Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120

04/07/2006 01:00 PM JUDICIARY


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ SB 54 PROTECTIVE ORDERS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT TELECONFERENCED
Moved Out of Committee
+ SB 298 TRUSTS: CHALLENGES; CLAIMS; LIABILITIES TELECONFERENCED
Moved HCS CSSB 298(JUD) Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 413 BURNING CAPABILITY OF CIGARETTES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= HB 347 MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE & NOTICE TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 347(JUD) Out of Committee
+= HB 276 BUSINESS LICENSE TOBACCO ENDORSEMENT TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 276(JUD) Out of Committee
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 7, 2006                                                                                          
                           1:19 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair                                                                                             
Representative Tom Anderson                                                                                                     
Representative Pete Kott                                                                                                        
Representative Peggy Wilson                                                                                                     
Representative Les Gara                                                                                                         
Representative Max Gruenberg                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative John Coghill                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 54(FIN)                                                                                                  
"An Act  amending protective order  statutes for  crimes involving                                                              
stalking  to include crimes  involving sexual  assault and  sexual                                                              
abuse, to  provide for  other relief  ordered by  a court,  to add                                                              
the  protective  orders  to a  centralized  registry,  to  prevent                                                              
denial solely  for a  lapse of time,  and to require  notification                                                              
of the  court of  known civil  or criminal  actions involving  the                                                              
petitioner  or respondent;  relating to  notifications to  victims                                                              
of sexual  assault and  to mandatory  arrest for crimes  involving                                                              
violation  of protective  orders  and violation  of conditions  of                                                              
release; and amending Rule 65, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSSB 54(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 298(JUD)                                                                                                 
"An  Act relating  to loans  from  trust property;  relating to  a                                                              
trustee's power  to appoint  the principal of  a trust  to another                                                              
trust;   relating   to   challenges  to,   claims   against,   and                                                              
liabilities of  trustees, beneficiaries,  and creditors  of trusts                                                              
and  of trusts  and  estates;  relating to  individual  retirement                                                              
accounts  and plans;  relating to  certain trusts  in divorce  and                                                              
dissolutions  of   marriage  situations;  and  providing   for  an                                                              
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 298(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 413                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to  the burning  capability of cigarettes  being                                                              
sold, offered for  sale, or possessed for sale;  and providing for                                                              
an effective date."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 347                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to  mandatory motor  vehicle insurance,  license                                                              
suspensions, and  notices relating to motor vehicles  and driver's                                                              
licenses."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 347 (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 276                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to business  license  endorsements for  tobacco                                                              
products,  to   holders  of  business  license   endorsements  for                                                              
tobacco products,  and to the employees  and agents of  holders of                                                              
business license endorsements for tobacco products."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 276 (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB  54                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: PROTECTIVE ORDERS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT                                                                               
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DYSON                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
01/14/05       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/14/05       (S)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
02/17/05       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
02/17/05       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/17/05       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/15/05       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
03/15/05       (S)       Moved CSSB 54(STA) Out of Committee                                                                    
03/15/05       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/16/05       (S)       STA RPT CS  1NR 4AM  NEW TITLE                                                                         
03/16/05       (S)       NR: THERRIAULT                                                                                         
03/16/05       (S)       AM: DAVIS, ELTON, WAGONER, HUGGINS                                                                     
03/16/05       (S)       FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD                                                                           
03/31/05       (S)       JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/31/05       (S)       Moved CSSB  54(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                   
03/31/05       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/31/05       (S)       JUD RPT CS FORTHCOMING  5DP                                                                            
03/31/05       (S)       DP: SEEKINS, FRENCH, GUESS, THERRIAULT,                                                                
                         HUGGINS                                                                                                
04/01/05       (S)       JUD CS RECEIVED  NEW TITLE                                                                             
05/07/05       (S)       FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                     
05/07/05       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
05/07/05       (S)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
01/19/06       (S)       FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
01/19/06       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/19/06       (S)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
01/24/06       (S)       FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
01/24/06       (S)       Moved CSSB  54(FIN) Out of Committee                                                                   
01/24/06       (S)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
01/25/06       (S)       FIN RPT CS  7DP  NEW TITLE                                                                             
01/25/06       (S)       DP: WILKEN, GREEN, HOFFMAN, OLSON,                                                                     
                         DYSON, STEDMAN, BUNDE                                                                                  
02/09/06       (S)       TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                     
02/09/06       (S)       VERSION: CSSB 54(FIN)                                                                                  
02/10/06       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/10/06       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
04/07/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 298                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: TRUSTS: CHALLENGES; CLAIMS; LIABILITIES                                                                            
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SEEKINS                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
02/14/06       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/14/06       (S)       L&C, JUD                                                                                               
02/23/06       (S)       L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                               
02/23/06       (S)       Moved SB 298 Out of Committee                                                                          
02/23/06       (S)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
02/27/06       (S)       L&C RPT  3DP                                                                                           
02/27/06       (S)       DP: BUNDE, SEEKINS, STEVENS B                                                                          
03/02/06       (S)       JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/02/06       (S)       Moved CSSB 298(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                   
03/02/06       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/03/06       (S)       JUD RPT CS 4DP 1NR  SAME TITLE                                                                         
03/03/06       (S)       DP:    SEEKINS,    FRENCH,    THERRIAULT,                                                              
                         HUGGINS                                                                                                
03/03/06       (S)       NR: GUESS                                                                                              
03/22/06       (S)       TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                     
03/22/06       (S)       VERSION: CSSB 298(JUD)                                                                                 
03/24/06       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/24/06       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
03/27/06       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
03/27/06       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
03/28/06       (H)       FIN REFERRAL REMOVED                                                                                   
03/28/06       (H)       L&C REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE JUD                                                                          
04/03/06       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
04/03/06       (H)       Moved    HCS   CSSB   298(L&C)   Out   of                                                              
                         Committee                                                                                              
04/03/06       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
04/05/06       (H)       L&C RPT HCS(L&C) 5DP 2NR                                                                               
04/05/06       (H)       DP: LYNN, KOTT, LEDOUX, ROKEBERG,                                                                      
                         ANDERSON;                                                                                              
04/05/06       (H)       NR: CRAWFORD, GUTTENBERG                                                                               
04/07/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 413                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: BURNING CAPABILITY OF CIGARETTES                                                                                   
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JOULE                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
02/01/06       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/01/06       (H)       STA, JUD, FIN                                                                                          
02/09/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/09/06       (H)       Moved CSHB 413(STA) Out of Committee                                                                   
02/09/06       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/13/06       (H)       STA RPT CS(STA) 6DP                                                                                    
02/13/06       (H)       DP: GARDNER, LYNN, ELKINS, RAMRAS,                                                                     
                        GRUENBERG, GATTO                                                                                        
03/31/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
03/31/06       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/31/06       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/07/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 347                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE & NOTICE                                                                                   
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GARA, LYNN                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
01/09/06       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/06                                                                                
01/09/06       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/09/06       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
01/31/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
01/31/06       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/31/06       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/14/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/14/06       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/14/06       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/16/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/16/06       (H)       Moved CSHB 347(STA) Out of Committee                                                                   
02/16/06       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/17/06       (H)       STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 3NR                                                                             
02/17/06       (H)       DP: GARDNER, GATTO, SEATON;                                                                            
02/17/06       (H)       NR: GRUENBERG, ELKINS, RAMRAS                                                                          
03/31/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
03/31/06       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/31/06       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/07/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 276                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: BUSINESS LICENSE TOBACCO ENDORSEMENT                                                                               
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
04/19/05       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
04/19/05       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
04/26/05       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
04/26/05       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
04/27/05       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
04/27/05       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/27/05       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/15/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
02/15/06       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
03/24/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
03/24/06       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/24/06       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/07/06       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRED DYSON                                                                                                              
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of SB 54.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHRISTINE McLEOD PATE, Mentoring Attorney                                                                                       
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)                                                                   
Sitka, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of SB 54.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BRIAN HOVE, Staff                                                                                                               
to Senator Ralph Seekins                                                                                                        
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                                             
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Spoke on behalf of the sponsor of SB 298,                                                                  
Senator Seekins.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
STEPHEN E. GREER, Attorney at Law                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of SB 298.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
DAVID G. SHAFTEL, Attorney at Law                                                                                               
Law Offices of David G. Shaftel, PC                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 298.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MITCHELL GANS, Professor                                                                                                        
Hofstra University School of Law                                                                                                
Hempstead, New York                                                                                                             
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified that SB 298 [Version  X, addresses                                                              
his concerns].                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
BETHANN B. CHAPMAN, Attorney at Law                                                                                             
Faulkner Banfield, PC                                                                                                           
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:     During   hearing  of  SB   298,  answered                                                              
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
JONATHAN BLATTMACHR, Attorney at Law                                                                                            
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP                                                                                            
New York, New York                                                                                                              
POSITION STATEMENT:   During  hearing of SB  298, opined  that the                                                              
legislation will continue  to cause most of his  clients to choose                                                              
Alaska [to establish a trust].                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD W. HOMPESCH, II, Attorney at Law                                                                                        
Hompesch & Evans, PC                                                                                                            
Fairbanks, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of SB 298.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
PATRICK LUBY, Advocacy Director                                                                                                 
AARP Alaska                                                                                                                     
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   During discussion of SB  298, encouraged the                                                              
committee  to continue  to improve  the bill  and forward  it from                                                              
committee;  during discussion  of  HB 276,  provided comments  and                                                              
recommended that the current enforcement system be left as is.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
DOUGLAS BLATTMACHR, President                                                                                                   
Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                         
Alaska Trust Company                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of SB 298.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD S. THWAITES, JR, Attorney at Law                                                                                        
Thwaites, JR. LLC;                                                                                                              
Chairman                                                                                                                        
Alaska Trust Company Board                                                                                                      
Alaska Trust Company                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of SB 298.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MIKAYLA SAITO, Intern                                                                                                           
to Representative Reggie Joule                                                                                                  
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided comments on behalf of the sponsor                                                                 
of HB 413, Representative Joule.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
DAVID HULL, Chief                                                                                                               
North Tongass Volunteer Fire Department (NTVFD)                                                                                 
Ketchikan, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion of HB 413, testified on                                                                  
behalf of the NTVFD and on behalf of Scott Davis, Chief of the                                                                  
South Tongass Volunteer Fire Department (STVFD).                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
STEVEN "RUSTY" BELANGER, Assistant State Fire Marshal                                                                           
Central Office                                                                                                                  
Division of Fire Prevention                                                                                                     
Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 413.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
JOHANNA BALES, Excise Audit Manager                                                                                             
Tax Division                                                                                                                    
Department of Revenue (DOR)                                                                                                     
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided a comment regarding recommended                                                                   
changes during the discussion of HB 413, Version F.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
DUANE BANNOCK, Director                                                                                                         
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)                                                                                                
Department of Administration (DOA)                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided comments during discussion of                                                                     
HB 347.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ROGER HAMES, President                                                                                                          
Hames Corporation                                                                                                               
Sitka, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion of HB 276, provided a                                                                    
comment.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL ELERDING, President                                                                                                     
Northern Sales Company of Alaska, Inc.                                                                                          
Ketchikan, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Urged passage of HB 276.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CYNTHIA DRINKWATER, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                  
Commercial/Fair Business Section                                                                                                
Civil Division (Anchorage)                                                                                                      
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:     Expressed  concerns  regarding   HB  276,                                                              
Version S.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL FORD                                                                                                                    
Alaska Native Health Board (ANHB)                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Suggested a change to HB 276, Version S.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MICHELLE TOOHEY, Director                                                                                                       
Public Relations & Advocacy                                                                                                     
American Lung Association of Alaska                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   Relayed that  the American  Lung Association                                                              
of Alaska does not support HB 276, Version S.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD MANDSAGER, M.D., Director                                                                                               
Central Office                                                                                                                  
Division of Public Health                                                                                                       
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:    During  discussion  of  HB  276,  provided                                                              
comments  and  urged  the  committee  to  retain  some  length  of                                                              
mandatory suspension for a first offense.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   LESIL  McGUIRE   called  the   House  Judiciary   Standing                                                            
Committee  meeting  to  order  at  1:19:17  PM.    Representatives                                                            
McGuire,  Gara, Wilson,  and  Kott  were present  at  the call  to                                                              
order.   Representatives  Anderson  and Gruenberg  arrived as  the                                                              
meeting was in progress.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SB 54 - PROTECTIVE ORDERS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:19:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  announced that  the first  order of business  would                                                              
be CS  FOR SENATE BILL  NO. 54(FIN),  "An Act amending  protective                                                              
order statutes  for crimes  involving stalking  to include  crimes                                                              
involving sexual  assault and sexual  abuse, to provide  for other                                                              
relief  ordered by  a court,  to add  the protective  orders to  a                                                              
centralized  registry, to  prevent denial  solely for  a lapse  of                                                              
time, and to require  notification of the court of  known civil or                                                              
criminal   actions  involving   the   petitioner  or   respondent;                                                              
relating  to notifications  to victims  of sexual  assault and  to                                                              
mandatory  arrest for  crimes  involving violation  of  protective                                                              
orders and violation  of conditions of release;  and amending Rule                                                              
65, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  noted that  he  doesn't have  any  questions                                                              
regarding SB 54.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:21:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRED  DYSON, Alaska State  Legislature, sponsor of  SB 54,                                                              
relayed  that  some judges  are  not  allowing rape  and  [sexual]                                                              
assault victims to  obtain a restraining order  because Alaska law                                                              
is not  specific enough.  Therefore,  SB 54 primarily  adds sexual                                                              
assault  to the  categories  of  stalking and  domestic  violence,                                                              
[which have  access to protective  orders].  The  legislation also                                                              
requires  the alleged  victim to  inform  the judge  if there  are                                                              
other  pending actions  between  the victim  and the  perpetrator.                                                              
Senator  Dyson  acknowledged  that some  restraining  orders  have                                                              
been  requested   based  on  spite  or  maneuver   during  divorce                                                              
hearings.   However,  he  opined  that the  aforementioned  almost                                                              
never occurs in sexual assault cases.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:23:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHRISTINE  McLEOD  PATE,  Mentoring Attorney,  Alaska  Network  on                                                              
Domestic Violence  & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), began  by noting her                                                              
support  of SB  54.    She informed  the  committee  that she  has                                                              
worked in  the field of domestic  violence and sexual  assault for                                                              
over 13  years.  She  then reminded the  committee that  the state                                                              
ranks  number one  for  sexual assault  and  the state's  forcible                                                              
rape rate  is 2.5 times the  national average.   This legislation,                                                              
she  explained,  would  create a  much-needed  remedy  for  sexual                                                              
assault  victims who  are not  intimate partners  with the  person                                                              
who  sexually  assaulted  them   by  allowing  them  to  obtain  a                                                              
protection order.   She noted that Standing Together  Against Rape                                                              
(STAR)  has repeatedly  brought forward  this request.   Ms.  Pate                                                              
concluded by urging the committee pass SB 54 out of committee.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  shared her view that  SB 54 is further  clean up of                                                              
statute with regard to protective orders.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  offered his understanding that  if someone is                                                              
arrested  or  sentenced  for  sexual   assault,  it's  a  standard                                                              
condition of  bail or sentencing that  there be no contact  by the                                                              
alleged perpetrator  with the victim.  Therefore,  he assumed that                                                              
there must  be some circumstance in  which there is no  arrest and                                                              
the bail and sentencing conditions don't apply.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  PATE  said that  is  correct,  adding  that there  is  under-                                                              
prosecution in this  area and thus some of the  cases don't result                                                              
in criminal  prosecutions.  Ms.  Pate then highlighted that  SB 54                                                              
provides  more  specific  remedies   than  a  criminal  no-contact                                                              
order,  and,  in  that sense,  is  probably  more  enforceable  if                                                              
there's a violation.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE,  upon determining  no one  else wished  to testify,                                                              
closed public testimony on SB 54.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:27:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOTT  moved  to   report  CSSB  54(FIN)   out  of                                                              
committee  with individual  recommendations  and the  accompanying                                                              
fiscal  notes.    There  being  no  objection,  CSSB  54(FIN)  was                                                              
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SB 298 - TRUSTS: CHALLENGES; CLAIMS; LIABILITIES                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:28:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                              
CS FOR SENATE  BILL NO. 298(JUD),  "An Act relating to  loans from                                                              
trust  property; relating  to  a trustee's  power  to appoint  the                                                              
principal  of a  trust to  another trust;  relating to  challenges                                                              
to, claims  against, and  liabilities of trustees,  beneficiaries,                                                              
and creditors  of trusts  and of trusts  and estates;  relating to                                                              
individual  retirement accounts  and  plans;  relating to  certain                                                              
trusts in  divorce and  dissolutions of  marriage situations;  and                                                              
providing for an  effective date."  [Before the  committee was HCS                                                              
CSSB 298(L&C).]                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:28:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BRIAN  HOVE, Staff  to  Senator  Ralph Seekins,  Senate  Judiciary                                                              
Standing Committee,  Alaska State Legislature, speaking  on behalf                                                              
of the  sponsor, Senator Seekins,  relayed that SB 298  is another                                                              
in a  sequence of  bills intended  to keep  Alaska competitive  in                                                              
the trust  industry.   This legislation,  he opined, allows  trust                                                              
business  and  assets  "to  flow this  way"  and  provides  "clean                                                              
industry"  to the legal,  accounting, and  banking businesses  [of                                                              
Alaska].                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:31:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
STEPHEN E.  GREER, Attorney at Law,  said he is supportive  of the                                                              
bill but would defer  to its three drafters:  David  Shaftel, Beth                                                              
Chapman,  and Jonathan  Blattmachr.   He relayed  that he  has not                                                              
heard objections  from any quarter, and  said, "Most of  this is a                                                              
cleanup matter."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:32:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DAVID  G.  SHAFTEL, Attorney  at  Law,  Law  Offices of  David  G.                                                              
Shaftel,  PC, relayed  that he  has been  a member  of a group  of                                                              
attorneys  and trust officers  who have  participated in  drafting                                                              
proposed legislation  [for Alaska] since 1997, and  explained that                                                              
SB 298  provides some  procedural changes,  some new provisions  -                                                              
all of  which he  characterized as  being "very  sound."   He said                                                              
the bill  would be  beneficial in  the planning and  administering                                                              
of trusts  and estates  for those  clients with Alaska  residency,                                                              
as   well  as   make  Alaska   a  more   competitive  market   for                                                              
nonresidents  desiring to  do trust  business in  this state.   He                                                              
highlighted that  Alaska is foremost of eight  states with similar                                                              
laws  and that  the legislature  -  via the  adoption of  specific                                                              
legislation  -  has   enabled  Alaska  to  remain   in  this  lead                                                              
position.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG offered  his belief  that if  one  has a                                                              
spendthrift trust,  it's not generally considered  property that's                                                              
going  to be  divisible  in a  divorce, but  noted  that the  last                                                              
sentence of Section 14 says:                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Unless  otherwise agreed  to in writing  by the  parties                                                                   
     to the  marriage, this  subsection does  not apply  to a                                                                   
     settlor's   interest  in  a   self-settled  trust   with                                                                   
     respect  to assets transferred  to the  trust after  the                                                                   
     settlor's marriage.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  opined  that "it  would  be  imminently                                                              
fair"  for the  court  to divide  the trust  assets  in a  divorce                                                              
situation;  he suggested,  therefore, that  a phrase  be added  to                                                              
the  end  of  Section  14 to  read,  "or  immediately  before  the                                                              
marriage in contemplation of marriage."                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE asked  what effect  [such a change]  would  have on                                                              
prenuptial agreements.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG suggested  that  a prenuptial  agreement                                                              
means "otherwise  agreed to  in writing."   He explained  that the                                                              
reason for  including the  [exception for  self-settled trusts  in                                                              
Section  14] is  so  that  a trust  is  not established  during  a                                                              
marriage for the  purpose of ensuring that the  trustee's property                                                              
is not divided upon  a divorce of that marriage.   He said that he                                                              
sees  no  difference  between  those   trusts  established  during                                                              
marriage  and   those  established   when  "in  contemplation   of                                                              
marriage."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:38:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL  informed the  committee that prior  to a  marriage, a                                                              
prospective  spouse can  transfer property  into a  "self-settled,                                                              
discretionary,  spend-thrift  trust" prior  to  marriage and  that                                                              
trust  would then  not  be subject  to  division  in a  subsequent                                                              
divorce.  He  explained that the aforementioned  sentence is being                                                              
added to  ensure that a  person could not,  after a  marriage, put                                                              
[a spouse's]  assets  into a  self-settled, discretionary,  spend-                                                              
thrift  trust so  as  to have  those  assets  protected against  a                                                              
property division  in a subsequent divorce.   He said he  does not                                                              
interpret  this additional  language as anything  to be  concerned                                                              
about,  and  suggested  that  should  a  person's  fiancé  not  be                                                              
agreeable to  a prenuptial agreement,  a possible remedy  would be                                                              
to not proceed with the marriage.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON surmised  that this  section prohibits  a                                                              
married  party from  transferring assets  into a  trust after  the                                                              
marriage occurred in order to protect his/her assets.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  disagreed,  and  pointed  out  that  AS                                                              
25.24.160(a)(4) currently says in part:                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          (a) In a judgment in an action for divorce or                                                                         
     action declaring  a marriage void  or at any  time after                                                                   
     judgment, the court may provide ...                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
          (4) for the division between the parties of their                                                                     
     property, including  retirement benefits,  whether joint                                                                   
     or separate,  acquired only  during marriage, in  a just                                                                   
     manner  and without regard  to which  of the parties  is                                                                   
     in fault;  however, the court,  in making the  division,                                                                   
     may   invade   the   property,    including   retirement                                                                   
     benefits,  of  either spouse  acquired  before  marriage                                                                   
     when the balancing  of the equities between  the parties                                                                   
     requires it; ...                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   specified  that  normally   one  can't                                                              
[invade  the  property]  unless there  are  special  circumstances                                                              
that require the  court to do so.  He then  informed the committee                                                              
that  property acquired  during  the  marriage by  inheritance  or                                                              
gift  is  considered   separate  property  as  opposed   to  joint                                                              
property.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG surmised  that Section  14 would  ensure                                                              
that in the event  of a divorce or dissolution,  the beneficiary's                                                              
interest is not  considered property subject to  division under AS                                                              
25.24.160,   and  therefore   the  court   couldn't  invade   [the                                                              
property]  even   under  special  circumstances  that   require  a                                                              
balancing of the equity.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:45:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHAFTEL  said  a  primary  concern  is that  if  there  is  a                                                              
divorce, trust  assets would be  divided between both  spouses and                                                              
their  children  rather than  remaining  protected  in the  trust.                                                              
The  statutory  laws  of  New York  and  California,  he  relayed,                                                              
expressly  provide that  assets in  trust cannot  be divided  in a                                                              
subsequent  divorce; however,  there have  been some recent  cases                                                              
in  Colorado and  other states  that have  moved in  a variety  of                                                              
different directions  and created some  concern in this  area, and                                                              
this  has led  the  informal group  of  which he  is  a member  to                                                              
propose the  language of Section  14 so  as to provide  clarity on                                                              
this matter.   This  is an extremely  important policy  provision,                                                              
he opined.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG indicated  that he  is concerned  that a                                                              
trust established  just prior  to a  marriage could be  improperly                                                              
used  by one  spouse to  keep what  would  normally be  considered                                                              
joint  assets from  being considered  as such  by the  court in  a                                                              
subsequent divorce proceeding.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE opined  that Representative  Gruenberg's  suggested                                                              
additional  language  won't  clarify   that  [issue]  because  the                                                              
language refers to  "trust assets set aside in  contemplation of a                                                              
marriage".   She pointed out  that there  could be a  situation in                                                              
which an  individual sets  up a  trust and  sets aside  assets for                                                              
possible  [future]  children,  marries,   and  then  places  those                                                              
assets  in the  trust.   Without  clarifying  it in  state law,  a                                                              
judge  could  decide to  invade  the  corpus  of that  trust  thus                                                              
defeating the purpose for which the trust was established.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG conceded that  the language  he proposed                                                              
is  too broad,  and explained  that  he is  attempting to  address                                                              
situations in  which an individual  establish a trust  immediately                                                              
before a  marriage, in  contemplation of  it, with the  individual                                                              
as the  beneficiary.   He offered his  understanding that  a self-                                                              
settled   trust   is   a   trust    that   one   establishes   for                                                              
himself/herself    and    specifies   himself/herself    as    the                                                              
beneficiary.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHAFTEL   concurred.    He  asked  Representative   Gruenberg                                                              
whether he could  specify the period of time he  would consider to                                                              
be "immediately before."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  suggested one month.  He  specified that                                                              
he  is referring  to  a time  period in  which  the individual  is                                                              
absolutely  getting married  and  is merely  attempting to  defeat                                                              
the spouse's interest under AS 25.24.160.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
[Chair   McGuire  turned   the   gavel  over   to   Representative                                                              
Anderson.]                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON   asked  whether  a  spouse   in  such  a                                                              
situation could  simply argue  that the  trust was established  in                                                              
advance just for  that purpose, and, if so, would  there really be                                                              
a need to change the statute.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.   SHAFTEL  said   it  doesn't   matter  when   the  trust   is                                                              
established,  rather  the  key   point  is  when  the  assets  get                                                              
transferred  to the  trust.   For example,  if substantial  assets                                                              
were  transferred to  a self-settled  trust five  years after  the                                                              
marriage,   those  assets   wouldn't  be   protected  from   being                                                              
considered  and  divided in  a  subsequent  divorce action.    The                                                              
aforementioned is why  [Section 14] was included.   With regard to                                                              
Representative  Gruenberg's  concern,  Mr.  Shaftel said  that  if                                                              
assets are  transferred prior to  a marriage, those  assets belong                                                              
to the individual  who is not yet married.  Unless  there has been                                                              
some representation  made to the  fiancé, an argument can  be made                                                              
that  a  transfer  prior  to the  marriage  should  be  completely                                                              
protected.   The committee  could decide  to maintain  that policy                                                              
and leave the provision as it is.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:58:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL suggested,  however, that if the committee  desired to                                                              
amend  the   legislation,  the   committee  could  simply   add  a                                                              
provision that  specifies that  if a transfer  is made to  a trust                                                              
within  the 30-day  period  prior  to marriage,  the  transferring                                                              
party would  need to notify the  other party that such  a transfer                                                              
is being  made.  The aforementioned  would allow the fiancé  to be                                                              
aware  of what  is happening;  then,  if it  was  of concern,  the                                                              
fiancé would have the choice of not entering into the marriage.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL,  in response to  a question, suggested  that language                                                              
such as, "unless  written notice of a transfer is  given within 30                                                              
days  prior  to marriage"  could  be  inserted.   In  response  to                                                              
another  question,   he  explained  that  any  assets   that  were                                                              
transferred  after the  marriage and  the growth  of those  assets                                                              
would  not be  protected  and  could be  divided  if  there was  a                                                              
subsequent divorce.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG characterized  Mr. Shaftel's  suggestion                                                              
as a  good amendment.   H remarked  that if the  funds put  in the                                                              
self-settled  trust were  acquired from  a relative  as a  gift or                                                              
bequest,  then  it  would be  considered  separate  property  that                                                              
could  only  be invaded  under  the  divorce  law if  the  special                                                              
equity provision  required it, though  any "marital  funds" [could                                                              
be invaded].                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL agreed.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  suggested  that Mr.  Shaftel's  concept                                                              
could be the genesis of an acceptable amendment.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL reiterated  that the concept would be  that if someone                                                              
transfers  assets into  a self-settled  trust 30  days prior  to a                                                              
marriage,  that  party  must  give   the  fiancé  notice  of  that                                                              
transfer   in  order  to   obtain  the   protection  provided   by                                                              
[Section 14].                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:05:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  [made  a motion]  to  adopt  Conceptual                                                              
Amendment 1  such that if assets  are transferred by one  party to                                                              
the marriage  to a  self-settled trust within  30 days  before the                                                              
marriage, the  transferor must  give written  notice to  the other                                                              
party of the transfer.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:06:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MITCHELL  GANS,  Professor,  Hofstra  University  School  of  Law,                                                              
noted  that  Alaska's  statute   of  limitations  on  an  informal                                                              
accounting  is 24 months,  and characterized  this as  problematic                                                              
from the  perspective of both  equity and efficiency  because, for                                                              
a formal  accounting, one can  go to court  and trigger  a statute                                                              
of limitations period  of 60 days or 90 days, and  this would seem                                                              
to be unfair and inequitable.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GANS said that  with regard to efficiency, it  would seem that                                                              
if  the trustee  wanted to  qualify  for the  shorter period,  the                                                              
trustee  simply  has  to  go  through  the  formal  procedure  and                                                              
petition  the court.    However, to  avoid  the cost  of a  formal                                                              
accounting  or petition,  the  [trustee] would  have  to wait  two                                                              
years, and  the consequence  of that is  that it imposes  costs on                                                              
the trust, which  would be borne by the beneficiary.   In terms of                                                              
protecting the  rights of the beneficiary,  it would seem  that if                                                              
the  period  were  shortened  and  there  were  to  be  a  focused                                                              
timeframe  within which  there must  be  a decision,  it would  be                                                              
more likely  for the beneficiary  to focus on and  protect his/her                                                              
rights   rather  than   to   allow  them   to   expire  or   lapse                                                              
inadvertently.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON asked  if Mr.  Gans had  spoken with  the                                                              
sponsor of the legislation or its supporters.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GANS replied no.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:10:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BETHANN  B.  CHAPMAN,  Attorney  at Law,  Faulkner  Banfield,  PC,                                                              
offered her  belief that Mr.  Gans's concerns have  been addressed                                                              
such  that the  inconsistencies between  an interim  report and  a                                                              
final report have been resolved.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. GANS  agreed that the current  version of the  bill alleviates                                                              
his concerns.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:11:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JONATHAN  BLATTMACHR, Attorney  at Law, Milbank,  Tweed,  Hadley &                                                              
McCloy,  LLP, informed  the committee  that he  has been  involved                                                              
with Alaska trust  legislation since its inception.   He estimated                                                              
that probably  nine out of  ten of his  clients choose  Alaska [in                                                              
which to establish  a trust].  The proposal before  the committee,                                                              
he  opined,  will   certainly  result  in  most   of  his  clients                                                              
continuing to choose Alaska.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:12:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD W.  HOMPESCH, II, Attorney  at Law, Hompesch &  Evans, PC,                                                              
relayed his support for SB 298.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:13:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PATRICK  LUBY,  Advocacy  Director, AARP  Alaska,  encouraged  the                                                              
committee  to continue  to  improve  SB 298  and  forward it  from                                                              
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:13:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DOUGLAS  BLATTMACHR, President,  Chief  Executive Officer,  Alaska                                                              
Trust Company, relayed  his support for SB 298,  adding his belief                                                              
that it  will continue to  improve what  Alaska has to  offer, and                                                              
thus continue to attract business to the state.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:14:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD  S. THWAITES,  JR,  Attorney at  Law,  Thwaites, JR.  LLC;                                                              
Chairman,  Alaska  Trust  Company  Board,  Alaska  Trust  Company,                                                              
relayed his support for SB 298.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON,  upon   determining  that  no  one  else                                                              
wished to testify, closed public testimony on SB 298.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA said  that he  is concerned  that [the  bill]                                                              
might  limit the  rights beneficiaries  in  relation to  trustees;                                                              
for example, two  changes proposed will reduce the  period of time                                                              
in  which a  beneficiary  can make  a claim:    Section 6  changes                                                              
notice  of  a court  proceeding  from  90  days  to 60  days,  and                                                              
changes  the timeframe  in which  a beneficiary  can file  a claim                                                              
from  60 days  to 45  days.   He  asked if  the aforementioned  is                                                              
really necessary,  and offered his  recollection of there  being a                                                              
battle over  this a  few years  ago that  resulted in the  changes                                                              
not being included in the legislation [that was adopted then].                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  DOUGLAS  BLATTMACHR  offered  his  understanding  that  these                                                              
changes are meant to provide consistency with the probate code.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAPMAN  said the  proposed change is  intended to  address an                                                              
inconsistency  within the  statute that  currently specifies  that                                                              
90 days'  notice of  the court  proceeding is  required, and  that                                                              
the beneficiary  then has 60 days  after receiving the  report [to                                                              
file a  claim with the  court].  Because  currently the  time that                                                              
the  report  is provided  to  the  beneficiary  and the  time  the                                                              
petition is  filed can be two  different times, the desire  was to                                                              
tie everything  to the  same date,  and this  will make  the trust                                                              
laws consistent  with the probate code  so that there isn't  a lot                                                              
of distinction  between whether  one is a  beneficiary of  a trust                                                              
or of  an estate.   Furthermore, even at  the reduced  time frames                                                              
of 60  days and  45 days,  it's substantially  longer than  what's                                                              
currently provided under the probate code.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.   CHAPMAN  explained   if  she   were  to   be  the   personal                                                              
representative of  an estate and  she intended to issue  her final                                                              
accounting  and  file  it  with  the court  for  approval  of  the                                                              
accounting  so as to  terminate her  authority, under  the probate                                                              
code, she  would only  be required  to provide  14 days  notice of                                                              
the hearing.   This means that  the hearings occur within  14 days                                                              
and the beneficiaries  aren't given any additional  length of time                                                              
in which to respond.   The probate code also includes  a provision                                                              
that allows  [the personal representative]  to give notice  of the                                                              
distribution  of the estate  to a beneficiary  with only  30 days'                                                              
notice;  if the  beneficiary doesn't  object within  30 days,  the                                                              
beneficiary's  rights are terminated.   "While  we are  trying ...                                                              
to  align trusts  and estates  similarly,  we didn't  feel it  was                                                              
appropriate to  go so far  as the probate  code [does]  when we're                                                              
working  with an  estate,"  she explained.    Therefore, what  was                                                              
deemed to  be a reasonable timeframe  was proposed in  the current                                                              
version of SB 298.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:19:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA, in noting  that Section  6 allows  [45] days                                                              
to file a  claim and Section  7, unless changed, allows  two years                                                              
to  do  so,  asked  what the  difference  is  between  the  claims                                                              
referred to in each section.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAPMAN explained  that for those claims wherein  the court is                                                              
used to  formally approve the  accounting, then the  60-day notice                                                              
applies.   Under the current law,  she continued, when  relying on                                                              
just  the general  statute  of  limitations  and it's  an  interim                                                              
report,  then a  two-year  statute of  limitations  applies.   The                                                              
proposal is  to reduce this to  a six-month period so  there won't                                                              
be a distinction between an interim report and a final report.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  said he is  uncomfortable  reducing the amount  of                                                              
time that  a beneficiary has  to file a  claim against  a trustee.                                                              
He  opined that  the two-year  period  addressed in  Section 7  is                                                              
very  consistent  with  most  statute   of  limitations  and  thus                                                              
whittling  the period  down to six  months is  of concern,  adding                                                              
that  he doesn't  want  to diminish  the  rights of  beneficiaries                                                              
solely to maintain a competitive edge with other states.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAPMAN explained  that in comparing trusts  and estate claims                                                              
to  personal  injury claims,  which  have  a two-year  statute  of                                                              
limitations,  the former  are  "generally not  subject  to any  of                                                              
those limitation  periods because  they are equitable  in nature."                                                              
She  said that  it is  important  to look  at the  history of  the                                                              
statute.    Prior to  the  2003  Act, there  were  two  limitation                                                              
periods:   a six-month period if  a final account was  provided to                                                              
the  beneficiary, and  a three-year  period  if there  had been  a                                                              
lack of full disclosure.   In the legislation of  2003, the intent                                                              
was to eliminate  the distinction between an interim  report and a                                                              
final report.  She  explained that the reason it's  referred to as                                                              
a "report"  instead of an "accounting"  is because the  latter has                                                              
specific legal definitions of what an actual accounting is.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAPMAN  relayed that given  that the beneficiary  is provided                                                              
information about the  trust, the intent was to  ensure that there                                                              
was a  limitation period that was  the same regardless  of whether                                                              
it was  "while the  trust was  still going  on or  while it  was a                                                              
final  report  terminating  the relationship."    The  legislation                                                              
that was  passed out in 2003,  however, did include  a distinction                                                              
between  interim  reports and  final  reports which,  she  opined,                                                              
causes  significant  confusion.    In  returning  to  a  six-month                                                              
period, she  said, "We  are looking  to protect beneficiaries  ...                                                              
to ensure  that when we  transfer assets out  of trusts, we  do so                                                              
with some certainty  to the beneficiaries."  She  relayed that the                                                              
return   to   a   six-month   period   now   includes   additional                                                              
requirements for  the trustee to follow, and  provides "very clear                                                              
language to the  beneficiary of what their rights are"  as well as                                                              
notifying them of the length of the limitation period.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
[Representative Anderson returned the gavel to Chair McGuire.]                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CHAPMAN noted  that should  a trustee  fail to  do either  of                                                              
"these,"  then he/she  would no  longer  have the  benefit of  the                                                              
shortened statute of  limitations - it would revert  to the three-                                                              
year  period.   She again  expressed  her belief  that having  two                                                              
separate  statute  of limitations  for  an  interim report  and  a                                                              
final report causes confusion.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:25:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  recalled   past  efforts  to  [shorten]  the                                                              
statute of  limitations and said  that he is still  "uncomfortable                                                              
reducing the amount  of time somebody has to claim  that a trustee                                                              
has  charged   too  much   money  [and]   mishandled  the   trust"                                                              
especially  in  what  he  characterized  as  delicate  and  trying                                                              
circumstances.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CHAPMAN reiterated  that having  two  different time  periods                                                              
causes  confusion to  beneficiaries.   She  suggested,  therefore,                                                              
that  a six-month  statute  of  limitations  be required  for  any                                                              
report and  that beneficiaries be  notified of the length  of this                                                              
time period.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA surmised that  most beneficiaries  have never                                                              
had  a   prior  trust   and  that  notice   is  given   each  time                                                              
beneficiaries  receive an  interim report  as to  what any  filing                                                              
deadlines are.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CHAPMAN   again  reiterated   that  having  two   statute  of                                                              
limitations  is confusing  and could cause  individuals to  wonder                                                              
what  the actual  statute  of  limitations is,  particularly  when                                                              
receiving  more  than  one  report.     One  of  the  things  that                                                              
[attorneys]  try to  do  with estates  and  trusts  is to  provide                                                              
certainty  to beneficiaries  to  ensure that  further claims  will                                                              
not be  made on those assets  once distributed.   Furthermore, she                                                              
informed  the committee,  should  a trustee  be  later accused  of                                                              
mishandling the estate  and the court determines  that the trustee                                                              
is not at fault,  that trustee is entitled reimbursement  of legal                                                              
fees from  that trust.   In  response to  a question,  she relayed                                                              
that no part of the bill is retroactive.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:31:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  made a motion  to adopt Amendment  2, labeled                                                              
24-LS1113\X.1, Bannister, 4/7/06, which read:                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, lines 2 - 4:                                                                                                       
          Delete "within [24 MONTHS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE                                                                        
     REPORT  IF  IT  IS AN  INTERIM  REPORT  OR  WITHIN]  six                                                                   
     months after  receipt of  the report [IF  IT IS  A FINAL                                                                   
     REPORT],"                                                                                                                  
          Insert ", if the claim is related to a monetary                                                                   
     benefit  for   the  trustee,  within  24   months  after                                                               
     receipt  of the  report if  it is an  interim report  or                                                                   
     [WITHIN] six  months after receipt  of the report  if it                                                                   
     is  a final  report, or,  for other  claims, within  six                                                               
     months after receipt of the report,"                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, line 14, following "BEGUN":                                                                                        
          Insert ", IF THE CLAIM IS RELATED TO A MONETARY                                                                       
     BENEFIT  FOR THE  TRUSTEE,  WITHIN 24  MONTHS AFTER  YOU                                                                   
     RECEIVE  THIS  REPORT  IF  THIS  REPORT  IS  AN  INTERIM                                                                   
     REPORT OR  SIX MONTHS AFTER  YOU RECEIVE THIS  REPORT IF                                                                   
     THIS REPORT IS A FINAL REPORT, OR, FOR OTHER CLAIMS,"                                                                    
                                                                                                                              
     Page 7, line 28:                                                                                                           
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  explained that  Amendment 2 would  change the                                                              
statute  of limitations  to a two-year  period  - one, he  opined,                                                              
that a  beneficiary faced  with challenges should  have.   He said                                                              
the two-year period  should be retained "when it  involves a claim                                                              
against the  trustee for monetary  benefits the trustee  should or                                                              
shouldn't have received."                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  opined  that this  discussion  involves                                                              
three different  issues:  what  the statute of limitations  should                                                              
be,   whether  there   should  be   two   different  statutes   of                                                              
limitations, and  the effects of possible claims  made by trustees                                                              
for reimbursement  by the beneficiaries.   He said  he interpreted                                                              
Ms. Chapman's  main  argument to  be that it's  very confusing  to                                                              
have  two  different  statutes  of  limitations.    Representative                                                              
Gruenberg suggested  that Representative  Gara might  consider one                                                              
single statute  of limitation and  that Ms. Chapman  could provide                                                              
input  as to what  that limitation  might  be.  As  for the  third                                                              
issue, Representative  Gruenberg suggested that language  be added                                                              
to  the bill  to prevent  any possible  harm  to the  beneficiary,                                                              
perhaps even  requiring something like  that a bond  be maintained                                                              
for  the period  of the  statute of  limitations.   This bond,  he                                                              
said, would  only be  paid to  the amount  of the trustee's  legal                                                              
fees  and  costs  and  "basically  make  it  easier  ...  for  the                                                              
beneficiaries to pay  those costs in that unlikely  event - either                                                              
that or retaining a portion of the trust for that [purpose]."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:35:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAPMAN,  addressing Representative Gruenberg's  suggestion of                                                              
maintaining  a  bond, informed  the  committee  that many  of  the                                                              
[beneficiaries]  in   these  situations  either  don't   have  the                                                              
wherewithal  to  post a  bond  or  the  commercial bonds  are  too                                                              
difficult and costly to obtain.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG mentioned  that  there is  a court  rule                                                              
that specifically says  that a person can file with  the court the                                                              
amount  of his or  her worth  and then  the court  must approve  a                                                              
bond for that amount.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAPMAN  expressed her belief that  in the context  of a trust                                                              
and a  distribution, it makes sense  to ask beneficiaries  to post                                                              
bonds.   She  said she  understands concerns  about trustee  fees;                                                              
however,  when  terminating  a  trust,  and  given  the  fiduciary                                                              
relationship between  the trustee and the beneficiary,  it is hard                                                              
to have a  law requiring that a  beneficiary post a bond  in order                                                              
to receive his or her distribution.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   McGUIRE,    referring   to   Representative    Gruenberg's                                                              
suggestions  on revising  the statute  of  limitations, asked  Ms.                                                              
Chapman  if she would  support a  different period  of time  other                                                              
than the six-month period she recommended.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAPMAN  maintained her  belief that  the six-month  period is                                                              
appropriate.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:38:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was taken.   Representatives Gara  and Gruenberg                                                              
voted in  favor of Amendment  2.  Representatives  Kott, Anderson,                                                              
McGuire,  and Wilson  voted against  it.   Therefore, Amendment  2                                                              
failed by a vote of 2-4.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG, referring  to Section  6, lines  22 and                                                              
26, asked  Ms. Chapman whether the  changes to the number  of days                                                              
"makes [the bill] conform to the probate code."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAPMAN said  that it actually allows more time  than does the                                                              
probate code, which allows 14 days for any hearing.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:39:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON moved  to  report HCS  CSSB 298(L&C),  as                                                              
amended,  out of  committee  with individual  recommendations  and                                                              
zero fiscal  notes.  There being  no objection, HCS  CSSB 298(JUD)                                                              
was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HB 413 - BURNING CAPABILITY OF CIGARETTES                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:40:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                              
HOUSE BILL  NO. 413,  "An Act relating  to the burning  capability                                                              
of  cigarettes being  sold,  offered for  sale,  or possessed  for                                                              
sale;  and  providing  for  an   effective  date."    [Before  the                                                              
committee was  CSHB 413(STA); in  members' packets was  a proposed                                                              
committee  substitute  (CS)  for   HB  413,  Version  24-LS1495\F,                                                              
Bannister, 4/5/06.]                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:40:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MIKAYLA  SAITO,  Intern  to Representative  Reggie  Joule,  Alaska                                                              
State   Legislature,   relayed   on   behalf   of   the   sponsor,                                                              
Representative  Joule,  that  HB  413 establishes  a  standard  of                                                              
safety by  [requiring a  reduction in  the ignition propensity  of                                                              
cigarettes  sold  in Alaska],  and  that similar  legislation  has                                                              
been introduced in the states of New York and California.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:41:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DAVID  HULL,  Chief,  North  Tongass   Volunteer  Fire  Department                                                              
(NTVFD),  after relaying  that he  is also speaking  on behalf  of                                                              
Scott  Davis  -   Chief  of  the  South  Tongass   Volunteer  Fire                                                              
Department  (STVFD)  -  pointed  out that  a  cigarette  has  been                                                              
involved in  every one of  the several fire  deaths he has  had to                                                              
deal with  in his  over 30  years' of  experience in  firefighting                                                              
and  emergency medical  service  (EMS).   He  opined  that HB  413                                                              
raises a  lifesaving issue, and  thus the tobacco  industry should                                                              
not  be  a  primary participant  in  the  discussion;  rather  the                                                              
people should be the primary participants.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. HULL  referred to the  findings and  intent section of  HB 413                                                              
and noted  that one  of the  findings states  that cigarettes  are                                                              
the leading  cause of fire-related  deaths in the U.S.  each year,                                                              
claiming  a 1,000  lives  and causing  nearly  2,000 injuries  and                                                              
nearly  $400,000  in  direct  property   damage;  furthermore,  he                                                              
remarked,  Alaska leads  in every  one of those  categories.   The                                                              
simple  technology   to  significantly  reduce  such   deaths  and                                                              
carnage is  already available, other  states have  already enacted                                                              
legislation  similar  to HB  413,  and  Alaska should  join  those                                                              
other states.   One really  need look no  further than  Cable News                                                              
Network  (CNN) reports  regarding  how  this type  of  legislation                                                              
would benefit  not only those who  smoke [and their  families] but                                                              
the  EMS personnel  who must  respond  to fires  that result  from                                                              
cigarettes.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HULL pointed  out  that the  severe  fire  aboard a  Princess                                                              
cruise  ship  in   the  Caribbean  was  caused   by  a  discarded,                                                              
unattended cigarette.   Furthermore, on  the cruise ship  docks in                                                              
Ketchikan,  people discard  their lit  cigarettes on  the dock  on                                                              
dry  days  and those  cigarettes  get  in  between the  pieces  of                                                              
lumber  that  make  up  the  docks   and  smolder,  and  the  fire                                                              
departments  are called  in  a few  hours later  to  fight a  dock                                                              
fire, and  although most  such fires  are small,  at least  once a                                                              
year  a major  fire  erupts.   If  not for  the  quick and  expert                                                              
response  by the  Ketchikan  Fire  Department, he  relayed,  these                                                              
fires  would  have  easily spread  underneath  the  buildings  and                                                              
simply burnt away  the foundations of millions of  dollars in real                                                              
estate,  not to mention  the potential  loss  of jobs, taxes,  and                                                              
human lives  that were put  in danger by  a cigarette  that didn't                                                              
self-extinguish.    Furthermore  there  is also  the  danger  that                                                              
firefighters face in responding to such fires.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. HULL,  in conclusion, asked  members to choose lives  over the                                                              
needs of tobacco industry stockholders by supporting HB 413.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:46:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
STEVEN  "RUSTY" BELANGER,  Assistant State  Fire Marshal,  Central                                                              
Office, Division  of Fire Prevention, Department  of Public Safety                                                              
(DPS),  relayed that  the  DPS supports  the  passage  of HB  413.                                                              
Alaska has  one of the highest  per capita fire fatality  rates in                                                              
the  nation, he  remarked, adding  that  over the  last 10  years,                                                              
one-fourth  of  Alaska's  fire  fatalities  have  been  caused  by                                                              
cigarettes.   Often, those dying  are not the smokers  themselves,                                                              
but rather  their family  members  and friends.   Via advances  in                                                              
technology and the  tobacco market, there now exists  the means by                                                              
which  to address  a  significant portion  of  this horrific  fire                                                              
record; by requiring  cigarettes [being sold in  Alaska] to comply                                                              
with  already existing  burning  standards in  major U.S.  markets                                                              
and in  all of Canada,  Alaska can begin  to enjoy a  reduction in                                                              
fire fatalities and property loss.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BELANGER remarked  that  it  will be  easier  to address  the                                                              
ignition propensity  of cigarettes  than it  would be  to regulate                                                              
all  the home  furnishings  that are  often  typically ignited  by                                                              
unattended  cigarettes.   He remarked  that this  is not an  anti-                                                              
smoking issue  but is  instead a  life- and  property-conservation                                                              
issue;  all  manufacturers  can  and do  produce  these  types  of                                                              
cigarettes already,  and so  [passage of HB  413] will  not affect                                                              
revenues or  retailers.  "This bill  makes good sense  for Alaska,                                                              
and I  ask you  to help  us as  we do  what we  can to reduce  our                                                              
fire-loss record," he concluded.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:48:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOHANNA BALES, Excise  Audit Manager, Tax Division,  Department of                                                              
Revenue (DOR),  noted that although  the DOR had  recommended some                                                              
changes to  the sponsor,  not all of  them were incorporated  into                                                              
the CS.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG moved  to adopt  the proposed  committee                                                              
substitute  (CS)  for  HB  413,  Version  24-LS1495\F,  Bannister,                                                              
4/5/06, as  the work draft.   There being no objection,  Version F                                                              
was before the committee.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. SAITO  acknowledged that although  the changes  recommended by                                                              
the  DOR  were   submitted  to  Legislative  Legal   and  Research                                                              
Services,  not  all of  them  were included  in  Version  F.   She                                                              
suggested  that perhaps some  of the  recommendations were  simply                                                              
overlooked by the drafter.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  set HB  413, Version  F, aside  for the  purpose of                                                              
allowing the sponsor  time to work further with  the DOR regarding                                                              
its recommendations.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
[Later  in the  meeting  Representative Gruenberg  mentioned  that                                                              
he'd be helping the sponsor and his staff work on HB 413.]                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HB 347 - MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE & NOTICE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:50:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                              
HOUSE BILL  NO. 347, "An Act  relating to mandatory  motor vehicle                                                              
insurance,  license suspensions,  and  notices  relating to  motor                                                              
vehicles and driver's  licenses."  [Before the  committee was CSHB                                                              
347(STA).]                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA,  speaking as  the  sponsor,  noted that  Tom                                                              
McGrath  had  expressed  a  valid   concern  at  the  bill's  last                                                              
hearing,  and so he  is willing  to add  language to address  that                                                              
concern.   Currently there is no  mandatory fine for the  crime of                                                              
driving  without   insurance,  and   the  fine   for  a   class  B                                                              
misdemeanor  doesn't  necessarily apply,  and  so  it is  actually                                                              
cheaper to drive  without insurance because any  fines levied will                                                              
be less than the cost of insurance.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  said he has  a proposed amendment  that would                                                              
make driving  without insurance  a class  B misdemeanor  and would                                                              
establish  a  mandatory  minimum   fine  of  $500;  that  proposed                                                              
amendment  was  labeled  24-LS1372\F.2,   Luckhaupt,  4/6/06,  and                                                              
read:                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, following line 12:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
       "* Sec. 3. AS 28.22.019 is amended by adding a new                                                                   
     subsection to read:                                                                                                        
          (d)  A person convicted under this section is                                                                         
     guilty of a class B misdemeanor and may be punished as                                                                     
      provided in AS 12.55, except that a fine of at least                                                                      
     $500 must be imposed."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   McGUIRE   referred   to   that   proposed   amendment   as                                                              
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:53:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DUANE  BANNOCK,  Director,  Division   of  Motor  Vehicles  (DMV),                                                              
Department of Administration  (DOA), after relaying  that he would                                                              
not able  to speak  to Amendment  1 because  it falls outside  the                                                              
purview of  the DMV, stated that  the DMV is "in love  with" [what                                                              
is  currently   Section  3   of  CSHB   347(STA)  -  proposed   AS                                                              
28.22.041(f)]  - and  is grateful  to the  sponsor [for  including                                                              
that provision].                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA made a  motion to adopt  Amendment 1.   There                                                              
being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:54:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  moved   to  report  CSHB  347(STA),  as                                                              
amended,  out of  committee  with individual  recommendations  and                                                              
the accompanying  zero fiscal  notes.   There being no  objection,                                                              
CSHB  347(JUD) was  reported  from  the House  Judiciary  Standing                                                              
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HB 276 - BUSINESS LICENSE TOBACCO ENDORSEMENT                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:54:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  announced that  the final  order of business  would                                                              
be  HOUSE BILL  NO.  276, "An  Act  relating  to business  license                                                              
endorsements  for   tobacco  products,  to  holders   of  business                                                              
license endorsements  for tobacco  products, and to  the employees                                                              
and  agents  of  holders  of  business  license  endorsements  for                                                              
tobacco products."   [Left  pending from 3/24/06  was a  motion to                                                              
adopt the proposed  committee substitute (CS) for  HB 276, Version                                                              
24-LS0855\L, Bannister,  3/23/06, as  the work draft;  in members'                                                              
packets  was another  proposed committee  substitute  (CS) for  HB                                                              
276, Version 24-LS0855\S, Bannister, 3/31/06.]                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOTT, speaking  as  the sponsor,  relayed that  in                                                              
the  proposed  CS,  Version  S,  Section  1  still  increases  the                                                              
penalty  to   $750  for  a  first   offense  but  now   allows  an                                                              
endorsement holder  to come before a hearing  officer, and Section                                                              
3 now contains the language pertaining to that hearing.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:56:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON  moved to  adopt  the proposed  committee                                                              
substitute  (CS)  for  HB  276,  Version  24-LS0855\S,  Bannister,                                                              
3/31/06, as the  work draft.  There being no objection,  Version S                                                              
was before the committee.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:57:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ROGER HAMES,  President,  Hames Corporation,  said simply  that he                                                              
supports  Version S  as being something  he can  live with  though                                                              
doing so will be difficult.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:57:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL  ELERDING, President,  Northern Sales  Company of  Alaska,                                                              
Inc., simply urged passage of HB 276.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:58:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CYNTHIA  DRINKWATER, Assistant  Attorney General,  Commercial/Fair                                                              
Business Section,  Civil Division  (Anchorage), Department  of Law                                                              
(DOL), relayed  that she  represents the  Department of  Commerce,                                                              
Community,  &  Economic  Development   (DCCED)  in  administrative                                                              
hearings held under  AS 43.70.075, and that she  would be speaking                                                              
to  three   issues.    First,  the   language  in  Version   S  is                                                              
potentially confusing.   For example, proposed  AS 43.70.075(d)(1)                                                              
says in  part, "after a  hearing under  (t) of this  section", and                                                              
the following  paragraphs  (2) through (4)  don't contain  similar                                                              
language,  but  proposed  AS  43.70.075(t)  says  in  part,  "this                                                              
subsection  governs the  imposition  ... of  the business  license                                                              
endorsement  suspension  and  civil  penalty  under  (d)  of  this                                                              
section".     Thus  there   is  some   confusion  regarding   when                                                              
subsection (t)  will apply  because it appears  to pertain  to all                                                              
of proposed AS 43.70.075(d).                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOTT, in  response  to questions,  clarified  that                                                              
the hearing  referred to in  AS 43.70.075(d)(1) should  only apply                                                              
for a first offense.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  made a motion  to adopt Amendment  1, to                                                              
change "(d)"  on page  2, line 27,  to "(d)(1)".   There  being no                                                              
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. DRINKWATER  then referred  to the language  in Section  3 that                                                              
says the  notice must  inform the person  of, among  other things,                                                              
the  date and  time of  the hearing.   She  said this  requirement                                                              
will  prove difficult  because the  initial notice  goes out  from                                                              
the DCCED,  but the  hearing information  falls under  the purview                                                              
of the Office of Administrative Hearings.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:05:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  made a motion  to adopt Amendment  2, to                                                              
delete from  page 3, line  1, the words ",  and the date  and time                                                              
of the  hearing", and  place a  period after  the word  "imposed".                                                              
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON suggested  adding language specifying  that                                                              
the hearing office shall set the date and time of the hearing.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE characterized that as a conforming amendment.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  made a motion  to adopt Amendment  3, to                                                              
add  to page  3, line  2, after  the word  "determine", the  words                                                              
"the date and time of the hearing,".                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE pointed  out, however,  that notice  must still  be                                                              
given with regard to the date and time of the hearing.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  restated  Amendment  3  and  called  it                                                              
conceptual:   "that the  [Office of  Administrative Hearings]  ...                                                              
would  set  the date  and  time  of  the hearing  and  notify  the                                                              
parties".   There being no  objection, Conceptual Amendment  3 was                                                              
adopted.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. DRINKWATER  then remarked  that it  appears that the  proposed                                                              
change in  the statutory  framework will mean  that there  will be                                                              
an  increase in  the number  of hearings,  because retailers  will                                                              
have  every  incentive  to  request   a  hearing  since  there  is                                                              
discretion regarding  the amount of the civil  penalty and whether                                                              
a suspension  shall be imposed.   This will result in  an increase                                                              
in  attorney  and  hearing officer  time;  furthermore,  with  the                                                              
lengthier hearing  process and greater  number of items  that must                                                              
be  considered by  the hearing  officer,  proceedings will  become                                                              
more like  they were prior to  2002.  Such hearings  were lengthy,                                                              
multi-day  hearings   with  numerous  witnesses   and  documentary                                                              
evidence.   She  surmised,  therefore,  that costs  will  increase                                                              
because of these proposed changes.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:08:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL FORD, Alaska  Native Health Board (ANHB),  relayed that in                                                              
the ANHB's  view, the current  law is effective  and does  what it                                                              
is intended to do.   The ANHB recommends that  instead of allowing                                                              
for  an  optional  suspension, have  a  mandatory  suspension  but                                                              
reduce  the number  of days  for a  first offense  - for  example,                                                              
provide for  a mandatory 3-day suspension.   In this way,  the law                                                              
would still  have teeth, it  would still  act as a  deterrent, and                                                              
yet  retailers would  be given  some  relief.   In conclusion,  he                                                              
said he did  share some of  the concerns regarding Section  3, but                                                              
hopes that  those have now  been addressed via the  aforementioned                                                              
amendments.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:11:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MICHELLE TOOHEY,  Director, Public Relations &  Advocacy, American                                                              
Lung  Association of  Alaska, referring  to Version  S, said  that                                                              
although  education efforts  do  play a  constructive role,  their                                                              
value must not be overestimated.  She elaborated:                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     We  know that  businesses with  education programs  have                                                                   
     been  cited for  making illegal  sales.   These  illegal                                                                   
     sales are  plain evidence that  an education  program is                                                                   
     not  enough.     The  critical  factor  is   active  and                                                                   
     diligent management,  and that  means there needs  to be                                                                   
     meaningful  consequences  in the  case  of a  violation,                                                                   
     including  the first  violation.   The  compliance  data                                                                   
     shows  that once  predictable,  readily enforceable  and                                                                   
     meaningful  penalties were  put in  place under  current                                                                   
     law, illegal  sales dropped  dramatically.  The  various                                                                   
     proposals  that  have  been  advanced [thus]  far  -  as                                                                   
     HB 276  and  subsequent  drafts -  would  eliminate  the                                                                   
     certainty of  a meaningful penalty for illegal  sales in                                                                   
     the case of a first violation.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Under  the  most current  CS,  Version  S, it  would  be                                                                   
     possible  for  a violation  to  occur  and there  be  no                                                                   
     penalty  whatsoever.     In  conclusion,  in   order  to                                                                   
     preserve the  effectiveness of the enforcement  program,                                                                   
     we  feel   strongly  that   some  meaningful  level   of                                                                   
     suspension  is essential to  maintain in  the case  of a                                                                   
     first  violation.  Businesses  that  elect to engage  in                                                                   
     the  sale of  tobacco  products  [have a  very]  serious                                                                   
     responsibility to  ensure that they do not  make illegal                                                                   
     sales  to  children.    Therefore,   the  American  Lung                                                                   
     Association  of Alaska  does not support  ... Version  S                                                                   
     as written  because it does  not include a  guarantee of                                                                   
     at least a  minimum suspension on first offense.   Thank                                                                   
     you.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:13:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PATRICK  LUBY, Advocacy  Director,  AARP  Alaska,  said that  AARP                                                              
members come from  a generation that smoked freely,  and they know                                                              
the  terrible  health  and financial  consequences  of  all  those                                                              
cigarettes, adding,  "We don't want to see  anyone's grandchildren                                                              
start to  smoke."  The  AARP feels the State  is doing a  good job                                                              
in its enforcement  efforts, he relayed, noting that  the State is                                                              
using 15-  and 16-year-olds in  its compliance checks;  therefore,                                                              
if  a retailer  is  selling cigarettes  to  15- and  16-year-olds,                                                              
then he/she  should face  the consequences.   The AARP  recommends                                                              
that the  current system  be left  as is in  order to  help Alaska                                                              
continue to reduce youth smoking.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:14:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD  MANDSAGER, M.D.,  Director, Central  Office, Division  of                                                              
Public Health,  Department of Health  and Social  Services (DHSS),                                                              
relayed that  David Kessler, former  commissioner of the  Food and                                                              
Drug Administration  (FDA), has  said, "Nicotine addiction  begins                                                              
when most  tobacco users  are teenagers, so  let's call  this what                                                              
it really  is -  a pediatric  disease."   Dr. Mandsager  said that                                                              
from the  DHSS's point  of view,  he would  echo comments  made by                                                              
Ms. Toohey and Mr.  Luby:  current law is working  and there needs                                                              
to  be some  minimum  mandatory suspension  for  a first  offense.                                                              
Enforcement  actions only  visit a small  percentage of  retailers                                                              
in any given year,  and so chances are small that  there will be a                                                              
second  visit  within  24  months; therefore,  if  there  isn't  a                                                              
mandatory suspension  of some  length for a  first offense,  it is                                                              
unlikely that  a license holder  will ever  get a suspension.   In                                                              
conclusion,  he urged the  committee to  maintain some  suspension                                                              
[period] for a first offense.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
DR. MANDSAGER,  in response to a  question, said that  a mandatory                                                              
suspension period should be at least three days.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE, after  ascertaining  that no  one  else wished  to                                                              
testify, closed public testimony on HB 276.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:16:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON   made  a  motion  to   adopt  Conceptual                                                              
Amendment  4, to  have the  20-day  suspension apply  on a  second                                                              
offense.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 3:17 p.m. to 3:18 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON,  in  response  to  questions,  clarified                                                              
that  Conceptual   Amendment  4  would  result  in   deleting  the                                                              
language  pertaining  to a  suspension  for  a first  offense  but                                                              
would  keep the language  pertaining  to the  hearing in order  to                                                              
address the  question of whether to  impose a civil penalty  for a                                                              
first  offense.   He also  indicated that  Conceptual Amendment  4                                                              
would  have  the  45-day  suspension   period  apply  on  a  third                                                              
offense, the 90-day  suspension period apply on  a fourth offense.                                                              
He said  he doesn't believe that  there should be  any restriction                                                              
of sales  on a first violation,  and that he doesn't  believe that                                                              
removing the  mandatory suspension for  a first offense  will have                                                              
any impact on compliance statistics.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE objected to Conceptual Amendment 4.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA mentioned  that the  House Finance  Committee                                                              
might  do more  work on  the bill,  and that  members could  still                                                              
attempt to change the bill on the House floor.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON withdrew Conceptual Amendment 4.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:20:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  made a  motion  to adopt  Amendment  5,                                                              
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     page 2 line 27 after "shall" insert                                                                                        
     ", upon request of either party,"                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG noted  that to save  costs and  time, it                                                              
may be that neither  party would request a hearing,  and Amendment                                                              
5  would provide  for  this.   In other  words,  if neither  party                                                              
requests a hearing, then a hearing need not be held.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOTT agreed  that there  might be  a situation  in                                                              
which the  owner of  the business decides  he/she doesn't  want to                                                              
go through the hearing process.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  remarked,  "They  could  submit  it  on                                                              
documentation and pleadings."                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE   asked  whether  there  were  any   objections  to                                                              
Amendment 5.  There being none, Amendment 5 was adopted.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:22:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  made   a  motion  to  adopt  Conceptual                                                              
Amendment  6, to  alter  Section  1 such  that  there  would be  a                                                              
mandatory minimum 3-day suspension period [for a first offense].                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  in response  to  a question,  clarified                                                              
that Conceptual  Amendment 6 would  alter the language on  page 1,                                                              
lines 10-12 so that  it read in part, "may, after  a hearing under                                                              
(t) of  this section, suspend  the endorsement  for a period  of 3                                                              
to 20 days".                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 3:23 p.m. to 3:24 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON maintained  his  objection to  Conceptual                                                              
Amendment 6.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  remarked that  a  CS incorporating  the                                                              
adopted amendments will be forthcoming.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOTT  objected  to  Conceptual Amendment  6.    He                                                              
posited that by  stating a minimum suspension period  of 3 days, a                                                              
hearing officer  will be inclined to  always impose at  least a 3-                                                              
day suspension  period unless there  are also aggravating  factors                                                              
in a give case.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  expressed a preference for dealing  with this                                                              
issue  on the  House  floor, after  the bill  has  been heard  and                                                              
perhaps changed in the House Finance Committee.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 6.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:27:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG moved to  report the proposed  committee                                                              
substitute  (CS)  for  HB  276,  Version  24-LS0855\S,  Bannister,                                                              
3/31/06,   as   amended,   out  of   committee   with   individual                                                              
recommendations  and the accompanying  fiscal notes.   There being                                                              
no  objection,   CSHB  276(JUD)   was  reported  from   the  House                                                              
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE concluded by saying, "I cannot stress enough that                                                                 
the movement of this bill today in no way endorses anybody's                                                                    
personal opinion on the bill."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:28:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:28 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects