which he thought was to allow the private use of marijuana for those needing it for medical purposes, but not in a collective group setting. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that this is a fox-hole amendment to which he is opposed. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked, "Would this mean that if one were suffering from excruciating pain, and you had a neighbor who was also in the same state, ... the neighbor came over. They're both card carrying, registered members to use marijuana that the person -- either one of those individuals then couldn't give to the other?" Number 0103 MR. GUANELI said that he believed the statutory scheme established in this bill requires that a person be listed as a primary caregiver for someone else, that is the mechanism. If patients are allowed to freely give marijuana, then the number of people who can supply marijuana is greatly expanded. Mr. Guaneli thought the intent was to limit the scope or at least have it clear in the registry who is giving marijuana to whom. Under Chairman Kott's scenario, the neighbor could be designated as the primary or alternate caregiver for purposes of supplying marijuana. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked then if the neighbor was a patient and a caregiver, could that patient possess two ounces and 12 plants of which six could be flowering. MR. GUANELI said that he believed that would be the result with cross-designation as a patient and a caregiver. He agreed with Chairman Kott that would be under the current statutory scheme. Perhaps, that is a problem that needs to be addressed. Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 10 and Representatives Rokeberg, James, Murkowski, and Kott voted against the adoption of Amendment 10. Therefore, Amendment 10 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-4. Number 0228 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee adopt Amendment 11, labeled G.12 which reads as follows: Page 1, line 5: Delete "Affirmative defense" Insert "Defense" Page 1, line 9: Delete "an affirmative" Insert "a" Page 8, line 14: Delete "an affirmative" Insert "a" CHAIRMAN KOTT objected. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that a distinction in the law is between a defense and an affirmative defense; under one the individual must prove while the other the state has to prove against the individual. Amendment 11 changes the affirmative defense to a defense. Although this sounds minimal, it is a big difference that is an important principle of criminal justice. With regard to those stating their belief as to the intent, only those who passed the initiative really know the intent. Originally, it was clear that this was something the government had to prove against an individual. CHAIRMAN KOTT withdrew his objection. MR. PAULEY expressed Senator Leman's opposition to Amendment 11 which is viewed as a drastic departure from the current structure of the bill. The intent of the affirmative defense provisions was to follow the model of Alaska's concealed carry permit law. Mr. Pauley distributed copies of that law which provides an affirmative defense. In talking with owners of firearms and law enforcement, it is apparent that this process has worked well. It is difficult for Senator Leman to understand how it would work differently under the medical marijuana registry. Number 0431 GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Alaska State Legislature, agreed with Representative Croft's explanation of Amendment 11. Under an affirmative defense, once evidence is placed on that subject the burden falls on the defendant to establish that by a preponderance of the evidence. However, with a defense, once some evidence is placed to support the defense the burden falls on the prosecution to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt. He noted that information in the possession of the defendant sometimes involves information that could be privileged. Traditionally, legislatures place the burden for defense, involving such evidence, upon the defendant. If the evidence can be proven, it would constitute a complete defense to the charge. The information here seems to fit some of those criteria in that it must be proven that the person has been diagnosed by a doctor to have a debilitating medical condition. That information could be considered privileged. Mr. Luckhaupt noted that the legislature has not used defenses often; there have only be a few limited cases. For the most part, when a defense is provided it has been an affirmative defense. MR. LUCKHAUPT commented that the initiative is a bit confusing. He pointed out that the initiative in Section 17.37.030(a) says that no person may be convicted for medical use of marijuana when the listed criteria are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. That appears to be a sort of affirmative defense due to the language, "proved by a preponderance of the evidence", which would mean that it is not necessarily placed on the prosecution who is required to prove elements of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps, that was a mistake and the intention was to place the burden on the prosecution. However, there are conflicting provisions in the initiative as the next provision, subsection (b) provides immunity. Mr. Luckhaupt agreed with Mr. Pauley's earlier statement that when the legislature has acted in similar areas, the legislature has provided the defense as an affirmative defense. Number 0703 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA recognized that the initiative does seem to include immunity in Section 17.37.030(b). She asked if that was the conflict to which Mr. Luckhaupt just referred. MR. LUCKHAUPT replied yes. He believed that was an incentive to get people to register so as to have complete immunity. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA understood that the legislation, as it is, would eliminate immunity and maintain the affirmative defense; is that correct? MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that the legislation currently provides for mandatory registration and an affirmative defense is provided instead of immunity. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that proven by a preponderance of the evidence is also used in Section 17.37.020 of the initiative and therefore, would provide an affirmative defense in regard to quantities of marijuana. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that the initiative had an affirmative defense for possession of marijuana in excess of the amount established which she was not sure has been maintained in the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that Amendment 12 would address that concern. Number 0824 MR. FINKELSTEIN emphasized that the initiative clearly says that if a person registers with the state and meets the other conditions, that person would not be subject to arrest. According to testimony to date, that would mean that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. The initiative includes a fall-back provision for persons who do not register with the state. Such individuals are not provided as much protection and the burden of proof lies with that individual, an affirmative defense. The comments that the affirmative defense is only about those who carry the card is not correct because Section 1 of the legislation references the entire legislation. He said, "The burden of proof under number (3), at the top of the page 2, applies to the entire bill .... The burden of proof will be on the patient to show they complied with the requirements of [AS] 17.37 as it applies to use in public which, of course, that's obviously a case where it ought to be the prosecution's burden. The patient can't show that they didn't use it in public. It's the kind of issue where if the prosecution can show it, they have a witness showing it. The patient can't show that all their use was within the one ounce limit other than just stating it. The prosecution can; they can say they found over an ounce. These are just classic provisions that fit the way, I certainly understand our legally system: you're innocent until you're proven guilty and the prosecution needs to make the case. ... I understand the arguments on mandatory registration, but if you're going to go to that and you're going to preclude all these other folks who might not do it, you certainly want them to sign up. And if you want them to sign up, it's better to give them at least the standard that the prosecution has to make the case, not the patient. I just think that's a minimum to expect, if people are going to sign up with the state. Again, it isn't just the intent of the initiative, the initiative's actual language states that you get that protection when you sign up with the state." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the location of the burden of proof in the initiative. MR. FINKELSTEIN said it is located in Section 17.37.030(b). REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recognized that as the immunity clause to which Mr. Luckhaupt spoke. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT posed an example in which the police allege that an individual was smoking marijuana in public; it must be proven that the individual was smoking marijuana in public. If the individual is charged with use of medical marijuana in public and the defense nor the prosecution says anything, the individual has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she was not smoking medical marijuana in public. Representative Croft emphasized that it should be the burden of the state which is the reasoning behind Amendment 11. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to how that would work, practically. Number 1050 MR. GUANELI echoed Mr. Pauley's comments that the affirmative defense with concealed handguns has worked which is the case in other provisions as well. Alaska's drug offenses specify that it isn't necessary for the state to negate any exemption or exception, but rather the defendant has the burden to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence any exemption or exception claimed. If an officer sees a bottle of pills in someone's purse, that person could, technically, be charged with an offense. Furthermore, that individual would have an affirmative defense, under current Alaska law, to prove that the individual has a prescription for the pills. This particular provision has existed in Alaska law since 1982. Mr. Guaneli believed that the intent of the legislation was to bring the medical marijuana provisions into conformity with other provisions of Alaska law that dealt with individuals having prescriptions, recommendations, et cetera from doctors for controlled substances. Regardless of the intent and language of the initiative, the legislation intends to be consistent with Alaska's drug laws. MR. GUANELI posed the example in which an officer stops an individual who claims to be an alternate caregiver. The officer requests the individual's card to which the individual does not respond. At trial, the state would be required, per the amendment, to prove that the individual did not have a card. Mr. Guaneli was not certain how that could be accomplished. Under the legislation, the individual would have to prove that he/she did possess the card which would be in the individual's power to prove. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Guaneli if he had a debilitating condition as defined by this. MR. GUANELI replied no. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT recalled that Mr. Guaneli said that it would have to be proven that the individual did not have the card on them. However, page 1, line 11 of the legislation says, "the patient was registered" which would seem to indicate that it would be as easy as reviewing the registration. MR. GUANELI specified that his example was in reference to an alternate primary caregiver, a person that must have the card. He said that affirmative defenses set out specific criteria for people to follow in order for them to be covered. These are guidelines for conduct which is how it works for the concealed handgun law. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed concern that moving away from immunity completely would also move away from the original initiative. She asked if immunity and affirmative defense are two completely separate items under criminal law. MR. GUANELI answered that is correct, but noted that the legislature has the authority to amend initiatives as long as the basic thrust and purpose of the initiative remains. The legislature has broad discretion to change some of the policy choices of the voters. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA surmised, under the current legislation which requires registration, that immunity for a registered individual would not be allowed. That individual would have to utilize the affirmative defense. MR. GUANELI agreed, but noted the practical use of the concealed handgun law under which officers view an individual's concealed handgun permit and let the individual proceed. He indicated that in reality, an officer would ask if an individual is registered which would be checked on the DHSS computer system and if listed, the individual would be left to go on their way. Mr. Guaneli believed that the cases that would be prosecuted would be those in which individuals are abusing the system. In his view, it would be fair to place the burden of proof on such an individual. Number 1404 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern with the practical application of this. He posed a situation in which a registered individual was outside smoking marijuana and an officer arrived and inquired as to whether the individual was registered, but the individual had forgotten his/her card. Would the officer check the DHSS list? MR. GUANELI indicated that would be the practical impact. He believed that it's the intent of DHSS to have that list available to police officers to receive an immediate answer, although he was unaware as to how that would work technically. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG posed the same situation, but the individual being reviewed was the caregiver. MR. GUANELI responded that the registry would be checked for the caregiver's name as well as the patient's name. However, the card would be necessary because there could be an alternate caregiver. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the caregiver would not be smoking the marijuana. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that the caregiver would be in possession of the marijuana. He commented that the police officer will be doing a field affirmative defense type of routine. MR. GUANELI said he believed that to be true, in a way. It will not be a problem, if the individual provides valid information that checks out. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated that with an affirmative defense, she believed one would err on the other side which was not the intent of the initiative. MR. GUANELI responded that he did not believe such a history of riding rough-shot over people's rights exists in Alaska. This should be tried out; it has been designed to work and will work. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT emphasized that the legislation is a drastic departure from the initiative and Amendment 11 is a drastic departure back toward the initiative. The amendment is more analogous to immunity than the current legislation. More justice is accomplished by returning the legislation to reflect the people's will. CHAIRMAN KOTT reminded the committee that the motion before it was the adoption of Amendment 11. Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Croft, Kerttula, and Kott voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 11 and Representatives Rokeberg, James, and Murkowski voted against the adoption of Amendment 11. Representative Green was not present. Therefore, Amendment 11 failed to be adopted by a vote of 3-3. Number 1808 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee adopt Amendment 12 which reads: Page 12, line 1, after "bus" Insert "(e) For quantities of marijuana in excess of the amounts in (a)(4) of the section, a patient or his or her primary care-giver must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any greater amount was medically justified to address the patient's debilitating medical condition." CHAIRMAN KOTT objected. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 12 would restore the initiative's language which would allow the possession of more medical marijuana than the specified limit if there is a proven medical need for more. The language is clear that it is the patient's burden and that it must be medically justified. He pointed out that the committee has only had one person testify as to the amount of marijuana that individual needed which was more than the allowable amount. Furthermore, the farther away an individual lives from an urban area the more reasonable for that individual to possess more marijuana. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to what "medically justified" would entail. One of the benefits to medical marijuana, as has been discussed, is that it allows the patient to self-dose. Would that language entail a doctor's recommendation for dosage? She indicated that a doctor would be unlikely to recommend dosage. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested on page 4, a paragraph (D) could be inserted to require in the original application, if one requires in excess of the allowable amount, to specify why more is necessary and what amount would be necessary. He acknowledged that the administrative concern is legitimate. He said that he was willing to craft language to speak to this concern. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented that this is the problem with marijuana which has different THC contents and patients with different needs. She reiterated that she did not know if a doctor would commit to such a recommendation. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stressed that an individual could receive a month's supply of codeine and would not be second-guessed at all due to a continuous condition. Furthermore, having such an individual have to refill their prescription every 10 days is almost punitive. The Department of Public Safety will not second-guess that individual's ability to receive a month or two months worth of codeine. However, that individual can only receive a 10 day supply for marijuana, a drug that works better for that individual. Why are these people being made to jump through such hoops? REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that more activity will be created if one is required to come in every 10 days. TAPE 99-67, SIDE A REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted a case in Florida in which an individual went to court with her doctor and expert testimony. The judge ruled in that individual's favor. So, there is precedence for proving, under our law, an affirmative defense. Number 0064 DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, stressed that it is not up to him to determine the amount of marijuana that someone would need. However, it is up to him and those that work for him to determine how much someone can possess in a street situation. He emphasized the need to set an amount that is not open-ended. This is open-ended. From the beginning law enforcement has wanted the following: "How much can you have, are you registered, and who is your primary caregiver?" Mr. Smith commented that if an individual has more than an ounce and six plants, then the individual will be charged unless another limit is established. Officers need guidance in order to be able to apply this law and not tie up the courts. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if it is problematic for an individual to be able, by a preponderance of the evidence, to carry more. MR. SMITH agreed that is problematic. It cannot be determined whether the marijuana is medically justified on the weekend or in the middle of the night. He assumed that it will be decided in an affirmative defense or hearing. He reiterated that an officer will not make a decision as to whether a person possessing in excess of the limit is medically justified in doing so, that individual will be charged. It is too vague. Number 0339 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that it may be appropriate to arrest someone that has in excess of the limit, but the question is now does that individual go to jail and spend a year in jail. Under Amendment 12, that individual would have the ability to prove before a judge that he/she should not be held in jail for a year and this is why it is medically necessary. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that it becomes more and more problematic as individuals attempt to obtain marijuana for this use. He suggested that it would be easier for everyone, if these individuals could stay at home and grow an appropriate amount for their use. He discussed scenarios in which an individual could end up with more marijuana than specified thus far. Representative Croft emphasized that if more certification is desired that could be placed in the registry. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to where the limitation in amount of one ounce and six plants, of which three could be flowering was drawn. MR. FINKELSTEIN answered that the amount came from the initiative. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thought the goal was to keep the initiative as it was. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT interjected that Amendment 12 would return the legislation to the initiative with that exception. He believed that a low level of possession was chosen, knowing that there was an ability to prove the need for more marijuana. The legislation maintained the low level of possession, but eliminated the ability to prove the need for more marijuana. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further discussion or objection to Amendment 12. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI maintained her objection. Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 12 and Representatives James, Murkowski, and Kott voted against the adoption of Amendment 12. Representatives Green and Rokeberg were not present. Therefore, Amendment 12 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-3. Number 0774 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HB 213 as amended out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. He stated that the last amendment is the heart of the problem with this. All the departments have testified as to the convenience of this law with respect to their duties, but this legislation is forgetting the medical needs of those involved. Representative Croft expressed concern that although the establishment of a "bright line" would make it easier for law enforcement, it will not meet the proven medical needs of some people. CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed and indicated the need to come up with a specific amount. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with some of Representative Croft's concerns, but did not believe Amendment 12 achieved what was desired. She commented that she did not know how much marijuana costs and furthermore, she was not convinced that everyone using it will be growing it. Perhaps, the cost would be prohibitive to having more than the specified amount. Representative James stressed that the general underlying principle of the initiative was good, but problems were created. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI reminded the committee that marijuana is nothing more than a weed which can vary tremendously. She indicated the need for the Federal Drug Administration to do research as that being done in the demonstration project in Mississippi so that it is clear how much is enough which would provide some control over this. "I don't think that we can sit here and try to give the accommodation not only to the patients to address their needs, but to also recognize that you are still dealing with a controlled substance and that law enforcement needs some guidelines. I think we've done as good a job as we can do with what we've got right here." She believed the committee made the appropriate decision with Amendment 12. CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that he didn't disagree with Representative Murkowski's comments. He agreed with her comment regarding the variance in marijuana, specifically the strengths. Chairman Kott announced that he would be willing to work on an amendment with Representative Croft regarding the last issue. Upon a roll call vote, Representatives James, Murkowski, and Kott voted in favor of reporting HB 213 as amended from committee and Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted against reporting HB 213 as amended from committee. Representatives Green and Rokeberg were not present. Therefore, HB 213 as amended failed to be reported from committee. CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the meeting to the call of the chair at 3:48 p.m TAPE 99-68, SIDE A CHAIRMAN KOTT called the meeting back to order at 5:27 p.m. Representatives Kott, Murkowski, Green and Rokeberg were present. CSSB 11(JUD) - PRISON TIME CREDITS FOR MURDERERS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 11(JUD), "An Act relating to good time credits for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for certain murders." Number 0059 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report CSSB 11(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered. CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 5:31 and called the committee back to order at 5:33. HB 213 - MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee will continue the hearing on HB 213, "An Act relating to the medical use of marijuana; and providing for an effective date." [The committee waited briefly for the arrival of members.] REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to rescind the committee's action on HB 213. There being no objection, it was so ordered. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report CSHB 213(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered. SJR 3 - REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next item of business is SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the repeal of regulations by the legislature. Number 0359 JOHN KIMMEL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska State Legislature, noted that SJR 3 proposes to repeal regulations that are contrary to their enabling statutes. This language is very focused and is not as broad as previous legislation. Number 0456 SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee noting it is difficult to repeal a regulation that has been passed by an agency. The issue that was previously presented to the public was that any regulation could be repealed by resolution and it did not have any qualifying language. This language, SJR 3, actually qualifies it and says you can only repeal a regulation that fails to meet the intent of the legislation upon which the regulation is based. He said, "It actually is quite a bit narrower, we did that on purpose because we were hoping to focus the real issue to the public better. And I think in the past, one of the reasons the public has rejected it is that it looked like just a power grab by the legislature and one without a basis and I think this language actually speaks to the reason why the legislature might find it necessary to repeal a regulation and that's why the language is a little different." CHAIRMAN KOTT requested the years that the previous ballot propositions were put before the voters. KIMMEL replied 1980, 1984 and 1986. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether these propositions were put forward based on a democratic majority. SENATOR TAYLOR replied yes. CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that he wants the public to know that this is a bipartisan issue. Number 0704 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report SJR 3 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 5:40 p.m. and called the committee back to order at 5:41 p.m. CSSB 110(RLS) AM - HAZARDOUS SUBST. RELEASE: GOVT ENTITY CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next item of business is CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 110(RLS) am, "An Act relating to liability for the release of hazardous substances involving certain property acquired by a governmental entity; relating to making a determination as to when a hazardous substance release has occurred; relating to liability of a party other than the party responsible for the initial release of a hazardous substance; and providing for an effective date." Number 0840 ELIZABETH HAGEVIG, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Gary Wilken, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee and read the following sponsor statement: Senate Bill 110 will assist municipalities in performing their statutory duty to enforce liens for delinquent property taxes. Tax foreclosure is a mandatory process leading to the taking of a tax deed that places the title to a tax delinquent property in the municipality's name. Some properties with delinquent taxes are contaminated. Municipalities are concerned that they may be held liable for preexisting contamination of foreclosed land with significant environmental remediation costs. The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) exempts by definition state and local governments who acquire property through "bankruptcy, foreclosure, tax delinquency, abandonment, or similar means." However, the state law which addresses liability for damage caused by the release of hazardous substances, AS 46.03.822, does not precisely mirror the federal law. Senate Bill 110 will amend AS 46.03.822 to ensure that federal and state laws are similar in this respect. The municipality may therefore have title to the contaminated property without involuntary exposure or cleanup. Changes in the Senate also recognized the need to extend this courtesy to innocent land owners who are not directly responsible for contaminating the property that they have acquired. MS. HAGEVIG provided and distributed copies of proposed Amendment 1: Page 2, line 19, following "entity": Insert "A hazardous substance release shall be determined to have occurred as provided in this section." Page 2, line 21, following "leaching": Insert "or migration" Page 3, lines 4-10: Delete all material. Insert "costs under this section, a person who acquires a facility and who, upon discovering a release or threatened release on, in, or at the facility that occurred before acquisition of the facility, who had no reason to know that a hazardous substance was disposed of on, in, or at the facility, and who, upon discovering the release or threatened release, acted in accordance with (b)(2) of this section to begin operations to contain and clean up the hazardous substance, may not be held liable under this section unless the person has caused or contributed to the release or threatened release of the hazardous substance, in which case, the person is subject to liability under this section in the same manner as any other person. For purposes of this subsection, 'caused or contributed to the release or threatened release of the hazardous substance' (1) does not include the failure to prevent the passive leaching or migration at or from a facility of a hazardous substance in the air, land, or water that had first been released into the environment by a person other than the person that acquired the facility; (2) after the ownership or control of the facility has been acquired by the person includes (A) the spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emptying, injecting, escaping, or dumping of a hazardous substance from barrels, tanks, containers, or other closed receptacles; or (B) the abandonment or discarding of barrels, tanks, containers, or other closed receptacles containing a hazardous substance." Number 1011 LARRY DIETRICK, Acting Director, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Department of Environmental Conservation, came before the committee to testify. He thanked the sponsors, and the "folks" from Fairbanks, for their assistance in clarifying the language. He said both the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of Law support the proposed language in the amendment and the legislation. Number 1061 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether this is going to cause people to find this as a way out of their obligations. MR. DIETRICK replied the department doesn't believe so. The number of superfund sites have to be ranked high nation wide to be dubbed a superfund site on the national list. For example, Alaska Pulp in Sitka, in which case the state intervened to take over, was closed out of that site so the state wouldn't have to deal with the EPA [Environmental Protection Act]. The department is comfortable with that. Number 1118 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Let's back off from the superfund site, something real serious though." MR. DIETRICK asked Representative Green is his question whether or not there is a potential loophole here. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied in the affirmative. MR. DIETRICK added that they are comfortable with the language and that a loophole has not been created. Number 1156 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to page 1, lines 9 and 10, of the proposed amendment, and asked Mr. Dietrick whether he is confirming that the release had to occur before an innocent third party came into ownership of property. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she is troubled with the language in the proposed amendment which refers to a person who acquires a facility and finds that there was a release or threatened release, and that person had no reason to know about that beforehand. She read the following text and inquired as to the location of (b)(2). ...and who upon discovering the release or threatened release, acted in accordance with (b)(2) of this section to begin operations to contain and clean up the hazardous substance, may not be held liable under this section unless the person has caused or contributed to the release or threatened release of the hazardous substance... Number 1286 MS. HAGEVIG replied, "We're not letting them off the hook to say, 'Well, just because you know it's there, and if the barrels are continuing to leak on the property it doesn't mean you don't have to take action to try and stop it." Number 1335 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said what further disturbs her is that it continues to say, "may not be held liable under this section unless the person has caused or contributed to the release or threatened release of the hazardous substance," and in the effort to clean up, that might happen. She added that seems to discourage somebody from cleaning it up because that might happen. It's like a trap of some sort. Number 1380 ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant, to Senator Loren Leman, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to testify. She noted that when the bill left the Senate, they thought there was agreement with all the parties who were concerned with it and then Craig Tillery, Assistant Attorney General [Environmental Section, Civil Division, Department of Law] reviewed the bill and alerted DEC to some concerns. She noted that they have been working with all the parties including Virgil Norton [private citizen from Kenai] to craft something that satisfies all the parties. She further explained the language in proposed Amendment 1, directly correlates with the language that protects the municipalities so basically, everybody is in the same boat. MS. KREITZER directed the committees' attention to page 1, line 17, and read the following text: For purposes of this subsection, "caused or contributed to the release or threatened release of the hazardous substance" does not include the failure to prevent the passive leaching or migration at or from a facility of a hazardous substance in the air, land, or water that had first been released into the environment by a person other than the person that acquired the facility... MS. KREITZER further stated their goal was to try to meet the concerns of DEC, Mr. Norton's concerns and the concerns of Senators who already voted on this bill as well as the Department of Law. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether Mr. Norton's concerns were addressed. MS. KREITZER replied yes. Although he would have preferred the other language, he indicated that he can live with this language. Number 1499 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 1, LS0360\SA.3, Cook, 5/12/99. There being no objection, it was so adopted. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the title needs to be amended. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI added that did come up in discussion and deferred the question to Ms. Hagevig. MS. HAGEVIG noted that she spoke with Tam Cook [Director, Legal and Research Services Division, Legislative Affairs Agency] who indicated that although this has not been tested in court, in her opinion these changes will not change the title of the bill. Number 1589 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the amendment is extending it to other people that are not [indisc.--simultaneous speech]. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS unanimously replied private folks. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether this meets EPA standards. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER replied yes. CHAIRMAN KOTT called an at-ease at 5:55 p.m. and called the committee back to order at 5:56 p.m. Number 1621 VIRGIL NORTON testified via a cell phone from Kenai. He said: I'm testifying to draw your attention to the very heart of the innocent land owner defense as it currently is set out in AS 46.03.822. This is a strict liability statute in that it affects every property owner in Alaska, and strict liability is no-fault liability created by statute because it defines obligations and responsibilities to escape liability for someone taking the innocent land owner defense. And my interest in SB 110 is really threefold. Number 1, I wanted to prevent any misinterpretation of the existing innocent land owner defense or to color the statute because my in-laws are going to court and I think they're going to be the test case of the statute as it exists so I don't really oppose what the local government entities are trying to do to obtain total immunity but I didn't want the existing statute (indisc.) colored it - if it worked as to effect the statute as it's written today. And number 2. I wanted to, in the work that I helped do over on the Senate side, my intention was to clearly define the word 'relief' and thereby strengthen the innocent land owner defense. And number 3. I wanted to always make sure that we're establishing liability relating to cost recovery issues squarely on the person responsible for the spill or the release into the environment. And in short, I support the version that's already crafted that the Senate - after several days finally passed 20-yeas and 0-nays. But the current definition of 'relief' contains key words 'into the environment'. An example of that is, once a person introduces a contaminate into the environment this person is liable to all others who would be affected and all others have a liability to stop or attempt to stop the spread or migration of a contaminant but they would direct their cost recovery efforts to the liable person as the person that was responsible for the spill... [Mr. Norton's cellphone was inadvertently disconnected.] REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked who submitted Amendment 1 and whether the committee can add to it. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied all parties involved. Number 1777 MR. NORTON continued. "Anyway, the issue here is liability both in cost recovery and the obligations that are obligatory in the statute to act responsibly to avoid incurring a liability for someone taking the innocent land owner to defense and that's why I support the version as it currently exists in the Senate version of SB 110. I will reluctantly support the House Judiciary's version if that's the only way it's going to go..." [Mr. Norton was disconnected again.] CHAIRMAN KOTT told Mr. Norton that the House Judiciary Standing Committee has reviewed the amendment and has adopted it as part of the package. MR. NORTON continued. "If you've done that then so be it. I actually like what was already there because - but we'll have to revisit this I suppose at another date, but I like the way it was originally wrote [written] because we defined 'relief' and it's an issue that concerns every property owner in Alaska. I wanted the liability directed only to the person that commits the act not just somebody that has a deep pocket." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether adopting an amendment to include that definition would work. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied no. MR. NORTON added, "I don't mean to offend the Alaska Department of Law but they're not exactly world-renowned for their legal opinions." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the amendment and asked how can there be a threatened release on something before an acquisition. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that there could be a barrel of something with a hole at the top and nothing has leaked out yet. Number 1996 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSSB 110 (JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. HB 219 - RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next item of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 219, "An Act relating to the rule against perpetuities, nonvested property interests, and powers of appointment; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested a refresher from Mr. Winchell on the rule of perpetuities. Number 2088 CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott; and Committee Aide, House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, said one must have an interest that vests within the lifetime. In this case, the trust must vest within the lifetime of the beneficiary. He noted that there are caveats and exceptions to the rules. Mr. Winchell said this allows charitable lead trusts to occur. "They aren't an entity or a person," he explained, "so it vests without a person's life, and then we're allowing the abolition of the rule against perpetuities - which, too, a growing minority of jurisdictions are doing - in order to allow our jurisdiction to be a basically good forum, forum shopping for estate planning purposes, where the abolition of the rule against perpetuities -- that's where the bill stands." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed his understanding that the rule against perpetuities had already been abolished in Alaska. [Other members concurred.] Number 2137 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, amid simultaneous discussion, made a motion to move HB 219 from committee with individual recommendations and any fiscal notes. CHAIRMAN KOTT, noting that there was no objection, announced that HB 219 was so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. [Some loose discussion followed about members' uncertainty about abolishing the rule of perpetuities, the lack of testimony, and that some members hadn't even heard the motion to move the bill.] MR. WINCHELL clarified that the rule against perpetuities came into being during the Age of Reason, when thinkers didn't like the idea of monarchies or aristocracies which transferred property, through primogeniture, to the eldest son all the way through. That became a custom of setting up property trusts or just bequeathing property in that direction. Mr. Winchell added, "So, when we came to America, Thomas Jefferson and that crowd right there liked the idea of dispersing the properties, and they just went ... on and on and on and on. So, the rule against perpetuities came in that way. It's an ancient, archaic term. I don't know what else I can say about it. ... We want to be able to bequeath properties in the fashion that we want to." [HB 219 was moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.] CSSB 4(FIN) - OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 4(FIN), "An Act relating to victims' rights; relating to establishing an office of victims' rights; relating to compensation of victims of violent crimes; relating to eligibility for a permanent fund dividend for persons convicted of and incarcerated for certain offenses; relating to notice of appropriations concerning victims' rights; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency Rules, and Rule 501, Alaska Rules of Evidence; and providing for an effective date." KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature, noted that the committee substitute (CS) was being drafted. The changes of the subcommittee can be discussed without the CS. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that there are quite a few changes. Number 2287 BRETT HUBER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Rick Halford, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee that it has before it the Senate Judiciary Committee version which is what the subcommittee version will look like. Mr. Huber commented that the subcommittee probably spent most of its time determining where to put the office. The forthcoming CS will place the office in the legislative branch. He reviewed specific areas resulting from the placement of the office back in the legislative branch which include the nomination of the victims' advocate. The victims' advocate would be nominated by a selection committee comprised of three members of the House and three members of the Senate appointed by their presiding officers, including one minority member from each body. A two-thirds vote of a joint session to confirm the victims' advocate would be required. The term of office for the victims' advocate would be five years with a maximum of three terms served. Each additional term would require the two-thirds reappointment vote. If the advocate had to leave the office during the term, the acting victims' advocate would have to fulfill the remainder of the term which would go through an appointment cycle. Mr. Huber pointed out that there is a removal provision which, with a two-thirds vote, could remove the victims' advocate for neglect of duty, misconduct, or disability to perform the duties. Compensation is specified in the forthcoming CS. There is a staffing delegation section as well as a section describing the office and facilities which are made available in the Legislative Affairs branch. There is also the budget process which would go through Legislative Council. All those would be additions that can be seen in the Senate Judiciary Committee version. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI directed the committee to the removal clause and inquired as to what was meant by "disability." She understood an individual's "inability" to perform a job. MR. HUBER deferred to the drafter who was on his way to the hearing. He noted that it was taken from the ombudsman's statutes. CHAIRMAN KOTT returned to appointment and the ability for an acting advocate to complete the term of an advocate who has left office for whatever reason. MR. HUBER agreed. He explained that the victims' advocate must name an acting advocate. TAPE 99-68, SIDE B CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the acting advocate would finish the remainder of the victims' advocate's term without legislative confirmation. MR. HUBER replied that is correct. In response to Representative James, he noted that the acting advocate would be an attorney. Number 0033 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that the subcommittee felt that at least one attorney position is necessary, but this discussion is regarding having an alternative victims' advocate. She assumed that would be someone who would be working in the office which would mean two attorneys. MR. HUBER explained that the staffing levels envisioned in the fiscal note from the Department of Public Safety, which is identical to the previous fiscal note submitted by the Legislative Affairs Agency, would have a victims' advocate and two additional attorneys, one paralegal, and three secretaries. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to the meaning of the subcommittee saying that at least one attorney was necessary for the victims' advocate to be effective. MR. HUBER noted that one of Chairman Kott's questions to the subcommittee was regarding whether the victims' advocate needed to be an attorney. He recommended that the question be directed to the subcommittee chair, Representative Murkowski. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN informed the committee that originally, there was the possibility of reducing the office to one location. Currently, three locations are envisioned. He indicated that the committee [subcommittee] felt that there is a critical mass to make this work. In response to Representative James, Representative Green stated that this is being funded from those losing their permanent fund dividend. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that the funding is taken from the Department of Corrections. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that the group that would be involved has been expanded. "That delta between what was and what is, that'll pay for it." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reiterated that the funding is taken from the Department of Corrections. He emphasized that he had some real problems with this advocate being in the legislature as well as the consumer price index (CPI) clause in the legislation. The CPI used is the Anchorage CPI which is only published annually. MR. HUBER stated that provision does not actually apply to the Office of Victims' Rights, but applies to the Violent Crimes Compensation Board per that board's request. That addition was made by Senator Donley in the Senate Finance Committee. He explained that the amount allowed to be awarded is increased and allowed the Violent Crimes Compensation Board, by regulation, to index those increases annually, if they choose, with the Anchorage CPI. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said his argument is the same; it is the wrong index to use. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted another change in which the report is not merely submitted annually, but also is available to the public. Number 0245 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to why the subcommittee decided to place this office within the legislature. He said that it seems to inflate the legislature's budget with no benefit to the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that there were problems with placing this office in the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Law. This issue was probably more time consuming than any other. MR. HUBER informed the committee that he had talked with Ms. Carpeneti, Department of Law, and Mr. Smith, Department of Public Safety. Both Ms. Carpeneti and Mr. Smith indicated that it makes better sense to place this office in an entity that can review the functions of those agencies at an arm's length, as is the case with the ombudsman. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented, laughingly, that this extra money should be placed in the Ombudsman's Office. He pointed out that the Public Defender and the Office of Public Advocacy are in the Department of Administration in order to avoid conflict. This is an administrative function which has nothing to do with the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN interjected that the discussion drifted around the fact that this should be a technically trained person, an attorney, who can be at an arm's length. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that it could have been put out to bid to some nonprofits. MR. HUBER acknowledged that was discussed in the House Judiciary Subcommittee as well as the Senate Finance Committee. The Victims for Justice group said that it would prefer a new office versus money because they believed there is more assistance with an office. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented, "Well, they know how to grow organizationally and bureaucracy." MR. HUBER noted that Representative Kerttula had suggested that language requested by the Department of Law stating, "(c) The victims' advocate may not advise, counsel, or advocate on behalf of a victim in a way that would, (1) prevent or discourage a victim from cooperating with law enforcement authorities in a criminal investigation; (2) encourage a victim to withhold evidence from law enforcement authorities in a criminal investigation;" should be changed. She suggested that "with law enforcement authorities" be deleted which provides broader discretion. MR. HUBER said that he believed the forthcoming CS will include language which reflects when the office was located in the Department of Public Safety. During that time, the Office of Victims' Rights was allowed to administer grants to nonprofit victims' agencies. Administering of grants is an executive branch function and therefore, that language in the forthcoming CS should be eliminated. This language is located under the "Staff and delegation" section of the Senate Judiciary CS. There is also corresponding language under the lists of allowable uses of the permanent fund ineligibility dollars which should also be addressed. The committee took an at-ease from 6:44 p.m. to 6:54 p.m. Number 0520 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt HCS SB 4, Version K dated 5/12/99, as the working document before the committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed the need to delete Section 4 in its entirety or change the language to refer to the U.S. City Averages CPI. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES preferred deletion of Section 4 in its entirety. MR. HUBER reiterated that the language refers to the Violent Crimes Compensation Board. Mr. Huber said that the sponsor would not object to removal of Section 4. Number 0618 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to delete Section 4 in its entirety in the Version K CS. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. MR. HUBER directed the committee to page 6, lines 24-25 regarding the grant language where subsection (b) would need to be deleted as well as paragraph (5) page 13, lines 21-22. Those are the sections which allow the office of victims' rights to receive and administer grants. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she so moved Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected and inquired as to why this is necessary. MR. HUBER explained that, generally, the administering of grants is an executive branch function. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection to Amendment 2. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0740 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HCS CSSB 4 as amended out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He announced that he could not support this legislation on the floor. He removed his objection. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 4(JUD) was reported out of committee. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved that the committee adjourn. There being no objection, it was so ordered. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.