Legislature(2003 - 2004)

05/05/2003 03:15 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                          May 5, 2003                                                                                           
                           3:15 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair                                                                                             
Representative Tom Anderson, Vice Chair                                                                                         
Representative Jim Holm                                                                                                         
Representative Dan Ogg                                                                                                          
Representative Ralph Samuels                                                                                                    
Representative Les Gara                                                                                                         
Representative Max Gruenberg                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10                                                                                                  
Relating to the Pledge of Allegiance.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS SJR 10(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 87                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to principal  and income in  the administration                                                               
of  trusts and  decedents' estates  and the  mental health  trust                                                               
fund;  adopting a  version of  the Uniform  Principal and  Income                                                               
Act; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS SB 87(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CONFIRMATION HEARING                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Commission on Judicial Conduct                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Richard L. Burton - Ketchikan                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     - CONFIRMATION ADVANCED                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 245                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to certain suits  and claims by members  of the                                                               
military  services   or  regarding  acts  or   omissions  of  the                                                               
organized militia;  relating to liability arising  out of certain                                                               
search  and rescue,  civil defense,  homeland security,  and fire                                                               
management and firefighting activities; and providing for an                                                                    
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 245(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4                                                                                                    
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of                                                                      
Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20                                                                                                   
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska                                                                 
repealing the prohibition on dedicated funds.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 145                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to public interest litigants and to attorney                                                                   
fees; and amending Rule 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     - BILL HEARING POSTPONED                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SJR 10                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RESOLUTION                                                                                     
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) GREEN                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
03/10/03     0449       (S)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/10/03     0449       (S)        STA                                                                                          
03/18/03                (S)        STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                     
03/18/03                (S)        Moved Out of Committee                                                                       
03/18/03                (S)        MINUTE(STA)                                                                                  
03/20/03     0550       (S)        STA RPT 4DP                                                                                  
03/20/03     0550       (S)        DP: STEVENS G, COWDERY,                                                                      
                                   DYSON, GUESS                                                                                 
03/20/03     0550       (S)        FN1: ZERO(S.STA)                                                                             
03/26/03     0593       (S)        RULES TO CALENDAR 3/26/2003                                                                  
03/26/03     0593       (S)        READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                         
03/26/03     0593       (S)        ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                    
                                   UNAN CONSENT                                                                                 
03/26/03     0593       (S)        READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 10                                                                   
03/26/03     0593       (S)        PASSED Y19 N- A1                                                                             
03/26/03     0595       (S)        TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                           
03/26/03     0595       (S)        VERSION: SJR 10                                                                              
03/28/03     0664       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/28/03     0664       (H)        JUD                                                                                          
03/28/03     0689       (H)        CROSS SPONSOR(S): LYNN,                                                                      
                                   WILSON                                                                                       
04/07/03                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
04/07/03                (H)        <Bill Hearing Postponed>                                                                     
05/02/03                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
05/02/03                (H)        <Bill Hearing Postponed to                                                                   
                                   5/5>                                                                                         
05/05/03     1333       (H)        CROSS SPONSOR(S): HOLM                                                                       
05/05/03                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 87                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE:PRINCIPAL AND INCOME                                                                                                
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SEEKINS                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/28/03     0298       (S)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
02/28/03     0298       (S)        JUD                                                                                          
04/14/03                (S)        JUD AT 1:00 PM BELTZ 211                                                                     
04/14/03                (S)        Moved Out of Committee --                                                                    
                                   MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
04/15/03     0858       (S)        JUD RPT 3DP 2NR                                                                              
04/15/03     0858       (S)        DP: SEEKINS, THERRIAULT,                                                                     
                                   ELLIS;                                                                                       
04/15/03     0858       (S)        NR: OGAN, FRENCH                                                                             
04/15/03     0858       (S)        FN1: ZERO(LAW)                                                                               
04/16/03     0876       (S)        RULES TO CALENDAR 4/16/2003                                                                  
04/16/03     0876       (S)        READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                         
04/16/03     0877       (S)        ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                    
                                   4/17 CALENDAR                                                                                
04/17/03     0893       (S)        READ THE THIRD TIME SB 87                                                                    
04/17/03     0894       (S)        PASSED Y17 N- E3                                                                             
04/17/03     0894       (S)        EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS                                                                    
                                   PASSAGE                                                                                      
04/17/03     0895       (S)        TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                           
04/17/03     0895       (S)        VERSION: SB 87                                                                               
04/22/03     1045       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
04/22/03     1045       (H)        JUD                                                                                          
05/02/03                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
05/02/03                (H)        Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                      
05/05/03                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 245                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:SUITS & CLAIMS: MILITARY/FIRE/DEFENSE                                                                               
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
04/04/03     0777       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
04/04/03     0777       (H)        MLV, JUD, FIN                                                                                
04/04/03     0778       (H)        FN1: ZERO(LAW)                                                                               
04/04/03     0778       (H)        FN2: ZERO(DNR)                                                                               
04/04/03     0778       (H)        FN3: INDETERMINATE(ADM)                                                                      
                                   FORTHCOMING                                                                                  
04/04/03     0778       (H)        GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                                                                
04/08/03     0859       (H)        FN3: INDETERMINATE(ADM)                                                                      
                                   RECEIVED                                                                                     
04/11/03                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
04/11/03                (H)        <Bill Hearing Postponed>                                                                     
04/15/03                (H)        MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
04/15/03                (H)        Moved CSHB 245(MLV) Out of                                                                   
                                   Committee                                                                                    
04/15/03                (H)        MINUTE(MLV)                                                                                  
04/16/03     1007       (H)        MLV RPT CS(MLV) NT 1DP 2DNP                                                                  
                                   1NR 2AM                                                                                      
04/16/03     1007       (H)        DP: LYNN; DNP: GRUENBERG,                                                                    
                                   CISSNA;                                                                                      
04/16/03     1007       (H)        NR: MASEK; AM: WEYHRAUCH,                                                                    
                                   FATE                                                                                         
04/16/03     1008       (H)        FN1: ZERO(LAW)                                                                               
04/16/03     1008       (H)        FN2: ZERO(DNR)                                                                               
04/16/03     1008       (H)        FN3: INDETERMINATE(ADM)                                                                      
04/16/03                (H)        JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
04/16/03                (H)        <Bill Hearing Postponed>                                                                     
04/28/03                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
04/28/03                (H)        Heard & Held -- Meeting                                                                      
                                   Postponed to 2:00 PM --                                                                      
                                   MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
04/30/03                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
04/30/03                (H)        Heard & Held Mtg. Postponed                                                                  
                                   to after Maj. Caucus                                                                         
                                   MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
05/02/03                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
05/02/03                (H)        Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                      
05/05/03                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
JACQUELINE TUPOU, Staff                                                                                                         
to Senator Lyda Green                                                                                                           
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Presented  SJR  10  on behalf  of  Senator                                                               
Green, sponsor.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
BRIAN HOVE, Staff                                                                                                               
to Senator Ralph Seekins                                                                                                        
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Presented  SB 87  on  behalf  of  Senator                                                               
Seekins, sponsor.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
DAVID G. SHAFTEL, Attorney                                                                                                      
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Assisted with  the presentation of SB 87 and                                                               
responded to questions.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
PHIL YOUNKER, SR., Chair                                                                                                        
Executive Committee                                                                                                             
Board of Trustees                                                                                                               
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority ("The Trust")                                                                              
Fairbanks, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  discussion of  SB  87, raised  the                                                               
question  of whether  changes suggested  by The  Trust have  been                                                               
incorporated into Version U, and encouraged passage of the bill.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
STEPHEN E. GREER, Attorney                                                                                                      
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of SB 87.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD BURTON, Appointee                                                                                                       
Commission on Judicial Conduct                                                                                                  
Ketchikan, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified as  appointee to the Commission on                                                               
Judicial Conduct.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                    
Special Litigation Section                                                                                                      
Civil Division (Anchorage)                                                                                                      
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   During discussion  of HB 245, on  behalf of                                                               
the administration, provided comments  on the proposed amendments                                                               
and responded to questions.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SAM JOHNSON, Assistant Commissioner                                                                                             
Office of Homeland Security                                                                                                     
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA)                                                                               
Fort Richardson, Alaska                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:   During discussion  of HB 245,  responded to                                                               
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
BRIGADIER GENERAL CRAIG E. CAMPBELL, Adjutant                                                                                   
General/Commissioner                                                                                                            
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs                                                                                      
Fort Richardson, Alaska                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:   During discussion  of HB 245,  responded to                                                               
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 03-50, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LESIL   McGUIRE  called   the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                             
Committee  meeting  to  order  at   3:15  p.m.    Representatives                                                               
McGuire,  Anderson,  Ogg,  Samuels,   Gara,  and  Gruenberg  were                                                               
present at  the call  to order.   Representative Holm  arrived as                                                               
the  meeting  was   in  progress.    Chair   McGuire  noted  that                                                               
Representative  Anderson had  to  leave right  then  in order  to                                                               
chair the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SJR 10 - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RESOLUTION                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0075                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  announced that the  first order of  business would                                                               
be  SENATE JOINT  RESOLUTION NO.  10, Relating  to the  Pledge of                                                               
Allegiance.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0103                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JACQUELINE  TUPOU,  Staff to  Senator  Lyda  Green, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, said on  behalf of Senator Green,  sponsor, that SJR
10 provides that  the Alaska State Legislature  supports a review                                                               
by the U.S.  Supreme Court of the Ninth Circuit  Court of Appeals                                                               
2002 decision in  Newdow v. U.S. Congress.  In  Newdow, the Ninth                                                           
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that  the words "under God" in the                                                               
Pledge  of  Allegiance  violate  the  establishment  clause  when                                                               
recited by  students in public  schools.  She mentioned  that the                                                               
U.S. Supreme  Court had  this case  on its  April 30  docket, and                                                               
that a petition  for a [writ of certiorari] has  been filed and a                                                               
response is expected back on May 30.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE, after  ascertaining that  no one  else wished  to                                                               
testify,  closed   public  testimony  on   SJR  10.     She  then                                                               
complimented  Ms.  Tupou  and Senator  Green  on  a  well-written                                                               
resolution;  without  making  political  statements,  SJR  10  is                                                               
factual  and  "speaks to  things  that  have occurred  throughout                                                               
history."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  said he agrees  with Chair McGuire.   Noting                                                               
that the U.S. Supreme Court denies  most [petitions for a writ of                                                               
certiorari], he asked  whether there is any  indication that this                                                               
case will be accepted.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. TUPOU said she didn't care to speculate on that issue.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0387                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  made  a  motion  to  adopt  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1,  to add the solicitor  general to the list  of those                                                               
who  will get  a  copy of  SJR  10.   There  being no  objection,                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG  said he  would like  to echo  Chair McGuire's                                                               
comments.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0421                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  moved to report  SJR 10, as  amended, out                                                               
of   committee   with    individual   recommendations   and   the                                                               
accompanying zero  fiscal note.   There  being no  objection, HCS                                                               
SJR  10(JUD)  was  reported from  the  House  Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 3:22 p.m. to 3:25 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SB 87 - PRINCIPAL AND INCOME                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0455                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the  next order of business would be                                                               
SENATE BILL NO.  87, "An Act relating to principal  and income in                                                               
the  administration  of trusts  and  decedents'  estates and  the                                                               
mental health trust fund; adopting a version of the Uniform                                                                     
Principal and Income Act; and providing for an effective date."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0511                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BRIAN  HOVE,  Staff  to  Senator   Ralph  Seekins,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, on  behalf of Senator Seekins,  sponsor, paraphrased                                                               
the   sponsor  statement,   which   read  [original   punctuation                                                               
provided]:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     In  1984  the  Alaska   legislature  adopted  an  early                                                                    
     version  of  the  Uniform   Principal  and  Income  Act                                                                    
     (located in  Statute 13.38).   This Act  provides rules                                                                    
     for the determination of whether  a trust's or estate's                                                                    
     receipts  should  be  considered income  or  principal.                                                                    
     This  distinction  is   often  important  because  some                                                                    
     beneficiaries may be  entitled to income distributions,                                                                    
     and others may be  entitled to principal distributions.                                                                    
     Senate  Bill 87  updates  the existing  Statute to  the                                                                    
     most  recent (1997)  version of  the Uniform  Principal                                                                    
     and Income Act.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     The drafters  of the 1997  Uniform Act  have recognized                                                                    
     that there  is a conflict between  income and principal                                                                    
     beneficiaries, and  this conflict creates  pressures on                                                                    
     the  fiduciary.    The income  beneficiaries  want  the                                                                    
     fiduciary to  invest so as  to maximize  annual income.                                                                    
     The  principal  beneficiaries  want  the  fiduciary  to                                                                    
     invest for  long term  equity growth.   As a  result, a                                                                    
     trustee   attempting   to    satisfy   both   sets   of                                                                    
     beneficiaries will  have to compromise with  respect to                                                                    
     the  choice of  investments.   Consequently, the  total                                                                    
     return of the  trust will suffer.   Two techniques have                                                                    
     been adopted to  avoid the need for  such a compromise.                                                                    
     These   techniques   allow   the  trustee   to   choose                                                                    
     investment  approaches which  will  maximize the  total                                                                    
     investment return of the trust.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     The first technique is provided  by Article 1 of Senate                                                                    
     Bill  87, which  gives  the  trustee the  discretionary                                                                    
     power  to adjust.   This  power allows  the trustee  to                                                                    
     reallocate receipts  from income to principal,  or vice                                                                    
     versa, when the trustee determines  that it is fair and                                                                    
     reasonable to do so.   The second technique is provided                                                                    
     by  Article 2  which allows  the trustee  to convert  a                                                                    
     trust to  a unitrust.   This is a trust  which provides                                                                    
     that  a certain  percentage of  its assets--often  4%--                                                                    
     will   be  distributed   each   year   to  the   income                                                                    
     beneficiary.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Both of the above techniques  will allow the trustee to                                                                    
     choose  investment approaches  which will  maximize the                                                                    
     total   return.     As  a   result,  both   the  income                                                                    
     beneficiary and the  principal beneficiary will receive                                                                    
     greater distributions.   Further, the trustee  will not                                                                    
     be   struggling  with   the   conflict  in   investment                                                                    
     approaches.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     As of January 2003, thirty  state have adopted the 1997                                                                    
     Uniform  Principal and  Income Act.   Of  these, twelve                                                                    
     states have  included the unitrust provisions.   Senate                                                                    
     Bill   87   follows    the   legislation   enacted   by                                                                    
     Pennsylvania,  which includes  both techniques  thereby                                                                    
     enabling the  trustee to maximize  total returns.   The                                                                    
     State  of  Washington  enacted this  version  in  2002.                                                                    
     Georgia is presently considering it this year.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. HOVE, in conclusion, urged passage of SB 87.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0730                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS moved  to  adopt  the proposed  committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  SB  87,  Version  23-LS0366\U,  Bannister,                                                               
5/2/03, as the  work draft.  There being no  objection, Version U                                                               
was before the committee.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  asked whether  there  are  any other  aspects  of                                                               
Version U that differ from the Uniform Principal and Income Act.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. HOVE mentioned  that Version U contains  language specific to                                                               
"our mental health trust fund."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0854                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DAVID G.  SHAFTEL, Attorney, noted  that he and Stephen  E. Greer                                                               
are members  of a group  of trust  and estate attorneys  who have                                                               
worked  with  legislative  staff  on  SB  87.    In  addition  to                                                               
reiterating  the points  provided  in the  sponsor statement,  he                                                               
noted that Alaska's  current laws on this issue are  40 years out                                                               
of date,  and that the changes  provided in SB 87  are in keeping                                                               
with modern-day business practices,  investment concepts, and tax                                                               
codes.  He  opined that the version of the  Uniform Principal and                                                               
Income  Act   which  is   before  the   committee  is   the  most                                                               
advantageous version.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHAFTEL, in  response to  Chair McGuire's  question, relayed                                                               
that in  addition to the  unitrust provisions, which  aren't part                                                               
of the 1997 Uniform Principal  and Income Act, Version U contains                                                               
a  provision  - page  13,  lines  5-9  -  dealing with  a  recent                                                               
Internal Revenue  Service (IRS) regulation change  that denies an                                                               
income  tax deduction  for interest  paid on  pecuniary bequests.                                                               
He  explained:   "What  we have  done is,  we  have repealed  our                                                               
interest statute,  and instead we  changed this [paragraph  2] so                                                               
that pecuniary  bequests receive a  pro rata share of  the income                                                               
earned during the administration of an estate or a trust."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHAFTEL, regarding  other changes  to the  Uniform Principal                                                               
and Income Act, said:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     We also have  made it clear that this  Act [applies] to                                                                    
     revocable trusts  as well as  to estates.  That  is the                                                                    
     intention  of the  drafters of  the [Uniform  Principal                                                                    
     and Income  Act] but several attorneys  who've reviewed                                                                    
     ...  [it] have  stated that  they thought  it would  be                                                                    
     advantageous  to underscore  that,  so  there has  been                                                                    
     language added  which accomplishes that.   We also have                                                                    
     worked with  the representatives of the  [Alaska Mental                                                                    
     Health Trust Authority] to put  in language making this                                                                    
     uniform Act  inapplicable to the [Alaska  Mental Health                                                                    
     Trust  Authority]; they  want to  handle principal  and                                                                    
     income allocations ...  according to future regulations                                                                    
     that will [be] adopted under that Act.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL,  in conclusion, said  that all members of  the group                                                               
that  worked  with  legislative  staff on  this  bill  feel  very                                                               
strongly that  Version U is  an excellent version of  the Uniform                                                               
Principal and  Income Act, and  recommend that it be  approved so                                                               
that "Alaskan  residents can  have the  benefits of  these modern                                                               
concepts."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1149                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA asked,  "If somebody  has a  trust agreement                                                               
that ...  specifically defines who  gets the principal,  who gets                                                               
the income, and the agreement  specifically defines principal and                                                               
income, would  the change  in the definition  in this  Act change                                                               
that existing agreement?"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL replied  that that is an excellent  question and [his                                                               
group] hadn't  addressed it.   This Uniform Principal  and Income                                                               
Act, like  all previous Uniform  Principal and Income  Acts, only                                                               
provides  default  rules.   Hence,  if  the  creator of  a  trust                                                               
decides  that he/she  wants different  rules  to apply  regarding                                                               
principal and  income application, the  rules in this Act  can be                                                               
overridden by so saying in the  trust instrument.  There are many                                                               
types of allocations  of principal and income, and  to the extent                                                               
that the creator  of a trust does not provide  specific rules for                                                               
specific types of  allocations, the default rules  provided by SB
87 will  apply if  the need for  those allocations  arises during                                                               
the administration of the trust or estate.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA said  he didn't  want  passage of  SB 87  to                                                               
disrupt any  existing agreements.   He asked whether SB  87 would                                                               
apply retroactively to  a trust in which  allocation of principal                                                               
and  income   has  not  been  defined,   thereby  disrupting  the                                                               
expectations of an existing trust's beneficiaries.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL said  that Senate Bill 87 will  provide assistance to                                                               
the  administrator of  an instrument  that does  not address  the                                                               
particular  situations  that  arise when  [income  and  principal                                                               
allocation] is not covered in  that instrument.  Specifically, SB
87 will  apply to the  administration of trusts that  are already                                                               
in existence  and [to] estates in  the future that [rise]  out of                                                               
wills  that are  already in  existence.   But if  the person  who                                                               
created  that will  or  trust did  not  specifically address  the                                                               
particular principal  and income allocation in  question, then SB
87  will provide  the  answer, if  needed, in  the  future.   But                                                               
again, if  a trust or will  already provides for a  specific type                                                               
of  income  and  principal   allocation,  those  provisions  will                                                               
override the defaults in SB 87.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHAFTEL  added  that  the  rules  outlined  in  the  Uniform                                                               
Principal  and  Income  Act  were  arrived  at  by  the  National                                                               
Conference of  Commissioners on Uniform State  Laws (NCCUSL); the                                                               
NCCUSL  has   approved  these  rules  and   recommends  them  for                                                               
enactment  in all  states.   He mentioned  that approximately  35                                                               
states have either  adopted these rules or  are considering their                                                               
adoption.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1407                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied:                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     I  still  want  to  be  very  careful  that  we're  not                                                                    
     changing the amount of money  that people are receiving                                                                    
     in  income   and  principal   distributions  ....     I                                                                    
     understand  what you  said,  which  is that  agreements                                                                    
     will  provide  the   allocation  between  interest  and                                                                    
     income that  somebody is entitled to  as a beneficiary.                                                                    
     But in paragraph one of  the sponsor statement, it says                                                                    
     here  that we  are also  redefining the  terms "income"                                                                    
     and  "principal" so  that if  somebody  is entitled  to                                                                    
     income distributions, we're  specifically defining what                                                                    
     an income distribution is, and  if somebody is entitled                                                                    
     to   principal    distributions,   we're   specifically                                                                    
     defining what a principal distribution is.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     And  what  I'm  wondering  is, if  there  are  existing                                                                    
     agreements  out  there  where  somebody  is  an  income                                                                    
     beneficiary  or   a  principal  beneficiary   and  they                                                                    
     haven't defined those terms  specifically, and if we're                                                                    
     now redefining  those terms a  little bit, then  are we                                                                    
     going  to  start  increasing   or  actually,  for  some                                                                    
     people,   decreasing  the   amount  of   money  they're                                                                    
     receiving under a trust?  That's my big concern.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL said that while he understands the theory of the                                                                    
concern, he doesn't think it should be a realistic concern.  He                                                                 
elaborated:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     I think  that there are really  several categories that                                                                    
     we have  to deal with.   There are a number  of general                                                                    
     categories  dealing with  certain types  of assets  and                                                                    
     the allocation of the proceeds  of those assets between                                                                    
     income   and  principal.     Then   there  is   another                                                                    
     classification which  is what  we call a  unitrust. ...                                                                    
     And   that  is   perhaps  an   area  where,   at  least                                                                    
     theoretically, Representative Gara's  concerns would be                                                                    
     more justified  in that what  happens there is,  if you                                                                    
     convert to  a unitrust, what  the Act provides  is that                                                                    
     instead of receiving  the net income from  a trust, the                                                                    
     beneficiary  will receive  4 percent  of the  assets of                                                                    
     the trust.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1539                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL continued:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     But before there  can be a conversion,  the trustee has                                                                    
     to notify  all the beneficiaries.   And if  they object                                                                    
     and  feel  that  it  would   be  unfair,  then  they're                                                                    
     entitled to  have the matter  brought before  the court                                                                    
     and reviewed by the court  as an abuse of discretion on                                                                    
     the  part of  the  [trustee].   But  this (indisc.)  of                                                                    
     converting to  a unitrust (indisc.) the  concept of the                                                                    
     power  to adjust  really are  designed,  not to  reduce                                                                    
     returns  for income  and  principal beneficiaries,  but                                                                    
     rather to  maximize the returns  to both.  And  this is                                                                    
     allowing the  trustee to invest  for a total  return on                                                                    
     all the assets, and then  dividing up that total return                                                                    
     between the  income and the principal  beneficiaries in                                                                    
     a fair and reasonable manner.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     So, I really think  the answer, Representative Gara, to                                                                    
     your question  is:  that  is a  change in the  law that                                                                    
     hasn't existed before.   It (indisc.) carefully thought                                                                    
     out, and has  a number of safeguards  in the [proposed]                                                                    
     statute by  way of giving notice  to the beneficiaries,                                                                    
     allowing  them to  object,  and  allowing for  judicial                                                                    
     review.   In most situations, the  income and principal                                                                    
     beneficiaries are  going to be  very happy to  see that                                                                    
     kind  of approach  taken by  the trustee,  because it's                                                                    
     going to  be a better  return for both of  them, rather                                                                    
     than a  mediocre compromise  approach, which  a trustee                                                                    
     is [now] forced  to take and which  results in mediocre                                                                    
     returns for both income and principal beneficiaries.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1629                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL went on to say:                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Now, the other aspect  of your question, Representative                                                                    
     Gara,  would  be  ...,  and this  goes  to  that  other                                                                    
     category that we talked about,  and that is, is there a                                                                    
     particular kind  of asset that  a particular  trust has                                                                    
     that would  result in a different  allocation of income                                                                    
     and principal  under the '97  Act than under  the ['62]                                                                    
     Act,  and  would this  disrupt  the  expectations of  a                                                                    
     person who  created a  trust and  who was  relying upon                                                                    
     the '62 Act.  And I  guess that's conceivable.  But ...                                                                    
     there are a couple of things to consider there.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     [In  the]  first place,  the  person  who created  that                                                                    
     trust  evidentially didn't  feel strongly  enough about                                                                    
     it to put  in a particular allocation  and override the                                                                    
     '62 Act or  confirm the '62 Act.  And,  if they did not                                                                    
     do that, then what they're  doing is - [the] people who                                                                    
     draft these instruments  ... - [they] are  saying:  "We                                                                    
     are comfortable in adopting what  state law is and will                                                                    
     be,  as  considered  by   the  National  Conference  of                                                                    
     Commissioners on  Uniform State  Laws, who  draft these                                                                    
     Uniform Principal and  Income Acts.  And if  the law is                                                                    
     changed with  respect to [an] allocation  which we have                                                                    
     not chosen  to specifically override or  reaffirm, then                                                                    
     we   are  comfortable   with  what   the  [NCCUSL   is]                                                                    
     choosing."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     And I  really think  that is the  best way  to approach                                                                    
     this problem.  And it  would be unfair to, for example,                                                                    
     limit  application  of  this  Act  to  only  trusts  or                                                                    
     estates  drafted under  documents  executed after  this                                                                    
     date, because  all of those  settlors and all  of those                                                                    
     individuals who directed that their  wills or trusts be                                                                    
     drafted  would not  have the  benefit  of these  modern                                                                    
     updates  that the  [NCCUSL has]  included  in this  '97                                                                    
     version of the Act.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  indicated that it  is important to have  this kind                                                               
of debate whenever updates to existing trusts are considered.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1811                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
PHIL  YOUNKER,   SR.,  Chair,   Executive  Committee,   Board  of                                                               
Trustees,  Alaska Mental  Health Trust  Authority ("The  Trust"),                                                               
asked  whether  the changes  suggested  by  The Trust  have  been                                                               
considered yet.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. HOVE indicated that the  changes recommended via an April 21,                                                               
2003, letter  from The Trust's  executive director,  Jeff Jessee,                                                               
have been incorporated into Version U of SB 87.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  YOUNKER  relayed   that  those  changes  will   make  a  big                                                               
difference  in how  The  Trust  is able  to  do  business in  the                                                               
future.   He thanked the  committee for the opportunity  to speak                                                               
and the sponsor for bringing  this issue forward and working with                                                               
The Trust on its concerns.  He  said that as an individual, he is                                                               
very pleased to see SB 87  because it is difficult to arrange, in                                                               
the  present time,  for  the future  allocation  of interest  and                                                               
principal of many of the assets  that go into his personal trust.                                                               
He concluded by encouraging passage of Version U.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1939                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
STEPHEN E.  GREER, Attorney, said  simply that he  strongly urges                                                               
passage of SB 87,  that it has been long overdue,  and that he is                                                               
a bit embarrassed that Alaska's  current principal and income Act                                                               
is over 40 years old.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE, after  ascertaining that  no one  else wished  to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony on SB 87.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 4:00 p.m. to 4:01 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2004                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved  to report the proposed  (CS) for SB
87,  Version 23-LS0366\U,  Bannister,  5/2/03,  out of  committee                                                               
with individual recommendations and  the accompanying zero fiscal                                                               
note.   There  being no  objection, HCS  SB 87(JUD)  was reported                                                               
from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CONFIRMATION HEARING                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Commission on Judicial Conduct                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2029                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  announced that the  committee would  next consider                                                               
the  appointment  of  Richard  L. Burton  to  the  Commission  on                                                               
Judicial  Conduct.   She  noted that  members  have Mr.  Burton's                                                               
resume in their packets.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2038                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD  L. BURTON,  Appointee, Commission  on Judicial  Conduct,                                                               
remarked  simply that  he  has  spent his  "entire"  life in  the                                                               
criminal justice  field, and that  he thinks he has  something to                                                               
offer that would be of service to the state.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   opined  that   Mr.  Burton   is  well                                                               
qualified.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE agreed.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 2087                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a  motion to advance from committee                                                               
the  nomination  of  Richard  L.  Burton  to  the  Commission  on                                                               
Judicial  Conduct.   There being  no objection,  the confirmation                                                               
was advanced from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HB 245 - SUITS & CLAIMS: MILITARY/FIRE/DEFENSE                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2100                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  announced that the  final order of  business would                                                               
be HOUSE  BILL NO.  245, "An  Act relating  to certain  suits and                                                               
claims by members  of the military services or  regarding acts or                                                               
omissions  of  the  organized   militia;  relating  to  liability                                                               
arising  out  of  certain  search   and  rescue,  civil  defense,                                                               
homeland   security,  and   fire   management  and   firefighting                                                               
activities; and  providing for an  effective date."   [Before the                                                               
committee was CSHB 245(MLV).]                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE,  after ascertaining that the  representatives from                                                               
the Department of Law and  the Department of Military & Veterans'                                                               
Affairs wished to comment on  proposed amendments and that no one                                                               
else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 245.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2212                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGG made  a motion  to adopt  Amendment 1,  which                                                               
read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4  line 15                                                                                                            
          delete "clear + convincing"                                                                                           
          add "preponderance of the"                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2220                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG, in  support of Amendment 1,  pointed out that                                                               
existing statute speaks to  "wilful misconduct, gross negligence,                                                               
or  bad faith",  but in  Section 7,  proposed AS  26.20.140(b) is                                                               
changing that  to "malice or  reckless indifference".   He opined                                                               
that doing  this already appropriately  raises the  standard and,                                                               
therefore, it  is excessive to  additionally make it so  that the                                                               
plaintiff must  show clear and  convincing evidence.   He offered                                                               
that  it is  only proper  to  leave the  standard of  proof as  a                                                               
preponderance of the evidence.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 2296                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Assistant  Attorney General, Special Litigation                                                               
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),  Department of Law (DOL), in                                                               
response, said that the court  has defined the difference between                                                               
"a  preponderance  of the  evidence"  and  "clear and  convincing                                                               
evidence"  as follows.    A preponderance  of  the evidence  must                                                               
induce a  belief in  the minds  of the  jurors that  the asserted                                                               
facts are  probably true, whereas  if clear and  convincing proof                                                               
is required,  there must be  induced a  belief that the  truth of                                                               
the asserted facts is highly  probable.  The reason for proposing                                                               
the language of clear and  convincing evidence, she explained, is                                                               
because being able  to move successfully for  summary judgment in                                                               
a civil lawsuit is increasingly difficult in Alaska.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  VOIGTLANDER  additionally  explained that  summary  judgment                                                               
allows  civil  cases  to  be resolved  without  jury  trials  and                                                               
attendant  costs.    However,  under  Alaska's  summary  judgment                                                               
standard, the court  may consider summary judgment  only if there                                                               
are no  genuine issues of  material fact; furthermore, even  if a                                                               
fact is undisputed but there  could be different inferences drawn                                                               
from the  undisputed facts, the case  has to go to  a jury trial.                                                               
Therefore,  many  times,  particularly with  regard  to  immunity                                                               
cases  where  it is  not  an  absolute immunity,  the  individual                                                               
defendants are forced to go all the way through trial.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 03-50, SIDE B                                                                                                            
Number 2380                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOIGTLANDER  offered the  following statistics  to illustrate                                                               
the costs incurred by the state in  its own defense.  In the case                                                               
pertaining to  the "Miller's Reach"  fire, defense costs  to date                                                               
are $2.5  million.  In the  [Kiokun] case, defense costs  to date                                                             
are  $250,000.   In the  case which  has in  part engendered  the                                                               
intramilitary tort  immunity provisions of HB  245, defense costs                                                               
to date are  $1 million.  She offered that  immunity is a concept                                                               
that is  used to  protect two things:   immunity  from liability,                                                               
and immunity  from suit.  So,  although any lawsuit can  be filed                                                               
as  long as  the filing  fee  is paid,  attorneys that  represent                                                               
immune  defendants  want  the  ability  to  move  quickly  for  a                                                               
judgment on the issue of immunity,  and the method by which to do                                                               
that is via summary judgment.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOIGTLANDER  posited that  by having  a clear  and convincing                                                               
evidence standard, it  is more likely that a trial  court will be                                                               
more  comfortable in  ruling  on a  summary  judgment, since  the                                                               
standard would  be whether or not  a jury would believe  that the                                                               
asserted facts are highly probable.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that he supported Amendment 1.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG  mentioned   that   courts  are   very                                                               
reluctant to  grant summary judgment,  particularly if  there's a                                                               
jury, which,  he added,  is more often  requested by  the defense                                                               
than the prosecution.   He noted that there is  a strong "policy"                                                               
in Alaska of  people helping each other, adding that  this is one                                                               
of the things that makes Alaska  an attractive place to live, and                                                               
that [proposed AS 26.20.140(a)]  provides the state immunity from                                                               
civilian defense  workers who  may be  seriously injured  or even                                                               
killed while  going out of  their way  to help other  Alaskans in                                                               
times  of  crises.    He   opined  that  erecting  a  "clear  and                                                               
convincing  evidence" barrier  hurts the  wrong group  of people.                                                               
People won't come  forward to help if they think  that if they're                                                               
injured they won't get recompense,  he predicted, adding "we want                                                               
to encourage people to help the  state and other Alaskans in time                                                               
of crises."   "I  think we  should have  just a  regular, typical                                                               
tort standard  for these folks;  they're a good group  of people,                                                               
and I don't want to erect  another barrier for them," he remarked                                                               
in conclusion.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 2209                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGG,  referring  to Ms.  Voigtlander's  comments,                                                               
said his  concern is  that the  first thing  that a  person would                                                               
have to  prove under proposed  AS 26.20.140(b), even if  the case                                                               
goes  to summary  judgment,  is that  the  individual working  on                                                               
behalf  of   the  government  acted   with  malice   or  reckless                                                               
indifference to the interests or safety  of others.  Malice is an                                                               
intentional-type tort  wherein scienter must be  proven, which is                                                               
difficult  in  and of  itself.    That's  the first  hurdle  that                                                               
someone has  to get past;  then it must  also be proven  by clear                                                               
and convincing  evidence.   He again opined  that that  having to                                                               
also do the latter creates too high a hurdle.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS,  turning to  Representative  Gruenberg's                                                               
comment, said  he disagreed; according  to his  interpretation of                                                               
[proposed AS 26.20.140(b)], it would  protect the individuals who                                                               
are lending assistance.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  noted,  however, that  those  are  the                                                               
people who are  likely to be injured because they  are more often                                                               
in  harm's way;  therefore,  although they  could be  defendants,                                                               
they could also end up being plaintiffs.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  offered  her  belief   that  there  is  too  much                                                               
frivolous litigation,  and that there  is tremendous cost  to the                                                               
state - and, thus,  Alaskans - because of it.   She said that she                                                               
agrees with  Ms. Voigtlander's comments, and  posited that having                                                               
a standard  of clear and  convincing evidence will  force someone                                                               
bringing a legitimate suit to show that real harm was done.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA argued,  however,  that  although he  agrees                                                               
that frivolous  lawsuits should be deterred,  the provision being                                                               
addressed by  Amendment 1  appears to  instead punish  those that                                                               
bring  valid lawsuits  against  the state  by  taking away  their                                                               
remedy.  "I  don't think it's right to take  those rights away to                                                               
protect against  a different  class of claims,"  he added.   With                                                               
regard to  Representative Samuel's comments,  Representative Gara                                                               
indicated  that  he agreed  that  neither  volunteer workers  nor                                                               
people who get paid should be  subject to claims against them for                                                               
merely doing  their job, even  if they do it  negligently, though                                                               
that is something  to guard against.  Current  law, however, says                                                               
that  employers are  to be  held responsible  for the  conduct of                                                               
employees who  do their job  negligently.  That is  why, largely,                                                               
there are no million-dollar  verdicts against individual firemen,                                                               
for  example, or  other individual  employees,  he surmised,  and                                                               
thus  volunteers  are  not,  largely, going  to  be  held  liable                                                               
either.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  pointed out,  however, that it  is the  state and,                                                               
ultimately,  Alaskan  citizens  who  wind  up  paying  for  these                                                               
lawsuits in  one way  or another.   She  said that  she disagrees                                                               
with the  characterization that  having a  standard of  clear and                                                               
convincing evidence  is punishing those that  bring valid claims;                                                               
instead, she  considers such  a standard to  be reasonable.   She                                                               
relayed  that she  is maintaining  her objection  to Amendment  1                                                               
[text provided previously].                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1869                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was  taken.  Representatives Gruenberg, Ogg, and                                                               
Gara  voted  in favor  of  Amendment  1.   Representatives  Holm,                                                               
Samuels, and  McGuire voted against  it.  Therefore,  Amendment 1                                                               
failed by a vote of 3-3.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said  to Ms. Voigtlander, "First  of all, one                                                               
of the  protections that  a defendant receives  is that  before a                                                               
plaintiff wins, they have to receive a majority jury verdict."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOIGTLANDER noted  that for a jury of twelve,  ten must agree                                                               
to the verdict; for a jury of six, four must agree.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  noted  that  there  has  been  considerable                                                               
testimony  during HB  245's  previous  hearings regarding  second                                                               
guessing decisions that are made  by the government during search                                                               
and   rescue   operations,    civil   defense   operations,   and                                                               
firefighting  activities.   However, he  pointed out,  juries are                                                               
specifically instructed  to not  second-guess.  He  asked whether                                                               
it  is  correct   to  say  that  in   cases  involving  emergency                                                               
situations,  juries are  specifically instructed  to look  at all                                                               
the circumstances in  order to determine whether  the state acted                                                               
reasonably.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  VOIGTLANDER said  that  although it  would  be difficult  to                                                               
address the  specific jury instructions  given in  any particular                                                               
case, because instructions are highly  variable depending on what                                                               
is advocated  by both sides  and agreed to  by the judge,  in the                                                               
case  involving the  Miller's  Reach fire,  the  jury was  simply                                                               
instructed  to  consider  whether  or not  the  defendant  -  the                                                               
Division  of  Forestry -  breached  the  standard  of care  of  a                                                               
reasonable person.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA posited,  though, that the jury  in that case                                                               
was  also   instructed,  in  deciding   whether  the   state  was                                                               
reasonable, to consider  "all of the circumstances."   That's how                                                               
juries are commonly instructed, he concluded.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1710                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  VOIGTLANDER, indicating  that there  are different  standard                                                               
jury   instructions,  said   that   she  did   not  know   which,                                                               
specifically,  was used  in that  case, or  whether it  contained                                                               
anything  specific to  emergency situations.   She  acknowledged,                                                               
though,  that in  terms of  "the usual  instruction, it  would be                                                               
taking all  the evidence  that's presented to  the jury  and then                                                               
for the jury  to make a decision based upon  the evidence that is                                                               
allowed in at trial."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  surmised, then,  that Ms.  Voigtlander would                                                               
not disagree  that a  jury is  ultimately instructed  to consider                                                               
all  the  circumstances  and  that  if  there  was  an  emergency                                                               
situation, that would  be one of the  relevant circumstances that                                                               
would be considered.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  VOIGTLANDER replied  that  she is  not comfortable  agreeing                                                               
with that summation.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  asked whether, in any  of the aforementioned                                                               
cases, the state was prevented  from having the jury consider the                                                               
fact that a case involved an emergency situation.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOIGTLANDER  said that although  there were some  issues that                                                               
were taken away from the jury  in the [Kiokun] case, she couldn't                                                             
say whether the  fact that it was an emergency  situation was one                                                               
of them,  or whether, in  any of the  other cases, that  fact was                                                               
kept from the jury.  She added:                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Beyond that,  ... all I  can say  is that as  a general                                                                    
     concept,   I   would   assume   that   generally,   the                                                                    
     instructions  are  for the  jury  to  consider all  the                                                                    
     evidence  that's before  it and  answer the  questions,                                                                    
     which they  are given  as special verdicts,  based upon                                                                    
     legal concepts.   And those  legal concepts  are highly                                                                    
     variable, depending on what's  advocated by both sides.                                                                    
     It's   very   difficult   to  generalize   about   jury                                                                    
     instructions in  specific cases because,  my experience                                                                    
     is, they are highly variable.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1604                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE noted  that at the request  of Representative Holm,                                                               
the  attorney  general's  office  has sent  a  request  that  the                                                               
committee limit its discussion of cases.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG  asked Representative Gara what  the relevance                                                               
of his line of questioning is.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated  that his goal is  to illustrate to                                                               
the  committee that  although the  administration, in  requesting                                                               
that the  laws be changed  to provide  immunity to the  state for                                                               
negligence  conduct   in  emergency  situations,  is   using  the                                                               
argument that  it doesn't  want juries  second-guessing decisions                                                               
made at  the time  those situations  are occurring,  it is  not a                                                               
fair argument because juries currently  aren't allowed to do that                                                               
anyway without  parameters.   Instead, there  is a  "pattern jury                                                               
instruction"   in  emergency   cases,   he   relayed,  and   this                                                               
instruction says  in part:  "In  an emergency, the person  is not                                                               
expected or  required to use the  same judgment and care  that is                                                               
required in calmer and more  deliberate moments."  Thus juries do                                                               
take  the circumstances  of an  emergency into  account; they  do                                                               
take the relevant circumstances into account.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA,  after some discussion on  the difficulty of                                                               
discussing  a bill  and/or  portions  of a  bill  that relate  to                                                               
specific cases  without also being  able to discuss  those cases,                                                               
turned attention  to Section 2  of HB  245, and surmised  that it                                                               
would exempt the  state from liability for  its negligent conduct                                                               
during a  search and rescue [situation].   In other words,  if HB
245  is adopted  with  Section 2  as written,  the  state can  no                                                               
longer  be held  liable for  failing to  reasonably respond  in a                                                               
search and  rescue [situation], or  even when it is  negligent in                                                               
responding  to  a search  and  rescue  request.   He  then  began                                                               
discussion  of  a  couple  of  the  facts  that  the  jury  found                                                               
persuasive in the  [Kiokun] case, for which  that verdict against                                                             
the  state is  a matter  of public  record.   Representative Gara                                                               
began:                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     In the  case involving the Denali  Highway failure, ...                                                                    
     three people,  for whatever reason  - and it  seems odd                                                                    
     to me ...  - ended up driving along  the Denali Highway                                                                    
     in the  middle of the winter  and they got stuck.   And                                                                    
     that's not  a big  surprise to  anybody; they  drove in                                                                    
     the middle of  the winter and they got stuck.   On that                                                                    
     day that  they got stuck,  a snow machiner came  by and                                                                    
     they saw the word "HELP"  written in the snow, and they                                                                    
     didn't see anybody in the car.   And within a matter of                                                                    
     two hours, and  this was undisputed, they  went back to                                                                    
     the trooper station  and said, "I just  saw this 'HELP'                                                                    
     sign located  next to a  vacant car, there  are subzero                                                                    
     temperatures, and  I didn't see  the people in  the car                                                                    
     anymore."  This was undisputed.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1342                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA continued:                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     And  it took  three days  for  the troopers  to send  a                                                                    
     helicopter  to the  Denali Highway  to  look for  these                                                                    
     folks.   And ultimately,  when the  helicopter arrived,                                                                    
     within  a  couple  of hours  they  found  three  frozen                                                                    
     bodies.  The  jury found that the  state didn't respond                                                                    
     in time.   It was  undisputed that two of  the troopers                                                                    
     involved were reprimanded.  It  was undisputed that the                                                                    
     trooper chief  appropriately said, "We could  have done                                                                    
     a much  better job."   The jury  found that that  was a                                                                    
     negligent  response and  they  held  the state  liable.                                                                    
     There  was   other  evidence,  that  the   jury  didn't                                                                    
     necessarily believe, that supported the other side.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     But  these  are  the  kinds of  cases  we're  going  to                                                                    
     prevent from being brought in  the future.  And I would                                                                    
     suggest  that there  was a  beneficial  result of  that                                                                    
     case. ...  The beneficial  result of  that case  is, it                                                                    
     sent a  message within the  troopers that, at  least in                                                                    
     this case,  they could have done  a better job.   And I                                                                    
     suspect  [that] within  the  troopers  maybe there  are                                                                    
     better, stronger  precautions to  prevent this  kind of                                                                    
     thing from happening  again in the future.   That's not                                                                    
     to say that there was a  great reason for the family to                                                                    
     drive along the  Denali Highway in the  first place ...                                                                    
     in the middle of the winter.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     But I'm very uncomfortable  telling the state that it's                                                                    
     not  liable for  this kind  of conduct  in the  future,                                                                    
     because I  think it sends  a message to the  state that                                                                    
     if it's not going to  be held responsible, and not held                                                                    
     accountable  for conduct  like  this, then  it will  be                                                                    
     okay  for the  state  to engage  in  conduct like  this                                                                    
     again in the future.  So,  I don't have an amendment, I                                                                    
     just ...  don't think I  can support  the bill.   But I                                                                    
     just needed  to get  this discussion  out on  the table                                                                    
     because this  is the  context; this  is the  reality of                                                                    
     the kinds  of case  we're going  to prevent  from being                                                                    
     filed in  the future, and  I think there  are positives                                                                    
     and negatives  of preventing people from  filing claims                                                                    
     like this.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1212                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that  she appreciated Representative Gara's                                                               
point and his putting it on the record.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS  said  he disagrees  that  stopping  such                                                               
cases  is a  bad  thing.   He opined  that  people should  accept                                                               
personal responsibility  for their actions  and not put  the onus                                                               
on [the state] to come and rescue them.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  suggested,  however,  that  such  decisions                                                               
should  not be  made  in a  vacuum,  and although  Representative                                                               
Samuels   is   correct  in   that   there   should  be   personal                                                               
responsibility and  people should  be held accountable  for their                                                               
own  failures, the  law  is not  that ignorant.    The truth,  he                                                               
surmised, is that  if one causes his/her own harm  - for example,                                                               
driving along  the Denali  Highway in the  middle of  winter when                                                               
that  should  probably  not  be  done -  the  jury  is  asked  to                                                               
apportion  negligence.    The  jury   is  asked,  in  making  its                                                               
determination:  Did these people  who drove along some particular                                                               
highway  in the  middle of  the winter,  were they  negligent for                                                               
doing  that?   Did they  lead to  their own  death?   And if  the                                                               
actions  of those  people also  contributed to  their death,  the                                                               
jury is  then asked  to attribute a  percentage of  negligence to                                                               
the  people who  got themselves  in trouble  and a  percentage of                                                               
negligence to the people who failed to help them.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA reiterated that the  jury is asked to look at                                                               
all  of  the  circumstances,  adding that  before  the  committee                                                               
changes the  law, it should  understand what the current  law is.                                                               
For example,  under current  law, if the  state doesn't  have the                                                               
staff to  conduct a search and  rescue operation, it is  not held                                                               
liable  for those  budgetary constraints;  a  jury can't  second-                                                               
guess  the state  when the  state has  budgetary constraints  and                                                               
doesn't have staff.  So, to  the extent that there were no search                                                               
and rescue  people available, the  state wouldn't be  held liable                                                               
for failing  to send people  out; to  the extent that  there were                                                               
search and rescue people available,  then the state might be held                                                               
responsible, he concluded.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS remarked that  had the [Kiokun] trial been                                                             
held  in Paxson  or Cantwell,  he would  probably have  "a little                                                               
less heartburn with the results."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1021                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  brought attention to what  ultimately became                                                               
known   as  Amendment   2,  which   read  [original   punctuation                                                               
provided]:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
                          Amendment 1                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
       On page 3, line 31 to line 1 of page 4: Delete "or                                                                     
     homeland security"                                                                                                       
     Page 4, lines 8,9: delete both "or homeland security"                                                                    
     occurrences.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                    Amendment 2 (conceptual)                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
      All other references to "homeland security" workers                                                                       
     which would be effected by the deletions in section 7,                                                                     
     should be removed from HB 245.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1014                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  made a motion  to adopt [the first  part of]                                                               
Amendment 2 [that portion labeled "Amendment 1"].                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0994                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  said  that  he wants  to  remove  "homeland                                                               
security"  from "this  same group  of folks  who are  being given                                                               
this high  level of evidence  [standard], to lessen  the evidence                                                               
[standard] to probable  cause."  He then read as  follows from [a                                                               
document that apparently summarized Sec.  802 of] the Uniting and                                                               
Strengthening America by Providing  Appropriate Tools Required to                                                               
Intercept and  Obstruct Terrorism (USA  PATRIOT ACT) Act  of 2001                                                               
("USA PATRIOT Act"):                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Section 802  of the Act, borrowing  from the definition                                                                    
     of international terrorism contained  in 18 U.S.C. 2331                                                                    
     creates  the  federal   crime  of  domestic  terrorism.                                                                    
     Among  other  things,  this section  states  that  acts                                                                    
     committed within the United  States "dangerous to human                                                                    
     life that are a violation  of the criminal laws" can be                                                                    
     considered acts  of domestic terrorism if  they "appear                                                                    
     to  be  intended  ...  to influence  the  policy  of  a                                                                    
     government   by  intimidation   or  coercion"   or  "to                                                                    
     intimidate or coerce a civilian population".                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM went on to say:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Now, ... because  people who come and help  us that are                                                                    
     [firefighters],  police,  military, search  and  rescue                                                                    
     folks  [perform]  services  that are  demanded  by  the                                                                    
     people,  we  have  one  set   of  circumstances.    But                                                                    
     homeland  security is  largely  a  service that's  been                                                                    
     thrust  upon the  people of  the United  States by  the                                                                    
     federal government.   And  I suspect  that ...  the two                                                                    
     are not  of the same  motivation.  If the  ambulance or                                                                    
     police or fire department  show up, you probably called                                                                    
     them.   In the  course of  their requested  duties they                                                                    
     should have  proposed protections  in this bill,  and I                                                                    
     agree with those.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     But if armed homeland  security workers stop and search                                                                    
     your  car, or  enter your  home without  a warrant,  or                                                                    
     prohibit you  from travel, you probably  didn't call or                                                                    
     request it.   And  so, if your  rights are  trampled or                                                                    
     you  are  injured  in that  process,  you  should  have                                                                    
     maximum   recourse.      And  so,   Madame   Chair,   I                                                                    
     respectfully  submit  that  the  probable  cause  is  a                                                                    
     lesser  ...  evidence  requirement that  should  be  in                                                                    
     place  so  that  people would  protect  their  personal                                                                    
     rights.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0820                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SAM   JOHNSON,  Assistant   Commissioner,   Office  of   Homeland                                                               
Security, Department  of Military & Veterans'  Affairs (DMVA), in                                                               
response to a  question by Chair McGuire, said that  the roles of                                                               
homeland security and emergency  services are almost identical in                                                               
the  response phase  of  an  event, be  it  an  earthquake or  an                                                               
anthrax  scare  - or  an  actual  event.    The things  that  are                                                               
different  are  the  mitigation pieces  that  happen  before  the                                                               
event.   In the case  of an  earthquake, tsunami, et  cetera, the                                                               
community  is prepared;  plans, including  evacuation plans,  are                                                               
written; and  in the case  of floods,  dykes and other  things of                                                               
that nature may be built.   In the case of homeland security, the                                                               
process  is much  the same,  although infrastructure  and similar                                                               
aspects are looked  at with the goal of  protecting and hardening                                                               
those that are most critical.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. JOHNSON offered the following:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     For example,  we would prioritize  those assets  in the                                                                    
     state that  were most critical,  then we would  write a                                                                    
     plan  to harden  those facilities  with added  security                                                                    
     measures such as lights, camera,  and fences.  And then                                                                    
     we  would  write a  plan  to  increase security.    For                                                                    
     example, the pipeline:  there  are a number of security                                                                    
     personnel on  the pipeline  in condition  "yellow," but                                                                    
     when we go to condition  "orange," if the circumstances                                                                    
     so  dictated, we  would use  either the  Alaska Defense                                                                    
     Force or  the National Guard to  provide those security                                                                    
     measures.    If  we  went   to  condition  "red"  on  a                                                                    
     particular asset such as the  pipeline, and we got into                                                                    
     a defensive  role, then  we would  most likely  use the                                                                    
     National Guard asset.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Day to  day, however,  ... homeland security  people do                                                                    
     not  carry guns.    We do  not  arrest, detain,  seize,                                                                    
     search,  nor do  investigations,  nor intelligence;  we                                                                    
     have   no    internal   intelligence    mechanisms   or                                                                    
     surveillance.     Yes,  we  do  interface   with  those                                                                    
     agencies that do have those  capabilities as their core                                                                    
     competencies:       The   FBI   [Federal    Bureau   of                                                                    
     Investigation], the CIA  [Central Intelligence Agency],                                                                    
     the  OSI   [Office  of  Special   Investigations],  the                                                                    
     attorney general, et cetera.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0795                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     But  we would  not be  those people,  in the  Office of                                                                    
     Homeland Security,  that would go listen  to a wiretap,                                                                    
     or would  surveil someone's  home, or  surveil anything                                                                    
     of any  nature.  And  we would  never be the  person at                                                                    
     your  door knocking  with the  intention of  taking you                                                                    
     into custody.   That is not  our role.  Our  role is to                                                                    
     identify potential  threats to minimize  the capability                                                                    
     of the  enemy to attack us  at critical infrastructure,                                                                    
     and  then  work with  those  first  responders -  fire,                                                                    
     rescue, medical,  state troopers,  et cetera -  to make                                                                    
     sure that we  have a coordinated effort  to protect the                                                                    
     citizens of Alaska.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR    McGUIRE    asked   whether    Transportation    Security                                                               
Administration  (TSA)   workers  would  be   considered  homeland                                                               
security workers under HB 245.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  JOHNSON said  that they  are not,  since they  work for  the                                                               
federal  government  rather than  the  state.   Additionally,  he                                                               
indicated that  TSA workers would  not be  considered contractors                                                               
as described in proposed AS 26.20.140(c)(3).                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  asked  whether  the term  "members  of  the                                                               
organized militia", as  used in Section 3, would be  "akin to the                                                               
Alaska Defense Force."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. JOHNSON said yes, adding,  "in those definitions [they] would                                                               
be army, air, naval militia, and state defense force."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  pointed out,  however, that contrary  to Mr.                                                               
Johnson's statement  that homeland security workers  do not carry                                                               
guns, the Alaska Defense Force is an armed body.  He remarked:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Because  it  is   an  armed  body  and   there  are  no                                                                    
     requirements for heavy degrees  of police academies and                                                                    
     those types  of things,  ... there is  a much  ... less                                                                    
     qualified ... group of folks  to act in the capacity of                                                                    
     protecting  the rights  of the  citizens of  Alaska, in                                                                    
     the zeal to do their job.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0542                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BRIGADIER GENERAL  CRAIG CHRISTENSEN, Assistant  Adjutant General                                                               
Army Director,  Alaska Army National Guard  (AK ARNG), Department                                                               
of Military & Veterans' Affairs  (DMVA), said that Representative                                                               
Holm is  correct in  that the  organized militia  (indisc.) state                                                               
defense force  does not  have the proficiency  and training  of a                                                               
law enforcement officer  of the state such as a  state trooper or                                                               
a  municipal  law  enforcement officer.    However,  in  previous                                                               
engagements, members  of the state  defense force and  members of                                                               
the  National  Guard  have  been   required  to  go  through  law                                                               
enforcement training and "rules of  engagement" prior to being on                                                               
the streets or engaged in those types of activities.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM indicated that  he is questioning whether, as                                                               
a general policy  for Alaska, homeland security  workers ought to                                                               
be  included on  the same  level  as other  state employees  with                                                               
regard to immunity from suit during the course of their duties.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked where the Coast Guard fits in.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. JOHNSON  relayed that the  U.S. Coast Guard would  fall under                                                               
the federal office  of homeland security because it  is a federal                                                               
agency.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  mentioned  that her  concern  with  the  homeland                                                               
security provisions of  HB 245 revolves around the  fact that the                                                               
definition of homeland security worker  still seems too broad and                                                               
nebulous.   She noted  that there  are a lot  of concerns  on the                                                               
part of Alaskans  with regard to the USA PATRIOT  Act and how far                                                               
things are going in the area  of homeland security.  She referred                                                               
to Section  8, which defines  who could be considered  a homeland                                                               
security  worker, and  indicated that  proposed AS  26.20.140(c),                                                               
especially paragraph (2), seems overbroad.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOIGTLANDER, in  an effort to allay  Chair McGuire's concern,                                                               
observed that Section  10 of HB 245 describes what  the duties of                                                               
a homeland security worker would  entail.  In addition, all those                                                               
listed in proposed AS 26.20140(c)  would be acting in an official                                                               
capacity or  at the direction  of the  state.  She  surmised that                                                               
homeland security  workers would simply  be doing as  Mr. Johnson                                                               
indicated,  that is,  assisting first  responders and  performing                                                               
identified  missions  with   regard  to  critical  infrastructure                                                               
issues.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 03-51, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0050                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE pointed out, however,  that the language in Section                                                               
10  also   refers  to  detection,  prevention,   preemption,  and                                                               
deterrence.   She asked, therefore,  whether an  individual hired                                                               
to  enforce  the USA  PATRIOT  Act  in  Alaska's libraries  -  to                                                               
monitor  the Internet  activities of  Alaskan citizens  and which                                                               
books they  check out -  would be  included in the  definition of                                                               
homeland  security worker.   If  such an  individual committed  a                                                               
tort  against someone,  is that  individual  engaged in  homeland                                                               
security and thus immunized by HB 245?                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOIGTLANDER  replied that according  to her  understanding of                                                               
the  USA  PATRIOT  Act,  "its authorization  is  to  the  federal                                                               
government."  So  if the federal government were  to hire someone                                                               
to  work at  its  request,  he/she would  be  a federal  employee                                                               
rather than  a state employee.   House Bill 245, in  contrast, is                                                               
"looking  at  state and  local  types  of entities,  rather  than                                                               
federal entities."   She added  that although HB 245  would limit                                                               
some types of tort lawsuits, it  would not and could not limit an                                                               
individual's right to file a  civil-rights action against whoever                                                               
has abridged his/her federally guaranteed constitutional rights.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA pointed  out,  though,  that a  civil-rights                                                               
action is  quite a difficult  action to  prove; one has  to prove                                                               
more than just negligence.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  said that  he  is  becoming more  and  more                                                               
convinced that  he would  like to see  all reference  to homeland                                                               
security  removed.   He opined  that the  definition of  homeland                                                               
security is  too vague, and  mentioned that  he did not  want the                                                               
citizens of the  state to be subject to the  same type of onerous                                                               
restrictions  as are  currently placed  on people  who travel  by                                                               
air.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0297                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE removed  her  objection  to Representative  Holm's                                                               
motion to adopt the first portion of Amendment 2.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG  requested   that  both   portions  be                                                               
combined to form Amendment 2.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he had no objections to doing so.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0360                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  made a motion  to adopt Amendment 2  [in its                                                               
entirety; text  provided previously].  There  being no objection,                                                               
Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA,  on  the  issue  of  HB  245,  said  he  is                                                               
wondering if the problem the bill  is purported to be in response                                                               
to  really exists.    He  asked whether  there  have really  been                                                               
enough  cases to  justify such  legislation,  specifically as  it                                                               
pertains to military workers.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GAIL  relayed  that  there have  been  two  cases                                                               
pertaining  to  intramilitary tort,  and  that  in one  of  those                                                               
cases, the  state's cost to defend  was $1 million and  its share                                                               
of the  judgment was  $2.75 million.   She  surmised that  in the                                                               
past, the Feres  doctrine has prohibited such  cases, but because                                                             
of a recent Alaska Supreme  Court decision, which takes the state                                                               
in  the opposite  direction, the  administration is  anticipating                                                               
more such cases.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA,  on the issue of  whether the aforementioned                                                               
claims were frivolous, noted that  if the state is being required                                                               
to pay a  portion of a judgment, it is  because the claim against                                                               
the state was valid.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGG, remarking that the  vote on Amendment 1 was a                                                               
close vote,  requested that  the bill  be held  over so  that the                                                               
full committee could vote on Amendment 1.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE denied  the request,  and  suggested instead  that                                                               
Representative Ogg offer the amendment  on the House floor, where                                                               
it could be voted on by the entire body.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0681                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS   moved  to  report  CSHB   245(MLV),  as                                                               
amended,  out of  committee with  individual recommendations  and                                                               
the accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0692                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was  taken.  Representatives Ogg, Holm, Samuels,                                                               
and McGuire voted in favor  of reporting the bill from committee.                                                               
Representatives Gara and Gruenberg  voted against it.  Therefore,                                                               
CSHB 245(JUD)  was reported out  of the House  Judiciary Standing                                                               
Committee by a vote of 4-2.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0731                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects