Legislature(2001 - 2002)

04/23/2001 01:15 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 23, 2001                                                                                         
                           1:15 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair                                                                                           
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative John Coghill                                                                                                     
Representative Kevin Meyer                                                                                                      
Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                                                                  
Representative Albert Kookesh                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 99                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to the DNA identification registration system."                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED SB 99 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 172(FIN)                                                                                                 
"An Act relating  to an annual report  by the court system  to the                                                              
public and the legislature."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 172(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 145                                                                                                              
"An  Act  making a  civil  remedy  available  to  the state  or  a                                                              
municipality  against  persons  who  make  false  claims  for,  or                                                              
certain  misrepresentations regarding,  state  or municipal  money                                                              
or other property; and providing for an effective date."                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 145(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 228                                                                                                              
"An Act relating  to the offense  of selling or giving  tobacco to                                                              
a  minor,  to  the  accounting   of  fees  from  business  license                                                              
endorsements for  tobacco products,  to the disclosure  of certain                                                              
confidential  cigarette   and  tobacco  product   information,  to                                                              
notification  regarding a  cigarette manufacturer's  noncompliance                                                              
with  the   tobacco  product   Master  Settlement  Agreement,   to                                                              
business  license endorsements  for sale  of tobacco products,  to                                                              
citations and penalties for illegal sales of tobacco products;                                                                  
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 228(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 99                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE:DNA REGISTRATION OF BURGLARS                                                                                        
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                      Action                                                                                 
02/20/01     0431       (S)         READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                       
                                    REFERRALS                                                                                   
02/20/01     0431       (S)         JUD, FIN                                                                                    
02/28/01                (S)         JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                    
02/28/01                (S)         Moved Out of Committee                                                                      
02/28/01                (S)         MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                 
03/01/01     0555       (S)         JUD RPT 2DP 2NR                                                                             
03/01/01     0555       (S)         DP: TAYLOR, DONLEY;                                                                         
03/01/01     0555       (S)         NR: THERRIAULT, ELLIS                                                                       
03/01/01     0555       (S)         FN1: INDETERMINATE(ADM)                                                                     
03/01/01     0555       (S)         FN2: ZERO(DPS)                                                                              
03/14/01     0655       (S)         FIN RPT 5DP 1DNP 2NR                                                                        
03/14/01     0655       (S)         DP: DONLEY, KELLY, AUSTERMAN,                                                               
                                    WILKEN,                                                                                     
03/14/01     0655       (S)         LEMAN; DNP: HOFFMAN; NR:                                                                    
                                    OLSON, WARD                                                                                 
03/14/01     0655       (S)         FN2: ZERO(DPS)                                                                              
03/14/01     0655       (S)         FN3: INDETERMINATE(ADM)                                                                     
03/14/01                (S)         FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                                                               
                                    532                                                                                         
03/19/01                (S)         RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP                                                                  
                                    203                                                                                         
03/19/01                (S)         MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                 
03/20/01                (S)         RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP                                                                  
                                    203                                                                                         
03/20/01                (S)         MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                 
04/06/01                (H)         MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                 
04/09/01     1012       (S)         RULES TO CALENDAR 2OR 4/9/01                                                                
04/09/01     1016       (S)         READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                        
04/09/01     1016       (S)         ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                   
                                    UNAN CONSENT                                                                                
04/09/01     1016       (S)         READ THE THIRD TIME SB 99                                                                   
04/09/01     1016       (S)         COSPONSOR(S): TAYLOR, DONLEY,                                                               
                                    LEMAN,                                                                                      
04/09/01     1016       (S)         COWDERY                                                                                     
04/09/01     1016       (S)         PASSED Y14 N6                                                                               
04/09/01     1016       (S)         DAVIS NOTICE OF                                                                             
                                    RECONSIDERATION                                                                             
04/09/01                (S)         RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP                                                                  
                                    203                                                                                         
04/10/01     1052       (S)         RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                                                                
04/11/01     1071       (S)         RESCIND PREVIOUS ACTION UNAN                                                                
                                    CONSENT                                                                                     
04/11/01     1071       (S)         BILL BEFORE SENATE IN FINAL                                                                 
                                    PASSAGE                                                                                     
04/11/01     1071       (S)         PASSED Y14 N4 A1 E1                                                                         
04/11/01     1081       (S)         TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                          
04/11/01     1081       (S)         VERSION: SB 99                                                                              
04/12/01     0978       (H)         READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                       
                                    REFERRALS                                                                                   
04/12/01     0978       (H)         JUD, FIN                                                                                    
04/23/01                (H)         JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 172                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:COURT SYSTEM ANNUAL REPORT                                                                                          
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                      Action                                                                                 
03/30/01     0880       (S)         READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                       
                                    REFERRALS                                                                                   
03/30/01     0880       (S)         FIN                                                                                         
04/06/01     0975       (S)         FIN RPT CS FORTHCOMING 6DP                                                                  
                                    3NR                                                                                         
04/06/01     0975       (S)         DP: DONLEY, KELLY, GREEN,                                                                   
                                    AUSTERMAN,                                                                                  
04/06/01     0975       (S)         LEMAN, WARD; NR: HOFFMAN,                                                                   
                                    OLSON, WILKEN                                                                               
04/06/01     0975       (S)         FN1: ZERO(CRT)                                                                              
04/06/01                (S)         FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                                                               
                                    532                                                                                         
04/06/01                (S)         Moved Out of Committee                                                                      
                                    MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                 
04/09/01     1012       (S)         FIN CS RECEIVED SAME TITLE                                                                  
04/11/01     1068       (S)         RULES TO CALENDAR 4/11/01                                                                   
04/11/01     1072       (S)         READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                        
04/11/01     1072       (S)         FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                 
04/11/01     1072       (S)         ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                   
                                    UNAN CONSENT                                                                                
04/11/01     1072       (S)         READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
                                    172(FIN)                                                                                    
04/11/01     1072       (S)         PASSED Y18 N- E1 A1                                                                         
04/11/01     1081       (S)         TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                          
04/11/01     1081       (S)         VERSION: CSSB 172(FIN)                                                                      
04/11/01                (S)         RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP                                                                  
                                    203                                                                                         
04/11/01                (S)         MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                 
04/12/01     0978       (H)         READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                       
                                    REFERRALS                                                                                   
04/12/01     0978       (H)         JUD, FIN                                                                                    
04/23/01                (H)         JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 145                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST STATE OR MUNICIPALIT                                                                           
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                      Action                                                                                 
02/23/01     0416       (H)         READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                       
                                    REFERRALS                                                                                   
02/23/01     0416       (H)         CRA, JUD                                                                                    
02/23/01     0416       (H)         FN1: ZERO(LAW)                                                                              
02/23/01     0416       (H)         GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                                                               
03/15/01                (H)         CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                  
03/15/01                (H)         Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                     
03/20/01     0661       (H)         CRA RPT 1DP 5NR                                                                             
03/20/01     0661       (H)         DP: KERTTULA; NR: GUESS,                                                                    
                                    SCALZI,                                                                                     
03/20/01     0661       (H)         MURKOWSKI, MEYER, MORGAN                                                                    
03/20/01     0661       (H)         FN1: ZERO(LAW)                                                                              
03/20/01                (H)         CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                  
03/20/01                (H)         Moved Out of Committee                                                                      
03/20/01                (H)         MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                 
04/23/01                (H)         JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 228                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS                                                                                            
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HARRIS                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                      Action                                                                                 
04/02/01     0809       (H)         READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                       
                                    REFERRALS                                                                                   
04/02/01     0809       (H)         L&C, JUD, FIN                                                                               
04/03/01     0831       (H)         COSPONSOR(S): HUDSON,                                                                       
                                    MURKOWSKI                                                                                   
04/17/01     1021       (H)         COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA                                                                      
04/18/01     1053       (H)         COSPONSOR(S): CRAWFORD                                                                      
04/18/01                (H)         L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                   
04/18/01                (H)         Moved CSHB 228(L&C) Out of                                                                  
                                    Committee                                                                                   
04/18/01                (H)         MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                 
04/20/01     1092       (H)         L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 5DP 1AM                                                                  
04/20/01     1093       (H)         DP: CRAWFORD, HAYES, MEYER,                                                                 
04/20/01     1093       (H)         ROKEBERG, MURKOWSKI; AM: KOTT                                                               
04/20/01     1093       (H)         FN1: ZERO(REV)                                                                              
04/20/01     1093       (H)         FN2: (LAW)                                                                                  
04/20/01     1093       (H)         FN3: (HSS)                                                                                  
04/20/01     1093       (H)         FN4: (CED)                                                                                  
04/21/01                (H)         JUD AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 120                                                                 
04/21/01                (H)         Heard & Held                                                                                
                                    MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                 
04/23/01                (H)         JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR RICK HALFORD                                                                                                            
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 111                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of SB 99.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
JULI LUCKY, Staff                                                                                                               
to Senator Rick Halford                                                                                                         
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 111                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  On behalf of the sponsor, presented SB 99                                                                  
and answered questions.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General                                                                               
Legal Services Section-Juneau                                                                                                   
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law                                                                                                               
PO Box 110300                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-0300                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented the department's position on SB
99 and answered questions.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director                                                                                           
Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU)                                                                                            
PO Box 201844                                                                                                                   
Anchorage, Alaska  99520-1844                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion of SB 99, expressed                                                                      
concern that it does not stipulate that the DNA sample will be                                                                  
destroyed once the information is entered into the databank.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner                                                                                                  
Office of the Commissioner                                                                                                      
Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                                                               
PO Box 111200                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-1200                                                                                                      
POSITION  STATEMENT:    During   discussion  of  SB  99,  answered                                                              
questions related to statistical information.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
GEORGE TAFT, Director                                                                                                           
Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory                                                                                           
Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                                                               
5500 East Tudor Road                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska  99507-1221                                                                                                   
POSITION  STATEMENT:    During   discussion  of  SB  99,  answered                                                              
questions regarding the storage of DNA samples.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY                                                                                                             
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 506                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:   Presented SB  172 on behalf of  the sponsor,                                                              
the Senate Finance Committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Deputy Administrative Director                                                                               
Administrative Staff                                                                                                            
Office of the Administrative Director                                                                                           
Alaska Court System (ACS)                                                                                                       
820 West 4th Avenue                                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska  99501-2005                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:   During  discussion of  HB 172, provided  the                                                              
ACS's position, answered questions, and suggested an amendment.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                       
Governmental Affairs Section                                                                                                    
Civil Division (Juneau)                                                                                                         
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
PO Box 110300                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-0300                                                                                                      
POSITION  STATEMENT:     Presented  HB   145  on  behalf   of  the                                                              
administration.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
JOHN MANLY, Staff                                                                                                               
to Representative John Harris                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 513                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION  STATEMENT:   On behalf  of  the sponsor,  Representative                                                              
Harris,  responded  to  questions  on  HB  228  and  the  proposed                                                              
amendments.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant                                                                                              
Office of the Commissioner                                                                                                      
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS)                                                                                   
PO Box 110601                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-0601                                                                                                      
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During discussion  of HB  228 and  proposed                                                              
amendments,  provided  the  department's   position  and  answered                                                              
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
EDWIN J. SASSER, Tobacco Enforcement Coordinator                                                                                
Division of Public Health (DPH)                                                                                                 
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS)                                                                                   
PO Box 110616                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-0616                                                                                                      
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During discussion  of HB  228 and  proposed                                                              
amendments, answered questions.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CATHERINE REARDON, Director                                                                                                     
Central Office                                                                                                                  
Division of Occupational Licensing                                                                                              
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED)                                                                           
PO Box 110806                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-0806                                                                                                      
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During discussion  of HB  228 and  proposed                                                              
amendments, responded to a question pertaining to fines.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-72, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  NORMAN   ROKEBERG  called  the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                              
Committee  meeting   to  order  at  1:15  p.m.     Representatives                                                              
Rokeberg, James,  Coghill, and Meyer  were present at the  call to                                                              
order.   Representatives  Berkowitz  and  Kookesh  arrived as  the                                                              
meeting was in progress.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SB 99 - DNA REGISTRATION OF BURGLARS                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
[Contains mention that  HB 143 and SB 99 are  companion bills, and                                                              
that  SB 99 is  similar to  HB 132  with regard  to attempting  to                                                              
commit a crime.]                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0047                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that the  first order of  business would                                                              
be   SENATE  BILL   NO.  99,   "An   Act  relating   to  the   DNA                                                              
identification registration system."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0050                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  RICK HALFORD,  Alaska  State Legislature,  sponsor,  said                                                              
simply that SB 99 is a good bill.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0059                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JULI  LUCKY,   Staff  to  Senator   Rick  Halford,   Alaska  State                                                              
Legislature, sponsor,  added that SB  99 is the companion  bill to                                                              
HB 143,  which was  reported out of  the House Judiciary  Standing                                                              
Committee on  4/6/01.   She pointed out  that the only  difference                                                              
between the  two bills is that the  language in SB 99  includes "a                                                          
person  convicted  of  burglary  or a  felony  attempt  to  commit                                                          
burglary",  whereas  HB  143  only  had  "a  person  convicted  of                                                          
burglary".    She noted  that  the  Department  of Law  (DOL)  has                                                          
indicated a preference for the language in SB 99.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0134                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DEAN  J.   GUANELI,  Chief   Assistant  Attorney  General,   Legal                                                              
Services  Section-Juneau, Criminal  Division,  Department of  Law,                                                              
noted  that  the  language  regarding   an  attempt  to  commit  a                                                              
burglary  is similar  to language  in  HB 132  (which pertains  to                                                              
attempts  to  send  alcohol  to  dry  communities)  in  that  when                                                              
someone has  done everything possible  to commit the crime  but is                                                              
prevented from  doing so  for some reason,  the penalties  are the                                                              
same as if he/she  had succeeded.  The kind of  danger represented                                                              
by an  attempt to commit  burglary provides  the nexus  for taking                                                              
the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample, he added.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL requested  assurance that  an "attempt  to                                                              
commit burglary" is an offense that can be proven.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GUANELI pointed  out that  most  crimes that  are defined  in                                                              
Alaska  law  are punishable  whether  the  crime is  completed  or                                                              
simply  attempted.    He  explained that  the  definition  [in  AS                                                              
11.31.100] of an  "attempt" reads "with intent to  commit a crime,                                                              
the  person engages  in conduct  which  constitutes a  substantial                                                              
step toward  the commission  of that  crime."   He opined  that in                                                              
the case  of burglary, that substantial  step should be  more than                                                              
simply  "casing the  joint";  it should  require  that the  person                                                              
actually  be on the  premises and  in the  middle of breaking  in,                                                              
which  would show  that  the person  intended  to  carry out  that                                                              
crime.  To  pursue any felony  charge, he explained, there  has to                                                              
be a grand  jury indictment, and  the grand jury must  find beyond                                                              
a reasonable  doubt that the charge  is true.  He also  noted that                                                              
attempting  to  commit  burglary  could  result  in  a  conviction                                                              
separate from the charge of burglary.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0477                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JENNIFER  RUDINGER,  Executive Director,  Alaska  Civil  Liberties                                                              
Union (AkCLU), testified via teleconference and said:                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     To sum  up ... the position  paper you have  before you,                                                                   
     the  [AkCLU]   simply  asserts   that  every  time   the                                                                   
     legislature  looks at  moving the line  in allowing  the                                                                   
     FBI and law  enforcement to collect DNA (or  any kind of                                                                   
     personal  information about  its citizens)  it needs  to                                                                   
     ask itself  whether it's justified  to move the  line in                                                                   
     that  case.   ... Our  position that  is articulated  in                                                                   
     the position  paper is  simply that  given that all  the                                                                   
     data we've seen  only points to a 6 percent  chance that                                                                   
     burglars  might - in  Alaska - go  on to commit  violent                                                                   
     crimes  (and  this is  not  like  other states,  but  in                                                                   
     Alaska,  it looks like  94 percent  do not), it  doesn't                                                                   
     make any  sense to us to move  the line.  If it  were 75                                                                   
     percent  of  burglars  that  were  going  on  to  commit                                                                   
     violent crimes  - so that having their DNA  on file from                                                                   
     the burglary would  help you track them in  the future -                                                                   
     then  it would  be  more reasonable,  but  6 percent  is                                                                   
     not, in our  opinion, a high enough  correlation between                                                                   
     means and ends.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     And one other  thing that is not exactly  spelled out in                                                                   
     the  position paper  but I've  begun to  talk with  some                                                                   
     folks  about, is  that if [SB99]  is going  to move  (or                                                                   
     even  if its  not going  to  move -  regardless of  what                                                                   
     happens  with  this  bill),  there  is  a  real  glaring                                                                   
     problem  with the current  state of the  law.   And that                                                                   
     is that  nothing in federal  law, and nothing  in Alaska                                                                   
     State  law requires  the destruction  of the  sample....                                                                   
     What happens is  that the drop of saliva or  the drop of                                                                   
     blood   (whatever   the  sample   may   be)  --   public                                                                   
     safety/the crime  lab will draw  a strand of DNA  out of                                                                   
     that, and they  will take 13 specific points  along that                                                                   
     strand  of DNA (13  genetic markers),  and that is  what                                                                   
     gets  entered into  the  FBI database  (CODIS  [Combined                                                                   
     DNA Index System]) - those thirteen markers.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0617                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     With today's  technology, indeed,  those 13 markers  are                                                                   
     like a fingerprint.   Those 13 markers are  called "junk                                                                   
     DNA"  by   scientists  because   they  are  among   huge                                                                   
     sections  of   DNA  that  do   not  code  for   specific                                                                   
     proteins.   Tomorrow that could  change; we may  be able                                                                   
     to  tell   personal  information   from  those   markers                                                                   
     besides   gender  and  identification,   but  today   we                                                                   
     cannot.  So,  if all we were looking at  here was taking                                                                   
     13 markers  that look like  a bar code in  the database,                                                                   
     indeed  we  wouldn't  have the  privacy  concerns  today                                                                   
     that  I'm raising  in my  position  paper, because  what                                                                   
     I'm talking  about is  the sample.   And, once  they get                                                                   
     that bar  code (for  lack of a  better term) entered  in                                                                   
     the  database, and  that is  99.9  percent accurate  for                                                                   
     purposes  of   identifying  (much  more   accurate  than                                                                   
     fingerprints),   that's  law  enforcement's   legitimate                                                                   
     need.   That's  the legitimate  reason  for getting  the                                                                   
     DNA.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Once that's  in the  database, they  don't need to  keep                                                                   
     the  saliva; they  don't need  to keep the  blood.   And                                                                   
     regardless  of  what  happens  with [SB]  99,  there  is                                                                   
     nothing  in Alaska  law or  federal law  that says  they                                                                   
     ever  have  to  get  rid the  sample,  and  indeed  they                                                                   
     don't.     ...  If  identification  is   the  legitimate                                                                   
     rational, they  don't need to  keep the sample.   So the                                                                   
     folks in  Alaska, your constituents  who contact  us all                                                                   
     the  time   about  concerns  about  government   needing                                                                   
     private  information and  demanding private  information                                                                   
     (whether  it's social security  numbers or census  forms                                                                   
     or background  checks or DNA and genetic  information) -                                                                   
     -  something  that  could be  done  to  alleviate  those                                                                   
     folk's  concerns,  and  would   go  a  long  way  toward                                                                   
     protecting  privacy,  would  be to  destroy  the  sample                                                                   
     once the  testing is  complete and  the data is  entered                                                                   
     in the database.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Because, in  the future, if  this burglar is one  of the                                                                   
     6 percent  who goes  on to commit  a violent crime,  law                                                                   
     enforcement  -- say  they show  up at the  scene of  the                                                                   
     crime, and  there's a drop  of blood that doesn't  match                                                                   
     the victim, and  they run that drop of blood,  they pull                                                                   
     the  identifying markers  out  of that,  put  it in  the                                                                   
     database and [it]  pops up:  poof, "we've  got a match."                                                                   
     What  they're comparing  it  to are  the 13  loci -  the                                                                   
     other  information in  the database;  they're not  going                                                                   
     back to the  previous drop of blood.  It's  all a matter                                                                   
     of  running  it  through the  database,  and  so  [we'd]                                                                   
     really like  to see Alaska pass  some kind of law  - and                                                                   
     perhaps  start with  an amendment  to this  bill -  that                                                                   
     says, once  they've finished  their testing and  get the                                                                   
     data entered, "let's destroy the sample."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0839                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER,  in response to questions,  said that the  6 percent                                                              
figure  that  she  is using  was  gathered  from  the  statistical                                                              
information provided  by Del Smith,  Department of  Public Safety,                                                              
regarding  burglars  in  Alaska  that  go  on  to  commit  violent                                                              
crimes.   She  acknowledged  that  the  legislature will  have  to                                                              
weigh whether  that 6 percent justifies  moving the line,  but she                                                              
opined it  is a very low correlation  given the immense  amount of                                                              
information,  which  has  nothing  to do  with  law  enforcement's                                                              
ability  to identify  criminals,  that can  be  gleaned from  that                                                              
drop  of saliva.    She said  that she  would  feel better  [about                                                              
taking DNA  samples from  convicted burglars]  if the  correlation                                                              
were  higher, but  at least  if the  drop of  saliva is  destroyed                                                              
afterwards,  so  that the  only  information law  enforcement  had                                                              
about  the person  is, in  fact, identifying  markers, that  would                                                              
make more sense.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER  explained that  it's the drop  of saliva  (or blood)                                                              
that  contains information  about  up to  4,000 different  genetic                                                              
conditions  and  diseases,  possibly   about  sexual  orientation,                                                              
possibly   genetic   information   about  the   tendency   towards                                                              
substance  abuse,  all kinds  of  personal information  about  the                                                              
source and everyone  related to the source by blood,  all of which                                                              
has  nothing to  do with  law enforcement's  need for  identifying                                                              
future  criminals that  may  have previously  committed  burglary.                                                              
She opined that  regardless of whether the legislature  feels that                                                              
6  percent justifies  obtaining  DNA  samples from  burglars,  the                                                              
legislature  should  consider  destroying   the  sample  once  law                                                              
enforcement has completed its job [of entering the data].                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0982                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DEL  SMITH,  Deputy  Commissioner,  Office  of  the  Commissioner,                                                              
Department  of  Public  Safety  (DPS),  regarding  the  6  percent                                                              
figure used  by Ms. Rudinger,  explained that  of the 3,000  or so                                                              
people - since 1/1/96  - who have been obligated  to provide a DNA                                                              
sample  under  current law,  roughly  6  percent have  a  previous                                                              
burglary  conviction.    He  added  that he  did  not  think  this                                                              
automatically  means that 94  percent of burglars  don't go  on to                                                              
commit  a  [violent] crime.    He  confirmed  that the  6  percent                                                              
figure was arrived  at retrospectively.  He noted that  he has not                                                              
yet checked to  see how many individuals convicted  of burglary go                                                              
on to commit a violent crime.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  asked  whether  DNA evidence  has  ever                                                              
been exculpatory.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. SMITH  said  yes; he recounted  a  case in which  a person  in                                                              
Anchorage  was  arrested  but  the DNA  sample  proved  that  this                                                              
individual was innocent of that crime.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL asked whether  the "bar  code" from  a DNA                                                              
sample is associated with the person's name or other identifier.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. SMITH  said that  according to his  understanding, it  is not;                                                              
if the bar  code is in the database  it comes back as  a series of                                                              
numbers without being associated with a name.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1199                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
GEORGE  TAFT,  Director, Scientific  Crime  Detection  Laboratory,                                                              
Department of Public  Safety (DPS), testified  via teleconference.                                                              
With regard  to whether to  destroy DNA  samples, he said  that he                                                              
has given the  topic a great deal  of thought but is  not sure why                                                              
the  samples should  be destroyed  immediately in  case [the  DPS]                                                              
needs to  go back and  reanalyze a sample  for a particular  case.                                                              
He, also, said that  there are no names attached  to the data, and                                                              
noted  that  there   are  a  limited  number  of   people  in  the                                                              
laboratory that even have access to the data or to the sample.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  questioned the  need to reanalyze  a sample;                                                              
"Don't you have to double check that you got your code right?"                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. TAFT replied,  "yes."  On the question of  storing samples, he                                                              
noted  that there  is  a very  minimal  amount  of sample  storage                                                              
[space], but  to date  there is  no departmental policy  regarding                                                              
the destruction of the samples.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  mentioned that  the issue  of developing  a policy                                                              
for destroying  DNA samples could  be pursued during  the interim;                                                              
he  noted  that Mr.  Smith  was  nodding  his head  in  agreement.                                                              
Chair Rokeberg then closed the public hearing on SB 99.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1340                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  moved to report SB 99 out  of committee with                                                              
individual  recommendations  and  the accompanying  fiscal  notes.                                                              
There  being no  objection,  SB  99 was  reported  from the  House                                                              
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SB 172 - COURT SYSTEM ANNUAL REPORT                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1358                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that  the next  order of business  would                                                              
be  CS FOR  SENATE  BILL  NO. 172(FIN),  "An  Act  relating to  an                                                              
annual  report  by  the  court   system  to  the  public  and  the                                                              
legislature."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1382                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DAVE  DONLEY, Alaska  State Legislature,  spoke on  behalf                                                              
of  the  Senate  Finance  Committee,   sponsor  of  SB  172.    He                                                              
explained  that  SB  172  would establish  in  statute  an  annual                                                              
report  from the Alaska  Court System  (ACS).   Currently  the ACS                                                              
does an  annual report  but does so  voluntarily because  there is                                                              
no statutory  requirement.   Simply,  SB 172  will set in  statute                                                              
that there  will be a requirement  to provide an annual  report to                                                              
the legislature;  the  ACS could  have leeway  under this  bill to                                                              
continue  with the  existing report,  as long  as it provides  the                                                              
legislature  with the  specific  information detailed  in SB  172.                                                              
He noted that  some of the information  required by SB  172 is not                                                              
currently  included in  the annual  report that  the ACS  provides                                                              
voluntarily.   That  information  includes additional  information                                                              
regarding the  time it's  taking to  provide final disposition  on                                                              
cases  in  Alaska;  specific information  about  the  [status  of]                                                              
salary warrants of  judges (currently, if a judge  doesn't produce                                                              
a final  opinion within six  months, his/her salary  is withheld);                                                              
and a  reporting of travel  expenses and  per diem for  judges and                                                              
justices, similar  to what is required of legislators  and members                                                              
of the  executive branch.   He  concluded by  stating that  SB 172                                                              
has a zero fiscal note.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  DONLEY, in  response to  questions, said  that each  year                                                              
the  administration and  the legislature  prepare  reports on  all                                                              
the  salaries,   travel,  and  per   diem  for  executive   branch                                                              
personnel and legislators,  respectively.  He also  noted that the                                                              
legislature [performs]  an annual  audit of state  government, and                                                              
that  there   is  an   annual  budget   report  produced   by  the                                                              
Legislative  Finance  Division.    On  the  issue  of  withholding                                                              
salary  warrants,  he  explained  that under  existing  law,  "any                                                              
appellant  court where  there's  more than  one  member is  exempt                                                              
from the time limit  factor of the salary warrants."   All the law                                                              
requires is for  an initial decision to be made;  there is no time                                                              
limit for any final decision being made.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOOKESH  questioned   why  this  legislation   is                                                              
necessary  given that  the [ACS]  has  been voluntarily  providing                                                              
reports since 1961.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY  replied that  it is because  [the ACS]  could just                                                              
stop doing  so at  any time, and  because he  thinks it  is really                                                              
important  that the  public be  guaranteed this  information.   He                                                              
also noted  that SB  172 requires  information additional  to what                                                              
[the ACS] currently provides.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1588                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOOKESH suggested that  if the legislature  simply                                                              
asked  it  to  do so,  the  [ACS]  would  continue  providing  the                                                              
reports  and include  the additional  information  on a  voluntary                                                              
basis.    He opined  that  this  might  be  a situation  in  which                                                              
legislation is not actually needed.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY  said, "Hopefully  this is  legislation that  won't                                                              
be needed  in the future,  but it is  a safeguard to  prevent that                                                              
eventuality  from ever  happening."   With regard  to the  warrant                                                              
information, he noted  that about three or four years  ago, he had                                                              
contacted  the Alaska  Judicial Council  (AJC) and  asked why  the                                                              
warrant information  was not provided with the  analysis for judge                                                              
retention.   [The  AJC]  explained  that they  had  asked for  the                                                              
information  but  the ACS  would  not  provide  it to  them,  even                                                              
though [the  AJC] is the body  that is constitutionally  empowered                                                              
to make assessments  regarding the retention of judges.   He added                                                              
that   subsequent   to   that  conversation,   he   received   the                                                              
information from  the ACS,  whereupon he provided  it to  the AJC.                                                              
Although currently  the ACS is  providing this information  to the                                                              
AJC, he said, this  is just an example showing that  the ACS could                                                              
at anytime  - without  this legislation  - decide  not to  provide                                                              
certain information.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1683                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHRIS     CHRISTENSEN,     Deputy     Administrative     Director,                                                              
Administrative  Staff,  Office  of  the  Administrative  Director,                                                              
Alaska  Court System  (ACS), clarified  that  it was  not the  ACS                                                              
that refused  to provide this information  to the AJC,  it was the                                                              
Department  of   Administration  (DOA).     The  ACS   has  always                                                              
considered  this information  a public  record.   He pointed  out,                                                              
however,  that the  ACS  receives the  information  from the  DOA;                                                              
once the  information is in the  ACS's possession, it  is provided                                                              
to anyone who makes  a public records request.   He explained that                                                              
the  [Alaska] Supreme  Court  produces an  annual  report and  has                                                              
done  so since  the  very first  year  that the  ACS  has been  in                                                              
existence;  the first  annual  report  came out  in  1960.   After                                                              
noting  that the  legislature  received  a copy  of  the "FY  2000                                                              
Annual Report"  in January,  he confirmed that  the report  is not                                                              
produced  because of  a statutory  mandate, but  rather under  the                                                              
[Alaska] Supreme  Court's constitutional  authority to  administer                                                              
the  judicial branch  of  government.   In  essence,  this is  the                                                              
[Alaska]  Supreme  Court's  annual   message  on  judicial  branch                                                              
operations.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CHRISTENSEN   noted  that  as  originally  drafted,   SB  172                                                              
instructed the  ACS to produce an  annual report and  include some                                                              
of  the information  that is  already  in the  annual report  that                                                              
[the  ACS]  provides,  and  add  other  information  that  is  not                                                              
currently  provided.   He said that  the legislature  is the  best                                                              
judge  of   what  information  it   would  consider   useful;  the                                                              
legislature  has the  authority  to instruct  the  ACS to  provide                                                              
statistical  or other  information  related  to court  operations.                                                              
Whereupon [the  ACS] will provide  the information required  by SB
172 in report form.   He pointed out that the  ACS has submitted a                                                              
zero  fiscal note.   He  mentioned  that there  are several  other                                                              
examples in  statute of  reports the  legislature requires  of the                                                              
ACS,  such  as  travel information  for  justices  of  the  Alaska                                                              
Supreme Court and for judges of the Alaska Court of Appeals.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. CHRISTENSEN noted,  however, that the document  that [the ACS]                                                              
has  identified for  over 40  years as  its annual  report is  the                                                              
[Alaska] Supreme  Court's message;  this is  akin to reports  that                                                              
"you"  as  individual  legislators  send  to  Alaskans  describing                                                              
"your"  operations here  in Juneau.   And  much as  "you" are  the                                                              
final authority  of what goes into  "your" reports, he  said, [the                                                              
ACS]  believes  that  the  [Alaska] Supreme  Court  is  the  final                                                              
authority  for what  goes into  "this" particular  document.   The                                                              
extra information that  SB 172 would require [the  ACS] to provide                                                              
may  very possibly  be  put into  "this"  report;  in fact,  Chief                                                              
Justice  Fabe  assured  Senator  Donley several  months  ago  that                                                              
prior to  the time  the next annual  report went into  production,                                                              
she  would  discuss  with  her  colleagues  including  this  extra                                                              
information.    Alternatively,   the  extra  information  that  is                                                              
required by  SB 172 may  be put in  a separate report,  which [the                                                              
ACS] would publish and release as instructed per SB 172.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1814                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. CHRISTENSEN  offered the following  as a technical  amendment:                                                              
Remove "annual"  from page 1, line  5.  In response  to questions,                                                              
he explained  that the term  "annual report" is  almost considered                                                              
a  term of  art, and  that  the ACS  already  produces an  "annual                                                              
report" and  has done  so for over  40 years.   And although  [the                                                              
ACS]  will be  happy  to give  the  legislature  whatever kind  of                                                              
reports  it  wants,   he  reiterated  that  [the   ACS]  currently                                                              
produces  its   document  under   the  [Alaska]  Supreme   Court's                                                              
constitutional  authority to administer  the judicial  branch, and                                                              
would  therefore   prefer  that   any  information   requested  by                                                              
legislature not  be called an "annual  report".  He said  that the                                                              
extra information  requested may be included in  the annual report                                                              
that the  ACS already produces,  or it may  come in the form  of a                                                              
separate report;  the intention of  his suggested amendment  is to                                                              
allow [the ACS] flexibility.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY  agreed that  the intention of  SB 172 is  to leave                                                              
the ACS with  flexibility regarding terminology,  and therefore he                                                              
has no objection to Mr. Christensen's suggested amendment.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1900                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES made a  motion to  adopt Amendment  1, which                                                              
would  remove "annual"  from  page  1, line  5.   There  being  no                                                              
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1929                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  moved to report  CSSB 172(FIN),  as amended,                                                              
out  of  committee   with  individual  recommendations   [and  the                                                              
accompanying fiscal note].                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1939                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  objected for the purpose  of discussion.                                                              
He said that one  point he is always leery about  is separation of                                                              
powers.    He  acknowledged  that  the  [ACS]  did  not  have  any                                                              
objections  to  the  requirements  imposed  via  SB  172,  but  he                                                              
pointed out that:                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
         We're here telling the court to do something,                                                                          
     something that they're already doing.  ... I know that                                                                     
     when  the  court tells  us  to  do things,  even  simple                                                                   
     innocuous things  like maybe striking language  from the                                                                   
     budget or something,  we find that very troubling.   ...                                                                   
     I just  think we ought to  be a little bit  sensitive to                                                                   
     those poor five justices and all their minions.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  noted that the  legislature, via SB  172, is                                                              
not  telling [the  ACS] how  to make  judicial decisions;  rather,                                                              
the legislature is  only telling the ACS what  kind of information                                                              
to provide.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  countered by saying, "Which  is all they                                                              
told us."  He then withdrew his objection.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1983                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  asked whether there  were any further  objections.                                                              
There being  none, HCS CSSB 172(JUD)  was reported from  the House                                                              
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HB 145 - FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST STATE OR MUNICIPALIT                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2000                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that  the next  order of business  would                                                              
be HOUSE  BILL NO. 145,  "An Act making  a civil remedy  available                                                              
to the  state or  a municipality  against persons  who make  false                                                              
claims  for, or  certain  misrepresentations  regarding, state  or                                                              
municipal  money   or  other  property;   and  providing   for  an                                                              
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2014                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JAMES BALDWIN,  Assistant Attorney  General, Governmental  Affairs                                                              
Section,  Civil  Division  (Juneau),   Department  of  Law  (DOL),                                                              
presented HB 145  on behalf of the administration.   He noted that                                                              
a similar  bill was reported out  of the House  Judiciary Standing                                                              
Committee  during  the  last legislative  session,  and  that  the                                                              
concept of  HB 145  is the result  of an  ongoing claim  against a                                                              
rather   large   financial   institution    concerning   unclaimed                                                              
property.   He  explained  that California  found  that its  false                                                              
claim   statute  was   key  in   bringing   a  certain   financial                                                              
institution to  the table to  negotiate; California's  false claim                                                              
statute carries  a treble damages  clause.  When [the  DOL] looked                                                              
at Alaska laws  to see what its  remedies might be, it  found only                                                              
a very skeletal  form of a  false claim statute, which  is located                                                              
in  AS 37.10.090  and  which basically  says  that  the state  can                                                              
bring  a  claim   on  behalf  of  itself  or  on   behalf  of  its                                                              
municipalities if  money has been illegally paid  or diverted, but                                                              
there  is no  ability  to enhance  the amount  of  damages if  the                                                              
prosecution is successful.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALDWIN  noted  that  [the DOL]  has  begun  investigating  a                                                              
potential  claim  against  that same  financial  institution,  and                                                              
although  HB  145  may  not assist  the  DOL  in  that  particular                                                              
instance, it  could become useful  in future litigation  regarding                                                              
unclaimed  property  or  other  situations  in which  a  claim  is                                                              
brought  against  the  state  and  is  later  proven  false.    He                                                              
explained  that HB  145 is  modeled  after California's  unclaimed                                                              
property law with  the addition of a few changes  that adapt it to                                                              
Alaska law.   A major  difference between  the California  law and                                                              
HB 145 revolves  around some of the things that  are excluded from                                                              
coverage:   Alaska  would exclude  any  claims in  an amount  less                                                              
than $500  because it  would not be  appropriate to  subject those                                                              
kinds of  claims to  the treble damages  clause; and  Alaska would                                                              
exclude certain  statutory systems  (some of  which are  listed on                                                              
pages 3-4)  that already  have well  developed penalty  provisions                                                              
for submitting false  claims, because they stand alone  and do not                                                              
need duplication.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. BALDWIN  also said that there  is a fairly  favorable standard                                                              
of  proof provided  for  the state  to prove  its  case against  a                                                              
false claimant;  it will  be by a  preponderance of  the evidence.                                                              
There  is  also  a  provision which  says  that  if  a  particular                                                              
individual is  convicted of  a crime involving  misrepresentation,                                                              
then  that conviction  can  stand  as prima  facie  proof; it  can                                                              
stand on  its own  as part of  the main  proof necessary  to prove                                                              
the civil claim under  HB 145.  He explained that  HB 145 also has                                                              
provisions  for  cooperation  between  municipal  governments  and                                                              
state government  if, in  the investigation  of a potential  false                                                              
claim, the  attorney general  determines  that there is  municipal                                                              
property involved,  there would be a process  for either tendering                                                              
the prosecution  of that part  of the case  to a municipality,  or                                                              
retaining it  and proceeding along  with all the other  aspects of                                                              
the claim.   He noted  that these provisions  are tailored  to the                                                              
Alaskan  situation;  the  aforementioned  case against  the  large                                                              
financial institution  involved both municipal property  and state                                                              
property, thus [the  DOL and the municipalities] have  had to find                                                              
a way  to  work out  how they  would approach  the case  together,                                                              
including how to share costs and share recovery.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2270                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  asked  whether  HB  145  would  pertain  to                                                              
permanent fund dividend (PFD) applications.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. BALDWIN said  that HB 145 would not apply to  the PFD; the PFD                                                              
is  paid  under AS  43,  and  as such  is  listed  as one  of  the                                                              
exemptions on page 4.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ,  referring to  Section  3, pointed  out                                                              
that subsection(c)  estops - prevents  - the defendant  from again                                                              
raising  the  defense  if  there  is  a  guilty  plea  or  a  nolo                                                              
contendere plea;  if someone  is estoped in  a civil  action after                                                              
making a nolo  contendere plea, the intent of  the nolo contendere                                                              
plea is circumvented.   He asked  why "we" would want  to do that.                                                              
He also  pointed out  that "this is  different for the  government                                                              
than it is for an individual citizen."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALDWIN  responded  that  to   his  understanding,  for  many                                                              
purposes, a  nolo contendere  plea is the  equivalent of  a guilty                                                              
plea.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  clarified  that  nolo contendere  -  no                                                              
contest  -  merely means  that  the  person  is not  fighting  the                                                              
charge, not  that he/she agrees  with the elements.   He explained                                                              
that this is different  than a guilty plea in which  the defendant                                                              
acknowledges committing  the elements.   For example, "If  you ran                                                              
into  a light  pole and  knocked it  over, no  contest means  that                                                              
you're not fighting  it, but your not admitting  civil liability."                                                              
He opined  that the current  language is  saying that if  a person                                                              
pleads  no   contest,  he/she   is  essentially  admitting   civil                                                              
liability, which  is not the same  for a private individual.   "If                                                              
I ran into  your car and was  charged with assault, and  [I] plead                                                              
no contest,  you'd still have  to prove the  case against me  in a                                                              
civil context."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALDWIN  explained  that  this  provision  is  based  on  the                                                              
California law, which was used as model.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  pointed out  that many  times people might  choose                                                              
nolo contendere to  avoid the expense of litigation;  if he/she is                                                              
estoped  from asserting  a defense  in a civil  case, it  destroys                                                              
one of the advantages of pleading nolo contendere.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2450                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  made a  motion  to adopt  Amendment  1,                                                              
which would  strike "or  nolo contendere" from  page 4,  lines 14-                                                              
15.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. BALDWIN  mentioned that  line 18 also  has reference  to "nolo                                                              
contendere".                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  asked what  affect Amendment 1  would have                                                              
on the  July 1,  2001, date referred  to in  the last  sentence on                                                              
lines 17-18 of page 4.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ cautioned  that there  is some  question                                                              
about what is  going on with no  contest pleas.  It  is not always                                                              
clear,  he  said, sometimes  a  nolo  contendere  plea can  be  an                                                              
admission, but he could not recall what the parameters are.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-72, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 2485                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALDWIN, in  response  to Representative  Coghill,  explained                                                              
that the  last sentence in lines  17-18 of page 4  merely prevents                                                              
subsection (c) from being applied retroactively.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG pointed  out that  this language  reads "a  guilty                                                              
verdict upon  a plea of  nolo contendere",  and does not  refer to                                                              
anything else.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALDWIN,  still   referring  to  page  4,   offered  that  if                                                              
reference to "nolo  contendere" is removed from  lines 14-15, then                                                              
the last sentence on lines 17-18 should also be removed.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2383                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  whether   there  were  any  objections  to                                                              
Amendment 1.  There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2365                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  made a motion to adopt  Amendment 2, which                                                              
would  remove the last  sentence  from subsection  (c) on  page 4,                                                              
lines 17-18.  There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ, referring  to the  provision on  page 4                                                              
regarding limitation  of actions,  said that to his  recollection,                                                              
most  civil  actions   are  limited  to  within   three  years  of                                                              
discovery.   Unless  there is a  very compelling  reason to  allow                                                              
the state  twice as long  to pursue an  action, he said,  it seems                                                              
inappropriate  that  the  state  has  more  time  than  a  private                                                              
litigant.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALDWIN noted  that this  provision is  merely mirroring  the                                                              
California statute.   He said  that he is  not so sure  that three                                                              
years is the  overriding time limit; there is  a six-year [statute                                                              
of limitations]  applicable to  some claims,  for example.   Given                                                              
the  complexity of  some  of the  cases  the  state litigates,  he                                                              
opined, six years is not unreasonable.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  said he agrees  with that point,  but he                                                              
merely favors consistency.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG mentioned  that  some of  the cases  faced by  the                                                              
state could involve unclaimed property.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALDWIN noted  that  this provision  provides  for a  special                                                              
limitation period for false claims.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ,  referring to  Sections 1 and  2, opined                                                              
that at  first glance,  "you could  incur civil  liability  to the                                                              
state if  you, for example,  asserted a  claim that you  were owed                                                              
money  and then  it turned  out  not to  be  true, or  ... made  a                                                              
denial after the state made a claim against you."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. BALDWIN  explained that  the language in  Sections 1 and  2 is                                                              
very similar to  the false claim statute provisions  in many other                                                              
states and  the federal government;  this type of language  is not                                                              
unusual.  If  there is a problem  of proof, he added,  then that's                                                              
the state's problem  and it will have to prove  by a preponderance                                                              
of  the  evidence that  there  has  been  presentation of  such  a                                                              
claim.  He opined  that it is unusual that a  state such as Alaska                                                              
doesn't already have  the kinds of statutes as would  be added via                                                              
HB  145;  HB 145  will  allow  the  state to  protect  the  public                                                              
treasury from the assertion of false claims.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2141                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL recounted  that during litigation  between                                                              
himself and  his municipality, the  municipality asserted  that he                                                              
had done something  falsely, when, instead, he  was merely unaware                                                              
of the regulations regarding that particular action.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. BALDWIN, on  the topic of penalties, explained  that Section 2                                                              
of HB 145  provides for a $10,000  penalty for each act,  and that                                                              
there  could then  be  interest and  damages  added to  that.   He                                                              
noted  that  one of  the  main  areas  in which  the  statute  was                                                              
altered,  via Section 1,  is in  the area  of contract  claims; if                                                              
contractors who  have done business  with the state  submit claims                                                              
for  additional costs  and expenses  for  the work  done, and  the                                                              
claims turn out  to be false, Section 1 would provide  a remedy in                                                              
dealing with  such contractors.   He  went on  to explain  that in                                                              
the  area of  unclaimed  property, if,  for  example, a  financial                                                              
institution holds  money that  it should pay  out, but  is instead                                                              
merely  filing reports  that  this money  is  being properly  paid                                                              
out, these  claims by the  financial institution would  fall under                                                              
[HB 145]  with regard to  making a false  claim.  He  also pointed                                                              
out  that before  an individual  can  file a  lawsuit against  the                                                              
state, he/she has  to go through a claims process  under AS 44.77;                                                              
he/she has  to submit an administrative  claim against  the state,                                                              
and if  that claim  turns out to  be false,  HB 145 would  provide                                                              
the state with a remedy.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALDWIN,  in  response to  questions,  explained  that  under                                                              
current statutory  language, someone  submitting a false  contract                                                              
claim must  reimburse all sums  paid on  the claim, for  all costs                                                              
attributable  to review  of the  claim,  and for  a civil  penalty                                                              
equal to  the amount  by which  the claim  is misrepresented.   By                                                              
contrast, under  HB 145, a person  submitting a false  claim would                                                              
be liable  for to  up to three  times the amount  of the  claim, a                                                              
civil penalty  of up to $10,000  for each act for  which liability                                                              
is  found, and  attorney's fees  and  costs.   He noted,  however,                                                              
that there are other  provisions in HB 145 that say  the court may                                                              
reduce the  amount of the damages  to an amount not less  than two                                                              
times the amount  of damages sustained and may  waive entirely the                                                              
civil penalties  if the  person committing any  of the  acts gives                                                              
the officials  of the state  (or of the municipality)  information                                                              
known  to that person  about the  violation within  30 days  after                                                              
the date in which  the person first obtained the  information.  In                                                              
essence this  means that if the  person cooperates with  the state                                                              
(or municipality),  he/she  gets the damages  reduced; it  becomes                                                              
an incentive to help the state (or municipality).                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALDWIN,  in  response to  questions  regarding  his  earlier                                                              
reference    to   a    certain    financial   institution    under                                                              
investigation,  explained  that  this  financial  institution  was                                                              
acting as a fiscal  paying agent, or trustee for  various forms of                                                              
general   obligation  debt,   revenue  bond   debt,  and   special                                                              
obligation  debt,   and  was  therefore  responsible   for  making                                                              
payments to bondholders.   It was subsequently  discovered that in                                                              
a   small  percentage   of  cases,   the   bondholders  of   these                                                              
instruments  were  not claiming  their  coupon payments,  but  the                                                              
financial   institution  was   keeping  the   money  rather   than                                                              
returning it  to the  governmental entities  that issued  the debt                                                              
service.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1890                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. BALDWIN  noted that  only one  small element  of HB  145 might                                                              
have  a bearing  on  the  state's  ongoing investigation  of  this                                                              
financial institution.   He then  referred to page  2, [paragraph]                                                              
(8), which  says, "is a beneficiary  of an inadvertent  submission                                                              
of a  false claim  to the  state or  a municipality,  subsequently                                                              
discovers  the falsity  of the claim,  and fails  to disclose  the                                                              
false claim to  the state or the municipality  within a reasonable                                                              
time after  discovery of the  false claim."   He pointed  out that                                                              
since  statutes  only  work  prospectively,  [paragraphs]  (1)-(7)                                                              
would  not apply  to  the  financial institution  currently  under                                                              
investigation,  unless it knows  it has a  history of  these kinds                                                              
of activity  and does not disclose  this information to  the state                                                              
or municipality.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALDWIN, in  response to  questions  about California's  case                                                              
against  the financial  institution,  said that  a settlement  was                                                              
reached in which  California was paid $188 million  in damages for                                                              
unspecified  purposes, and was  paid $40  million as an  unclaimed                                                              
property  settlement.    He  noted   that  in  this  example,  the                                                              
financial  institution  kept  very  poor  records,  and  thus  the                                                              
parties had  to resort  to a statistical  analysis of  the records                                                              
in order  to establish  damages and  determine what amount  should                                                              
have been  escheated  to the state.   Mr.  Baldwin explained  that                                                              
[the  DOL]  was  investigating  this  same  financial  institution                                                              
under the  theory that  since it  is the issuer  of some  of those                                                              
debt  obligations, it  is  entitled to  some  of that  settlement,                                                              
whereas  the financial  institution  is working  under the  theory                                                              
that  since it  is domiciled  in California,  the funds  escheated                                                              
belong to  California.  He mentioned  that [the DOL] is  hoping to                                                              
successfully conclude its case regarding these funds.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ,  referring to  the  damages section  on                                                              
page  3, said  that essentially  treble  damages are  going to  be                                                              
awarded  - that's  three  times  the amount  of  actual damages  -                                                              
except  if [subsection]  (c) applies.    Then the  damages may  be                                                              
reduced to twice  the amount of damages and the  civil penalty may                                                              
be  waived.    He  pointed  out,   however,  that  this  provision                                                              
precludes  the court  from using  a sliding scale  with regard  to                                                              
damages  and civil  penalties.   He  noted  that he  did not  like                                                              
taking discretion  away from the  courts; the more  discretion the                                                              
courts  have,  he  offered,  the  easier  it can  be  to  craft  a                                                              
solution for a given problem.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1662                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  made a  motion  to adopt  Amendment  3,                                                              
which would  delete "of this  section to  an amount not  less than                                                              
two  times the  amount  of the  damages  sustained"  from page  3,                                                              
lines  7-8.     The  result  would  leave  the   courts  with  the                                                              
discretion of  moving between treble  damages and zero  damages if                                                              
all the  conditions  for such  a waiver  are met.   He also  noted                                                              
that the language  pertaining to these conditions  is conjunctive;                                                              
a person must meet all of them, not just one.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALDWIN said  he  did not  have a  problem  with leaving  the                                                              
decision regarding  the reduction  of damages and  civil penalties                                                              
to the discretion of the court.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1452                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  whether   there  were  any  objections  to                                                              
Amendment 3.  There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1435                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  moved to report HB 145,  as amended, out                                                              
of   committee    with   individual   recommendations    and   the                                                              
accompanying  zero fiscal note.   There  being no objection,  CSHB
145(JUD)   was  reported   from  the   House  Judiciary   Standing                                                              
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HB 228 - SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1427                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that  the last  order of business  would                                                              
be  HOUSE  BILL NO.  228,  "An  Act  relating  to the  offense  of                                                              
selling or  giving tobacco to a  minor, to the accounting  of fees                                                              
from business  license endorsements  for tobacco products,  to the                                                              
disclosure of certain  confidential cigarette and  tobacco product                                                              
information,    to    notification     regarding    a    cigarette                                                              
manufacturer's  noncompliance  with  the  tobacco  product  Master                                                              
Settlement Agreement,  to business  license endorsements  for sale                                                              
of  tobacco  products,  to citations  and  penalties  for  illegal                                                              
sales of tobacco  products; and providing for an  effective date."                                                              
[Before the committee was CSHB 228(L&C).]                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1371                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG made  a motion to  adopt Amendment  1, which  read                                                              
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 4:                                                                                                            
          Delete "The"                                                                                                          
        Insert "A peace officer, or an agent or employee                                                                        
     of the"                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
           Following "Department of Health and Social                                                                           
     Services":                                                                                                                 
         Insert    "who    is   authorized    by    the                                                                         
     commissioner of health and social services to enforce                                                                      
     this section,"                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, lines 6 - 7:                                                                                                       
         Delete "Each day a violation continues after a                                                                         
     citation for the violation has been issued constitutes                                                                     
     a separate violation."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 14:                                                                                                           
          Delete "the issuance of"                                                                                              
          Insert "issuing to its agents or employees"                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 18:                                                                                                           
          Delete "department shall deposit the"                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
          Following "citation":                                                                                                 
               Insert "shall be deposited"                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 21:                                                                                                           
          Delete "The department may not dispose of a"                                                                          
          Insert "A"                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 22, following "issuance":                                                                                     
          Insert "may not be disposed of"                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 24, following "by":                                                                                           
          Insert "an agent or employee of"                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 25, following "copies of":                                                                                    
          Insert "such"                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 27, following "citation":                                                                                     
          Insert "issued by its agent or employee"                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1347                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JOHN MANLY, Staff to Representative John Harris, Alaska State                                                                   
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Harris, sponsor,                                                                       
explained that the  Department of Health & Social  Services (DHSS)                                                              
prepared Amendment 1.   At the previous hearing on  HB 228, it was                                                              
suggested  that  "sideboards"  should  be  placed  on  the  DHSS's                                                              
authority to  issue citations for  selling tobacco to minors.   He                                                              
offered that Amendment  1 would provide those sideboards;  it more                                                              
clearly defines  who exactly  would be  authorized to  issue these                                                              
citations.   The person has to  be authorized by  the commissioner                                                              
of the DHSS.   He also pointed  out that the portion  of Amendment                                                              
1  affecting  line 6-7  deletes  a  provision that  the  committee                                                              
considered unnecessary  since it refers to citations  issued under                                                              
the criminal statute, Title 11.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1199                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ELMER LINDSTROM,  Special Assistant,  Office of the  Commissioner,                                                              
Department  of Health  &  Social Services  (DHSS),  said that  the                                                              
DHSS has  no objections  to deleting that  provision from  page 7,                                                              
lines 6-7.  He  added that the remainder of Amendment  1 is merely                                                              
conforming  language that  changes  the voice  of the  legislation                                                              
from  an  active  one to  a  passive  one.   With  regard  to  the                                                              
sideboard stipulating  that aside  from a  peace officer,  only an                                                              
authorized agent  or employee of  the DHSS could  issue citations,                                                              
he  noted that  similar authority  exists in  other statutes,  for                                                              
example, those pertaining to park employees.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  whether  any  special  training  would  be                                                              
required in order for a person to become a "tobacco cop."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1154                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
EDWIN  J. SASSER,  Tobacco  Enforcement Coordinator,  Division  of                                                              
Public  Health  (DPH),  Department  of Health  &  Social  Services                                                              
(DHSS), mentioned  that the provision being deleted  via Amendment                                                              
1  dealt  with the  issue  of  vending  machines being  moved  and                                                              
cigarettes  not   being  locked  up.    Regarding   the  sideboard                                                              
pertaining  to  who will  be  authorized  to issue  citations,  he                                                              
explained  that the  language  inserted in  the  first portion  of                                                              
Amendment  1 is  patterned  after language  in  AS 45.75.131  that                                                              
gives  authority  to  issue  citations   related  to  weights  and                                                              
measures violations.   In none of the language  already in statute                                                              
relating to  issuing citations, he  added, is there  any reference                                                              
to  training  requirements.    He  suggested,  however,  that  the                                                              
language  stipulating  that  the  commissioner of  the  DHSS  must                                                              
authorize the agent  or employee does imply  training requirements                                                              
and standards.   He offered  that it would  not be hard  to expand                                                              
any Memorandum  of [Understanding]  (MOU) that  the DHSS  has with                                                              
the  Department  of  Public  Safety   (DPS)  to  include  specific                                                              
standards for any agent or employee selected to issue citations.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1045                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  whether   there  were  any  objections  to                                                              
Amendment 1.  There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned  a concern regarding the  potential for a                                                              
disgruntled  employee   to  subject  the  endorsement   holder  to                                                              
cumulative  fines  and  penalties  simply by  continuing  to  sell                                                              
tobacco products to minors.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. MANLY  said  that he did  not know  whether any  of the  cases                                                              
that   have  been   prosecuted   thus  far   have  included   such                                                              
circumstances.  Most  of the time the sale is  inadvertent or done                                                              
in ignorance.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER opined  that  it would  be hard  for such  a                                                              
situation to  occur; the  employee would have  to know  in advance                                                              
that  he/she  was  selling  to an  undercover  minor  in  a  sting                                                              
operation.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SASSER said  that  he is  not aware  of  any such  situations                                                              
occurring,  nor  was  he  aware  of any  state  that  has  adopted                                                              
language that  would allow such  a situation to be  an affirmative                                                              
defense.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LINDSTROM,  on the  issue  of  penalties to  the  endorsement                                                              
holder,   noted  that   current   statute   stipulates  that   the                                                              
endorsement may  be suspended  up to 45  days for a  first offense                                                              
and up  to 90  days for  a subsequent  offense occurring  within a                                                              
24-month period.   On  the issue of  compliance, he  remarked that                                                              
surveys done  last September indicate  that on a  statewide basis,                                                              
minors  were able  to purchase  tobacco up  to 34  percent of  the                                                              
time  notwithstanding  all  the preventative  measures  that  have                                                              
been taken  to date.   He  added that  this noncompliance  rate is                                                              
unacceptably high.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL pondered  whether  the high  noncompliance                                                              
rate is "a vendor responsibility."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG said  he has received a letter from  Costa Alton of                                                              
C.J.  Enterprises, expressing  the  concern that  Section 8(l)  is                                                              
unfair to the  owner of vending machines.  Chair  Rokeberg offered                                                              
the  point that  if  there  is a  problem  with one  machine,  the                                                              
people at  that location who  are responsible for  supervising the                                                              
vending machine  should be subject  to the penalties,  rather than                                                              
the vending  company.  Section8(l)  stipulates "if  an endorsement                                                              
... for the sale  of tobacco products through  vending machines is                                                              
suspended  or revoked,  the person  may not sell  ... tobacco  ...                                                              
products  through any  of the  person's  other vending  machines".                                                              
He suggested  that this  provision should be  altered to  apply to                                                              
the  owner  of the  establishment  where  the vending  machine  is                                                              
located.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SASSER  clarified  that  this provision  does  apply  to  the                                                              
endorsement holder  of the establishment  in which the  machine is                                                              
placed.   He  said  that  the only  time  the endorsement  of  the                                                              
vending company  can be  suspended is  if the company  negligently                                                              
places the machine in an unsuitable location.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 2:46 p.m. to 2:55 p.m.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0382                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2:                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Section  8, subsection  (l)  should conform  ... to  the                                                                   
     concept  that  the  vending  machine  company's  tobacco                                                                   
     business  license/endorsement can  not be suspended  for                                                                   
     one  violation.  However,  the machine  on the  premises                                                                   
     could be removed  or immobilized; the operator  would be                                                                   
     prohibited   from  operating   it   at  the   particular                                                                   
     location, not all of his locations.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG explained  that  with the  adoption of  Conceptual                                                              
Amendment  2, a  violation would  result in  the machine  operator                                                              
being suspended  from operating  that particular  machine  at that                                                              
location,  and penalties  would also  be imposed  on the owner  of                                                              
the establishment for a lack of supervision at that location.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   COGHILL   remarked  that   anyone   who  has   an                                                              
endorsement,  whether  vending  company  or  establishment  owner,                                                              
should  be aware  of the  laws regarding  sale to  minors and  the                                                              
possible penalties for violations.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. MANLY  noted that  there is  a provision  in HB 228  requiring                                                              
that  vendor education  materials accompany  the endorsement  when                                                              
it is sent out.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-73, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  whether  "they"  would  be  subject  to  a                                                              
monetary   fine  in   addition  to   having  his/her   endorsement                                                              
suspended  for  having  a  vending  machine  in  an  inappropriate                                                              
location.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0089                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CATHERINE   REARDON,  Director,   Central   Office,  Division   of                                                              
Occupational  Licensing,   Department  of  Community   &  Economic                                                              
Development  (DCED), explained  that having  a vending machine  in                                                              
an inappropriate  location is  a crime under  AS 11.76,  and would                                                              
therefore be punishable.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SASSER added  that AS  11.76.100(d) provides  that a  vending                                                              
machine operator  who negligently  places  a vending machine  will                                                              
be subject  to a  $300 fine.   He  noted that  this fine does  not                                                              
increase for multiple violations.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0177                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  whether   there  were  any  objections  to                                                              
Conceptual  Amendment 2.   There  being  no objection,  Conceptual                                                              
Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0234                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  moved to report  CSHB 228(L&C),  as amended,                                                              
out  of   committee  with   individual  recommendations   and  the                                                              
accompanying  fiscal  notes.    There  being  no  objection,  CSHB
228(JUD)   was  reported   from  the   House  Judiciary   Standing                                                              
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0270                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
There being  no further business  before the committee,  the House                                                              
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects