Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

04/13/2017 05:30 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Please Note Time Change --
+ HB 204 OVERTAKING/PASSING DOT VEHICLES TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 204(JUD) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+ SB 55 OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 55(FIN) Out of Committee
Uniform Rule 23(a) Waived
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 79 OMNIBUS WORKERS' COMPENSATION TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 79(JUD) Out of Committee
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 13, 2017                                                                                         
                           5:38 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Matt Claman, Chair                                                                                               
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair                                                                                         
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins                                                                                          
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Representative David Eastman                                                                                                    
Representative Chuck Kopp                                                                                                       
Representative Lora Reinbold                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)                                                                                     
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 204                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to overtaking  and passing  certain stationary                                                               
vehicles."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 204(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 79                                                                                                               
"An Act  relating to workers' compensation;  repealing the second                                                               
injury  fund upon  satisfaction  of claims;  relating to  service                                                               
fees and  civil penalties  for the  workers' safety  programs and                                                               
the workers'  compensation program; relating to  the liability of                                                               
specified  officers and  members of  specified business  entities                                                               
for  payment   of  workers'   compensation  benefits   and  civil                                                               
penalties;  relating  to  civil penalties  for  underinsuring  or                                                               
failing to  insure or provide security  for workers' compensation                                                               
liability; relating  to preauthorization  and timely  payment for                                                               
medical  treatment and  services provided  to injured  employees;                                                               
relating  to incorporation  of  reference  materials in  workers'                                                               
compensation  regulations;  relating  to proceedings  before  the                                                               
Workers'  Compensation Board;  providing for  methods of  payment                                                               
for  workers' compensation  benefits;  relating  to the  workers'                                                               
compensation benefits  guaranty fund  authority to claim  a lien;                                                               
excluding  independent  contractors  from  workers'  compensation                                                               
coverage;  establishing  the  circumstances under  which  certain                                                               
nonemployee executive  corporate officers and members  of limited                                                               
liability  companies may  obtain workers'  compensation coverage;                                                               
relating to the  duties of injured employees to  report income or                                                               
work; relating  to misclassification  of employees  and deceptive                                                               
leasing;   defining   'employee';   relating  to   the   Workers'                                                               
Compensation Board's  approval of  attorney fees in  a settlement                                                               
agreement; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 79(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 55(FIN)                                                                                                  
"An  Act relating  to  criminal law  and  procedure; relating  to                                                               
controlled  substances;  relating   to  sentencing;  relating  to                                                               
protective  orders;  relating  to restitution;  relating  to  the                                                               
period  of   probation;  relating  to   revocation,  termination,                                                               
suspension, cancellation,  or restoration of a  driver's license;                                                               
relating to parole;  relating to the duties of  the Department of                                                               
Corrections  and the  Department of  Health and  Social Services;                                                               
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSSB 55(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 204                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: OVERTAKING/PASSING DOT VEHICLES                                                                                    
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KAWASAKI                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
03/29/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/29/17       (H)       TRA, JUD                                                                                               
04/06/17       (H)       TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
04/06/17       (H)       Moved HB 204 Out of Committee                                                                          
04/06/17       (H)       MINUTE(TRA)                                                                                            
04/07/17       (H)       TRA RPT 2DP 5AM                                                                                        
04/07/17       (H)       DP: KOPP, DRUMMOND                                                                                     
04/07/17       (H)       AM: CLAMAN, SULLIVAN-LEONARD, NEUMAN,                                                                  
                         WOOL, STUTES                                                                                           
04/13/17       (H)       JUD AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 79                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: OMNIBUS WORKERS' COMPENSATION                                                                                      
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
01/25/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/25/17       (H)       L&C, JUD, FIN                                                                                          
02/20/17       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
02/20/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/20/17       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
03/01/17       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
03/01/17       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
03/06/17       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
03/06/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/06/17       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
03/08/17       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
03/08/17       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
03/15/17       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
03/15/17       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
03/17/17       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/17/17       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
03/20/17       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
03/20/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/20/17       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
03/22/17       (H)       L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
03/22/17       (H)       Moved CSHB 79(L&C) Out of Committee                                                                    
03/22/17       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
03/24/17       (H)       L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 3DP 1DNP 1NR 2AM                                                                    
03/24/17       (H)       DP: JOSEPHSON, STUTES, KITO                                                                            
03/24/17       (H)       DNP: KNOPP                                                                                             
03/24/17       (H)       NR: WOOL                                                                                               
03/24/17       (H)       AM: SULLIVAN-LEONARD, BIRCH                                                                            
03/31/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/31/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/31/17       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/05/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
04/05/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/05/17       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/13/17       (H)       JUD AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 55                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS                                                                                          
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
02/10/17       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/10/17       (S)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
02/15/17       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
02/15/17       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/15/17       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/15/17       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
03/15/17       (S)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
03/17/17       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
03/17/17       (S)       Scheduled but Not Heard                                                                                
03/20/17       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
03/20/17       (S)       Moved CSSB 55(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                    
03/20/17       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/22/17       (S)       JUD RPT CS 5DP NEW TITLE                                                                               
03/22/17       (S)       DP: COGHILL, WIELECHOWSKI, COSTELLO,                                                                   
                         MEYER, KELLY                                                                                           
03/28/17       (S)       FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
03/28/17       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/28/17       (S)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
03/28/17       (S)       FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
03/28/17       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/28/17       (S)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
03/31/17       (S)       FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
03/31/17       (S)       Moved CSSB 55(FIN) Out of Committee                                                                    
03/31/17       (S)       MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                            
03/31/17       (S)       FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                      
03/31/17       (S)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
04/03/17       (S)       FIN RPT CS 3DP 3NR    NEW TITLE                                                                        
04/03/17       (S)       DP: HOFFMAN, MACKINNON, VON IMHOF                                                                      
04/03/17       (S)       NR: DUNLEAVY, MICCICHE, OLSON                                                                          
04/03/17       (S)       TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                     
04/03/17       (S)       VERSION: CSSB 55(FIN)                                                                                  
04/05/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
04/05/17       (H)       JUD                                                                                                    
04/12/17       (H)       JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, RULE                                                                 
                         23(A) UC                                                                                               
04/13/17       (H)       JUD AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 204 as prime sponsor.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MERCEDES COLBERT, Staff                                                                                                         
Representative Scott Kawasaki                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 204, answered                                                                   
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MIKE COFFEY, Director                                                                                                           
South Coast Region                                                                                                              
Statewide Maintenance and Statewide Operation Director                                                                          
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF)                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 204, offered                                                                  
testimony and answered questions.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CAPTAIN DAN LOWDEN                                                                                                              
Division of Alaska State Troopers                                                                                               
Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  of CSHB  204, answered                                                             
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MARI MARX, Director                                                                                                             
Division of Workers' Compensation                                                                                               
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD)                                                                              
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  of CSHB  79, presented                                                             
Amendment 7.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KIMBER RODGERS, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                      
Labor and State Affairs Section                                                                                                 
Department of Law                                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During the  hearing  of HB  79, offered  a                                                             
sectional analysis of Amendment 7.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER HEIDI DRYGAS                                                                                                       
Department of Labor & Workforce Development                                                                                     
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  of  HB 79,  discussed                                                             
Amendment 9.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DANNY DeWITT, State Director                                                                                                    
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  of  HB 79,  discussed                                                             
Amendment 9.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL                                                                                                            
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Presented  SB 55, on  behalf of  the Senate                                                             
Judiciary Committee, Senator Coghill chair.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JORDAN SHILLING, Staff                                                                                                          
Senator John Coghill                                                                                                            
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   During  the hearing of  SB 55,  presented a                                                             
sectional analysis.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel                                                                                                    
Administrative Staff                                                                                                            
Office of the Administrative Director                                                                                           
Alaska Court System                                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the  hearing  of SB  55,  answered                                                             
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
5:38:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MATT  CLAMAN called the House  Judiciary Standing Committee                                                             
meeting to  order at 5:38  p.m. Representatives  Claman, Fansler,                                                               
Eastman, Reinbold,  Kopp, and Kreiss-Tomkins were  present at the                                                               
call to order.  Representative  LeDoux arrived as the meeting was                                                               
in progress.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
             HB 204-OVERTAKING/PASSING DOT VEHICLES                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
5:39:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 204, "An  Act relating to overtaking  and passing                                                               
certain stationary vehicles."                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
5:39:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI,  Alaska State Legislature, advised                                                               
that under current  statute, AS 28.35.185, commonly  known as the                                                               
"Move  Over Law,"  drivers are  required to  move to  the nearest                                                               
lane and  slow down when approaching  [stationary] vehicles, such                                                               
as fire,  law enforcement and emergency  vehicles, animal control                                                               
vehicles, and tow  trucks in the act of loading  a vehicle.  This                                                               
bill includes,  within those certain vehicles,  the Department of                                                               
Transportation (DOT)  vehicles when using their  flashing lights,                                                               
and with  workers performing road  maintenance or road work.   In                                                               
the event a  driver approaches one of these  vehicles, with their                                                               
lights flashing, on the highway  with two or more lanes traveling                                                               
in  the same  direction, the  driver would  vacate that  lane and                                                               
move  safely into  the closest  lane.   In the  event there  were                                                               
fewer than two lanes traveling  in the same direction, the driver                                                               
would slow down to a reasonable speed.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KAWASAKI reminded  the  committee  that in  2012,                                                               
Robert Hammel, a  DOT employee, was tragically  struck and killed                                                               
while laying  down traffic cones  to alert drivers of  a stranded                                                               
vehicle  on the  side of  the roadway  at Mile  88 on  the Seward                                                               
Highway.   He  related that  Mr. Hammel's  name was  incorporated                                                               
into the committee substitute for HB 204.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KAWASAKI  advised  that the  penalty  under  this                                                               
statute would  be considered a "failure  to move over," and  is a                                                               
class A  misdemeanor if  personal injury  resulted in  a person's                                                               
failure to vacate a  lane or slow down.  In  the event a "failure                                                               
to move over" did not result  in personal injury it is punishable                                                               
by a  $150 traffic  infraction with  two points  assessed against                                                               
the person's driver's license.   He offered that this statute has                                                               
been in effect  since September 2005, and under  this statute for                                                               
the Department of Transportation  & Public Facilities (DOT) there                                                               
were  23  violations in  2016;  14  violations  in 2015;  and  53                                                               
violations  in  2014.     In  March  2017,   two  South  Carolina                                                               
Department  of Transportation  safety workers  were killed  while                                                               
working,  and  there is  legislation  across  the nation  dealing                                                               
specifically with this issue, he advised.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
5:44:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that  the language deals solely with                                                               
stationary  vehicles,   and  asked  whether  there   had  been  a                                                               
discussion regarding  vehicles moving at a  slow speed performing                                                               
some type of road work.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI answered that  issue was not specifically                                                               
addressed  in this  bill.   He referred  to slow  moving vehicles                                                               
denoted  with a  "slow  moving"  vehicle sign,  and  said he  was                                                               
unsure whether that was found in this statute.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
5:45:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER  moved to  adopt  CSHB  204, Version  30-                                                               
LS0685\D, Martin, 4/8/17,  as the working document.   There being                                                               
no objection, Version D was before the committee.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
5:45:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MERCEDES  COLBERT, Staff,  Representative Scott  Kawasaki, Alaska                                                               
State  Legislature,  responded  to  Representative  Eastman  that                                                               
there  had  been  discussions  with  other  contractors  and  DOT                                                               
representatives, and  found there currently  is not a  statute in                                                               
place  for  slow  moving  vehicles,   and  she  deferred  to  the                                                               
Department of Law and the Alaska State Troopers online.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  surmised  that  currently  there  is  no                                                               
penalty in statute.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KAWASAKI  reiterated  that  he  did  not  include                                                               
language regarding slow moving vehicles within this bill.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
5:47:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP said  he strongly  supports  this bill,  and                                                               
agreed  that  this   section  of  title  28   deals  solely  with                                                               
stationary emergency  vehicles.  He  described that the  issue of                                                               
slow moving vehicles would require  an extensive re-write because                                                               
if  a driver  comes upon  a  slow moving  emergency vehicle,  "we                                                               
don't know" which way it will  travel.  He commented that the law                                                               
should not  direct a  person to  try to  go around  the emergency                                                               
vehicle  because it  may be  more  appropriate to  move over  and                                                               
stop, such as with oncoming  emergency vehicles currently.  It is                                                               
a  different   situation,  he  said,  and   should  be  addressed                                                               
separately in the law.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
5:48:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   asked  whether  there   are  situations                                                               
wherein a  DOT vehicle would stop  to render aid to  an emergency                                                               
situation.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KAWASAKI answered  that  Mr. Hammel  was in  that                                                               
particular type  of situation, and  described that at the  time a                                                               
state trooper was rendering aid to  a vehicle stopped on the side                                                               
of the  road, and he was  called to a  case 10 miles away  on the                                                               
Seward   Highway.     Mr.  Hammel,   in  working   alongside  law                                                               
enforcement,  placed the  traffic  cones to  ensure the  stranded                                                               
vehicle did  not become a  further hazard for other  drivers when                                                               
he was struck and killed, he related.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
5:49:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  opined  that   it  was  not  immediately                                                               
apparent  that someone  not performing  maintenance  on the  road                                                               
would be covered.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI  replied that  the language  was accurate                                                               
because if the  vehicle was in the act  of performing maintenance                                                               
or road service work, that person would be covered.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public hearing on CSHB 204.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
5:50:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MIKE COFFEY, Director, South  Coast Region, Statewide Maintenance                                                               
and Statewide Operation Director,  Department of Transportation &                                                               
Public Facilities (DOTPF), advised he  has been employed with the                                                               
Department of  Transportation & Public  Facilities for  35 years,                                                               
and approximately 20 years of  that time involved maintenance and                                                               
operations  in   all  three  regions   across  the  state.     He                                                               
highlighted that every day Alaska  DOT maintenance and operations                                                               
personnel  serve  in harm's  way  while  working on  the  state's                                                               
highways.   Throughout the  state, he  said, people  often ignore                                                               
traffic  work zones,  they do  not obey  flaggers' order  causing                                                               
flaggers to take  evasive actions and numerous times  have had to                                                               
jump  in a  ditch  to get  out  of the  way  of errant  vehicles.                                                               
Maintenance  and  operations  folks perform  "mobile  operations"                                                               
such as  filling a pot  hole, and  he described that  the vehicle                                                               
pulls alongside  the road with  flashing lights,  the maintenance                                                               
crew gets out,  quickly fills the pot hole, and  moves on.  Also,                                                               
crews  will lay  out cones  ahead of  the workers  establishing a                                                               
work zone, and without the work  zone set up these are situations                                                               
where  the  department's  employees  are  most  vulnerable.    He                                                               
pointed out that nationally, more  than 35,000 people are injured                                                               
in  work   zones  every  year,  and   approximately  700  people,                                                               
including  130   maintenance  and  operations   and  construction                                                               
workers,  are  killed in  work  zones  every  year.   The  Alaska                                                               
Department of  Transportation &  Public Facilities  supports CSHB                                                               
204, he stated.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
5:54:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KREISS-TOMKINS   related   that   he   had   the                                                               
opportunity  to  work  with  Mr.   Coffey,  and  appreciates  his                                                               
commitment  to   the  Department   of  Transportation   &  Public                                                               
Facilities and the services he performs in Alaskan communities.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN,  after  ascertaining  no one  wished  to  testify,                                                               
closed public testimony on CSHB 204.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
5:55:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked Captain  Lowden whether it  was his                                                               
understanding  that this  legislation  would  affect a  situation                                                               
wherein a DOT employee was out  of their vehicle rendering aid to                                                               
a disabled motorist or a car accident victim.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
5:55:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CAPTAIN   DAN  LOWDEN,   Division  of   Alaska  State   Troopers,                                                               
Department of Public  Safety (DPS), pointed out that he  is not a                                                               
lawyer, but surmised that because  they were not doing road work,                                                               
maybe  not.   In the  event there  were other  emergency vehicles                                                               
there, he opined,  they would be covered in the  sense that there                                                               
would  be  other  vehicles  there  that  the  violator  would  be                                                               
passing.   He added that  in the  event the employee  and vehicle                                                               
were  there by  themselves, some  folks may  read this  bill that                                                               
they were not covered.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
5:56:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  reminded the  committee that the  mission of                                                               
the DOT is  to keep Alaska moving; therefore,  every single thing                                                               
they do  is to keep motorists  moving and road service  work is a                                                               
"very broad" term.  He related  that in his plain view reading of                                                               
the bill,  road service work  is the broadest possible  term that                                                               
would cover all possible work on  the road to keep Alaska moving,                                                               
and certainly attending to motorists in need is included.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN added  that a disabled vehicle on the  roadside is a                                                               
hazard to traffic,  and assisting in moving that  vehicle off the                                                               
road,  under  the narrowest  view  of  road service  work,  would                                                               
certainly be road service work.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
5:58:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report  CSHB 204 out of committee                                                               
with  individual  recommendations  and  the  accompanying  fiscal                                                               
notes.  There  being no objection, CSHB 204(JUD)  passed from the                                                               
House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
              HB 79-OMNIBUS WORKERS' COMPENSATION                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
5:58:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 79,  "An Act  relating to  workers' compensation;                                                               
repealing  the second  injury fund  upon satisfaction  of claims;                                                               
relating to  service fees  and civil  penalties for  the workers'                                                               
safety programs  and the workers' compensation  program; relating                                                               
to the liability  of specified officers and  members of specified                                                               
business entities  for payment of workers'  compensation benefits                                                               
and   civil   penalties;   relating  to   civil   penalties   for                                                               
underinsuring  or  failing  to insure  or  provide  security  for                                                               
workers'  compensation  liability; relating  to  preauthorization                                                               
and timely  payment for medical  treatment and  services provided                                                               
to  injured employees;  relating  to  incorporation of  reference                                                               
materials  in  workers'  compensation  regulations;  relating  to                                                               
proceedings  before the  Workers'  Compensation Board;  providing                                                               
for  methods  of  payment  for  workers'  compensation  benefits;                                                               
relating  to the  workers'  compensation  benefits guaranty  fund                                                               
authority  to claim  a  lien;  excluding independent  contractors                                                               
from   workers'    compensation   coverage;    establishing   the                                                               
circumstances   under   which   certain   nonemployee   executive                                                               
corporate  officers and  members of  limited liability  companies                                                               
may  obtain  workers'  compensation  coverage;  relating  to  the                                                               
duties of  injured employees to  report income or  work; relating                                                               
to   misclassification  of   employees  and   deceptive  leasing;                                                               
defining  'employee';  relating   to  the  Workers'  Compensation                                                               
Board's approval of attorney fees  in a settlement agreement; and                                                               
providing for an effective date."  [Before the committee was CSHB                                                               
79(L&C), Version 30-GH1789\O.]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN advised  he would move Amendment 5 to  the bottom of                                                               
the stack  of amendments, pending  the committee's  discussion on                                                               
Amendment 8.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[CHAIR CLAMAN passed the gavel to Vice Chair Fansler.]                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
5:59:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  moved to adopt Amendment  6, Version 30-GH1789\O.5,                                                               
Wallace, 4/4/17, which read as follows:                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 18, line 11:                                                                                                          
          Delete "or knowingly fails to report a material                                                                   
     fact"                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 18, line 23, through page 19, line 5:                                                                                 
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 19, lines 11 - 15:                                                                                                    
          Delete "An employee knowingly fails to report a                                                                       
     material fact under (a) and  (b) of this section if the                                                                    
     employee does not disclose  the receipt of unemployment                                                                    
     or other  disability benefits or other  employment, and                                                                    
     the  employee  knowingly  receives  compensation  under                                                                    
     this  chapter to  which the  employee  is not  entitled                                                                    
     because of the  receipt of the other  benefits or other                                                                    
     employment."                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, line 20:                                                                                                          
          Delete "sec. 38"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 37"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, line 22:                                                                                                          
          Delete "38"                                                                                                           
          Insert "37"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, line 24:                                                                                                          
          Delete "38"                                                                                                           
          Insert "37"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, line 27:                                                                                                          
          Delete "sec. 38"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 37"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, line 28:                                                                                                          
          Delete "38" in both places                                                                                            
          Insert "37" in both places                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, line 30:                                                                                                          
          Delete "38"                                                                                                           
          Insert "37"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 22, line 18:                                                                                                          
          Delete "Section 41"                                                                                                   
          Insert "Section 40"                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected for discussion.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
6:00:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  explained that  Amendment  6  responds to  written                                                               
concerns his office  received from two or  three lawyers involved                                                               
in  Workers'  Compensation  matters  as to  "knowingly  fails  to                                                               
report  a  material fact."    The  lawyers  noted that  it  could                                                               
actually put  providers, and others,  in a position of  trying to                                                               
determine what  is, or  is not,  a material  fact.   Chair Claman                                                               
noted that this  particular language was a response  to an Alaska                                                               
Supreme Court  case, Shehata v.  Salvation Army, [225 P.  3d 1106                                                             
(2010)] wherein the court found  ambiguity as to whether a worker                                                               
had  a duty  to  report  whether they  were  trying  to work  and                                                               
whether it  was paid  or unpaid  work.   Amendment 6  creates the                                                               
duty to  accurately disclose the  work status of the  worker, and                                                               
it does  not create  undesired duties  for medical  providers and                                                               
others, which was  the prime objection of the  lawyers writing to                                                               
the  committee,  he  explained.    After  consultation  with  the                                                               
department, he advised that it has no objection to Amendment 6.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX withdrew her objection.  There being no                                                                   
objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
6:03:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 7, written by Chair                                                                       
Claman, which read as follows:                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, line 7, following "partnership,":                                                                                  
          Delete "or"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 9, line 27, following "self-represented,":                                                                            
          Insert "or"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 9, line 28:                                                                                                           
          Delete "or by a parent of"                                                                                            
          Insert "a parent if the party is"                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 11, lines 26 - 27:                                                                                                    
          Delete "if an employer controverts the employee's                                                                 
     right to compensation"                                                                                                 
          Insert "of the controversion"                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 14, following line 23:                                                                                                
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
        "* Sec. 27. AS 23.30.205(e) is amended to read:                                                                     
          (e)  An employer or the employer's carrier shall                                                                      
     notify   the  commissioner   of  labor   and  workforce                                                                    
     development of  any possible  claim against  the second                                                                    
     injury fund  as soon  as practicable,  but in  no event                                                                    
     later  than  100  weeks  after   the  employer  or  the                                                                    
     employer's  carrier  has  knowledge of  the  injury  or                                                                    
     death or after the deadline  for submitting a claim for                                                                
     reimbursement in (g) of this section."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 14, lines 25 - 28:                                                                                                    
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(g)  An employer or the employer's carrier must                                                                      
     establish  all requirements  for reimbursement  in this                                                                    
     section,  including notice  of any  possible claim  and                                                                    
     the  payment of  compensation in  excess of  104 weeks,                                                                    
     before  submitting a  claim  for  reimbursement to  the                                                                    
     second  injury fund.  Notwithstanding  (a)  and (b)  of                                                                    
     this  section, a  claim for  reimbursement  may not  be                                                                    
     submitted  for an  injury or  death  that occurs  after                                                                    
     August 31,   2017,  and   must   be  submitted   before                                                                    
     October 1,  2019.   An  employer  that   qualifies  for                                                                    
     reimbursement  under  this  section  will  continue  to                                                                    
     receive  reimbursement payments  on claims  accepted by                                                                    
     the fund,  or ordered  by the  board, until  the fund's                                                                    
     liabilities for the claim are extinguished."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, line 20:                                                                                                          
          Delete "38"                                                                                                           
          Insert "39"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, line 22:                                                                                                          
          Delete "38"                                                                                                           
          Insert "39"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, line 24:                                                                                                          
          Delete "38"                                                                                                           
          Insert "39"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, line 27:                                                                                                          
          Delete "38"                                                                                                           
          Insert "39"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, line 28:                                                                                                          
          Delete both occurrences of "38"                                                                                       
          Insert "39" in both places                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, line 30:                                                                                                          
          Delete "38"                                                                                                           
          Insert "39"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, line 31:                                                                                                          
          Delete "29"                                                                                                           
          Insert "30"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 22, line 1:                                                                                                           
          Delete "29"                                                                                                           
          Insert "30"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 22, line 3:                                                                                                           
          Delete both occurrences of "29"                                                                                       
          Insert "30" in both places                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 22, line 5:                                                                                                           
          Delete "29"                                                                                                           
          Insert "30"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 22, following line 5:                                                                                                 
          Insert a new subsection to read:                                                                                      
          "(d)  The amendments to AS 23.30.205, added by                                                                        
     secs. 27  and 28 of  this Act,  apply to notice  of any                                                                    
     possible claim and a  claim for reimbursement submitted                                                                    
     on or  after the effective date  of secs. 27 and  28 of                                                                    
     this Act."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 22, line 18:                                                                                                          
          Delete "Section 41 of this Act takes"                                                                                 
          Insert "Sections 27, 28, and 42 of this Act take"                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 22, line 19:                                                                                                          
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
        "* Sec. 44. Section 31 of this Act takes effect                                                                     
     September 1, 2017."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 22, line 20:                                                                                                          
          Delete "29"                                                                                                           
          Insert "30"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  related that  Amendment  7  was requested  by  the                                                               
Department of Labor & Workforce  Development (DLWD), and Ms. Marx                                                               
would present the amendment.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
6:04:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARI   MARX,  Director,   Division   of  Workers'   Compensation,                                                               
Department of Labor & Workforce  Development (DLWD), advised that                                                               
the Department of  Law (DOL) brought this issue  to the attention                                                               
of  DLWD,  and Kimber  Rodger  would  explain  the basis  of  its                                                               
concern.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
6:04:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KIMBER  RODGERS,  Assistant  Attorney General,  Labor  and  State                                                               
Affairs  Section, Department  of  Law, referred  to Amendment  7,                                                               
page  1,  lines  1-13,  and explained  that  they  are  technical                                                               
changes to correct language issues.   The real substance involves                                                               
the second injury  fund within Amendment 7, page  1, lines 11-22,                                                               
and page  2, lines 4-14, and  she advised that the  idea was that                                                               
they  clarify some  procedures and  extend deadlines  for phasing                                                               
out the  second injury fund.   The new section, Section  27, ends                                                               
the  requirement that  employers provide  notice of  any possible                                                               
second injury  fund claims because  their claims could  no longer                                                               
be submitted to the fund.   She referred to Amendment 7, [page 2,                                                               
lines  4-14], and  the new  subsection (g),  and advised  that it                                                               
explains what is required to  submit a claim for reimbursement to                                                               
the second  injury fund, such that  it does not permit  claims to                                                               
be  based on  a  subsequent  injury or  death  that occurs  after                                                               
August 31,  2017; and requires  that employers file  their claims                                                               
for reimbursement before October 1,  2019, and she noted that the                                                               
new  addition  of  the  section   required  some  renumbering  of                                                               
sections.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. RODGERS  referred to  Amendment 7, page  3, lines  25-29, and                                                               
explained  that it  adds a  new subsection  to the  applicability                                                               
section,  and clarifies  that the  second injury  fund amendments                                                               
apply   to  notices   of  any   possible  claim   and  claim   to                                                               
reimbursement submitted  after the effective date  of Sections 27                                                               
and  28, with  the  effective  date of  those  sections being  an                                                               
immediate effective date.   She advised that this  is provided in                                                               
Amendment 7, [page  3, line 31, and page 4,  lines 1-2], where an                                                               
immediate  effective date  is necessary  so  that these  sections                                                               
will take effect  before the injury or death  deadline date after                                                               
August 31, 2017.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RODGERS  remarked that  Amendment  7  [page 4,  lines  4-6],                                                               
provides  for a  new  effective  date of  September  1, 2017  for                                                               
renumbered Section 31.   She explained that Section  31 amends AS                                                               
23.30.247(c)  to remove  a provision  allowing  employers to  ask                                                               
about a person's  prior health or disability history  in order to                                                               
document that  employer's knowledge  of a  pre-existing condition                                                               
for a  possible second  injury fund  reimbursement if  the person                                                               
was later  injured at work,  she explained.   As of  September 1,                                                               
2017,  this  provision  will  no  longer  be  needed  because  "a                                                               
subsequent injury  or death had  occurred at that time"  will not                                                               
qualify for  a second injury  fund reimbursement.  Therefore, she                                                               
noted, those questionnaires will no longer be necessary.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
6:08:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  withdrew her  objection on  Amendment 7.                                                               
There being no objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
[VICE CHAIR FANSLER passed the gavel back to Chair Claman.]                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
6:09:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  moved to adopt Amendment  8, Version 30-                                                               
GH1789\O.10, Wallace, 4/13/17, which read as follows:                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 16, line 28:                                                                                                          
          Delete "three"                                                                                                    
          Insert "two"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 16, line 29, following "person":                                                                                  
          Insert "is responsible for the satisfactory                                                                       
     completion of services that the person has contracted                                                                  
      to perform and is subject to liability for a failure                                                                  
     to complete the contracted work, or"                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 17, line 1, following "location":                                                                                 
          Insert "or a business mailing address"                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 17, line 4:                                                                                                           
          Following "person":                                                                                               
          Insert "provides contracted services for two or                                                                   
     more different customers within a 12-month period or"                                                                  
          Following "in":                                                                                                   
          Insert "any kind of"                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 17, line 6:                                                                                                           
          Delete ";"                                                                                                        
          Insert "."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 17, lines 7 - 13:                                                                                                     
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
6:09:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  stressed that her name  should have been                                                               
printed on Amendment 8 and asked  that everyone write her name on                                                               
the document "because that's a big deal to me."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD explained that  Amendment 8 revises [Sec.                                                               
28,  AS   23.30.230(a)(11)(H),  page  16,  line   28],  and  adds                                                               
provisions that an  independent contractor "meet at  least two of                                                               
the  three  listed criteria"  to  satisfy  the definition  of  an                                                               
independent  contractor.    She  explained  that  this  amendment                                                               
loosens the  language to ensure that  independent contractors are                                                               
not held  to strict eligibility  standards that may  be difficult                                                               
to  overcome  depending  on the  business  size,  operation,  and                                                               
services  offered.   She  advised  that  this amendment  provides                                                               
flexibility  in  determining   what  constitutes  an  independent                                                               
contractor.     It   is  important   to  foster   small  business                                                               
opportunities including those  offered by independent contractors                                                               
in the time of Alaska's  financial uncertainty.  She related that                                                               
Independent contracting opportunities  keep Alaskan businesses in                                                               
the business  of providing services and  professional services to                                                               
Alaskan and  non-Alaskan businesses.   She described  Amendment 8                                                               
as a "win-win for everybody,"  and urged the committee's support.                                                               
She then  thanked Chair Claman,  committee members,  the National                                                               
Federation of  Independent Business  (NFIB), and  others opposing                                                               
parts of  a "soon to  be withdrawn" amendment, and  the committee                                                               
staff in working  closely with her office to make  this a win-win                                                               
for everyone.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
6:11:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  related that  the  committee  received letters  of                                                               
support from  three different groups,  and also support  from the                                                               
American  Federation   of  Labor   and  Congress   of  Industrial                                                               
Organizations (AFL-CIO).                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP   remarked  that   he  fully   supports  the                                                               
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
6:11:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER  withdrew his  objection.  There  being no                                                               
objection, Amendment 8 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
6:11:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX moved  to adopt  Amendment 9,  Version 30-                                                               
GH1789\O.9, Wallace, 4/11/17, which read as follows:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 10, line 14:                                                                                                          
          Delete "21st [14TH]"                                                                                              
          Insert "14th"                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 10, line 17:                                                                                                          
          Delete "21 [14] days"                                                                                             
          Insert "14 days or twice a month"                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 10, line 18, following "period.":                                                                                     
          Insert "If the first installment of compensation                                                                  
     due under  this subsection is  not paid within  14 days                                                                
     or a  subsequent installment due under  this subsection                                                                
     is not  paid every 14  days or  twice a month,  a grace                                                                
     period  will not  be allowed  and an  additional amount                                                                
     will become due under (e) of this section."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
6:12:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained that  when she introduced the now                                                               
adopted  Amendment  2  [on  4/5/17],  it  provided  that  if  [an                                                               
employer or  insurer] had not paid  workers' compensation benefit                                                               
to a worker within 14 days,  no grace period would be allowed and                                                               
the late  benefit would be  penalized under this section.   Since                                                               
the adoption of Amendment 2,  she remarked, a representative from                                                               
the National  Federation of  Independent Business  (NFIB) pointed                                                               
out  that some  businesses, including  the State  of Alaska,  pay                                                               
their  employees twice  per month  and it  would be  difficult to                                                               
change  the benefits  to  a  14 day  period  within the  computer                                                               
systems of people  paying on a bi-monthly pay  period.  Amendment                                                               
9  changes  it  to  every  14  days,  or  twice  per  month,  she                                                               
explained.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that  she likes the 7-day grace                                                               
period  aspect  and she  would  like  feedback from  those  being                                                               
impacted.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  pointed out  that the  7 day  grace period                                                               
was already eliminated [within the  adoption of Amendment 2], and                                                               
Amendment 9  simply moves the time  period from every 14  days to                                                               
twice per month.  She  reiterated to Representative Reinbold that                                                               
the discussion was  not about the previously deleted  7 day grace                                                               
period.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  argued that  the amendment went  from 14                                                               
days to 21 days.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
6:14:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN disagreed  and advised  that the  amendment changes                                                               
the 21 days to 14 days, [or twice per month].                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD after  re-reading  the amendment  agreed                                                               
that Chair  Claman and Representative  LeDoux were correct.   She                                                               
commented  that she  did not  know whether  anyone would  like to                                                               
testify,  but  she  would not  fight  it  because  Representative                                                               
LeDoux had the votes.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  commented  that  he likes  the  idea  of                                                               
Amendment 9,  and suggested that under  its current construction,                                                               
an  employer  could  probably  do what  was  unintended  by  this                                                               
amendment due  to the word "or,"  and pay the money  twice on day                                                               
30 and would be in compliance.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX answered  that  she supposed  it could  be                                                               
read in that manner, although,  that certainly wasn't the purpose                                                               
of the amendment, but Representative Eastman may have a point.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to  Representative Eastman's suggestion and                                                               
said that because  the employer was not paying for  past time and                                                               
was  paying for  the time  going  forward, that  if the  employee                                                               
received a  full month  at one time  the employee  probably would                                                               
have  no objection.   Although,  he commented,  the odds  that an                                                               
employer would actually  choose to pay in one lump  sum is pretty                                                               
unlikely.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
6:17:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARX answered  that the language is "very broad"  and is open                                                               
to  multiple interpretations,  and  the  division would  probably                                                               
have  difficulties  in  calculating   penalties.    Whereas,  the                                                               
division could easily calculate when  penalties may be due with a                                                               
set  date, and  every employer  having the  same due  date.   The                                                               
language "twice per month," she related,  could be read to be two                                                               
days in one month period, a 30 day or a 31 day period.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
6:18:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX,  noting that the division  knows where the                                                               
committee wants  to go  with this  language and  is aware  of the                                                               
problem, asked the language the division would suggest.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MARX  related  that originally  the  compensation  was  paid                                                               
within  14  days with  a  grace  period  of  7 days,  meaning  an                                                               
employer actually had 21 days in  which to pay.  She opined, that                                                               
the administration changed it, and the  feeling is to back to the                                                               
way it  was before, "but changing  it here."  She  explained. "So                                                               
here,  I think  the intent  is to  pay 14  days, and  'this right                                                               
here' adding twice  per month, I'm not sure that  that would meet                                                               
that intent to pay that 14 days."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that it is  not an attempt to make it 14                                                               
days, it's an attempt to  recognize that many employers pay twice                                                               
per month.   He commented  that while technically  a possibility,                                                               
in the  real world no employer  would pay the entire  payment for                                                               
one month on the last two days of the month.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARX related  that in her experience as a  hearing officer, 9                                                               
out of  10 employers  would follow  the intent, and  1 out  of 10                                                               
would  construe the  language against  the intent,  and it  would                                                               
happen often  enough that it  would be  a concern.   She remarked                                                               
that  in  a  perfect  world,  the fraud  unit  would  not  be  in                                                               
existence.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
6:20:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER  HEIDI  DRYGAS,  Department  of  Labor  &  Workforce                                                               
Development,  clarified that  there  are  different systems  when                                                               
paying workers' compensation benefits.   Typically, it is not the                                                               
employer paying the  benefits - it's the insurer, and  to have an                                                               
insurer pay every  14 days or every 21 days  is a reasonable part                                                               
of  its responsibilities.    She commented  that  there are  some                                                               
self-insured employers in this state.   The workers' compensation                                                               
benefits  system  versus  regular  wages  and  benefits  paid  to                                                               
working employees  are completely different and,  she opined, the                                                               
attempt  to try  to  fit it  into an  employer's  version of  how                                                               
employees are paid may not be necessary.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
6:21:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  Mr. DeWitt's  perspective  on  the                                                               
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
6:22:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DANNY DeWITT, State Director,  National Federation of Independent                                                               
Business (NFIB),  related that  he is not  an expert  in workers'                                                               
compensation  and advised  that 14  days plus  14 days  equals 28                                                               
days   and  most   months  have   31  days   which  causes   math                                                               
difficulties.   He related that he  does not have a  solution but                                                               
offered concern that without the  grace period, it could create a                                                               
significant problem for  folks paying on the 1st and  15th of the                                                               
month.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
6:23:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  remarked   that  as  Commissioner  Drygas                                                               
pointed out,  everyone is  covered through  workers' compensation                                                               
insurance,  or through  those  who might  be  self-insured.   She                                                               
commented  that she  did not  know whether  anyone was  available                                                               
from  the  workers'  compensation  carriers to  testify,  but  it                                                               
wouldn't appear to  actually impact Mr. DeWitt's  clients, and it                                                               
might impact the workers' compensation insurance carrier.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. DeWITT explained that everything  an insurance company has to                                                               
do is  charged in  premiums which  directly affects  his clients.                                                               
He offered  concern that if a  payment was made on  the 14th, the                                                               
next payment  would be on the  28th, which means three  days into                                                               
the next  month which puts everyone  on a 54 year  payment cycle,                                                               
rather than a 52 year cycle.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  commented that Mr.  DeWitt may be getting  his math                                                               
wrong but he wasn't going to quarrel with the math.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. DeWITT  advised that  he appreciates  Representative LeDoux's                                                               
intent,  but it  begs the  question  of whether  the math  works,                                                               
which is why a grace period is necessary.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
6:25:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that the  issue Commissioner Drygas raised                                                               
was that it  gets referred to the  workers' compensation carrier.                                                               
The workers'  compensation carrier is  accustomed to the  14 days                                                               
rule, might prefer the 14 days  rule, and might prefer not to get                                                               
confused by the twice per month rule, he said.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  commented that at  this point she  was not                                                               
particularly interested in Amendment 9.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  noted  that  if 14  days  poses  a  math                                                               
problem, whether 16 days or 17 days would solve the problem.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. DeWITT stated that he  was hesitant to respond and underlined                                                               
that "I  really don't know  enough of the technical  issues," but                                                               
if  forced  to respond,  would  think  that  16 days  would  work                                                               
because it would cover one month.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  reiterated  that   a  grace  period  is                                                               
important and  then read to  the committee [Amendment 9,  page 1,                                                               
lines 10-13].                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
6:27:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, in reference  to Mr. DeWitt's comments and                                                               
the 16 days, commented that  she was unsure it was mathematically                                                               
better.   In response to Representative  Reinbold's comments, she                                                               
pointed out  there is  not a grace  period when  paying someone's                                                               
salary and she  could not see why there should  be a grace period                                                               
with workers' compensation benefits.   Representative LeDoux then                                                               
remarked  that  if  she  had  her druthers,  she  would  like  to                                                               
withdraw  the  amendment and  as  the  bill progresses,  that  an                                                               
insurance carrier  advise as to  whether adopting  this amendment                                                               
would  become  a  data  nightmare  and  how  to  solve  the  data                                                               
nightmare.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
6:29:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX withdrew Amendment 9.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
6:29:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  asked Representative  Reinbold,  in  light of  the                                                               
committee action  on Amendment  8, whether  she preferred  to not                                                               
offer Amendment 5.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  related her  appreciation with  the AFL-                                                               
CIO, NFIB,  Chair Claman's office,  and the passage  of Amendment                                                               
8, and opined that the parties  came to a "great compromise," and                                                               
said she would not to make a motion to adopt Amendment 5.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
6:29:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that the  department did not weigh in                                                               
on Amendment  8, and  asked whether  the department  accepted the                                                               
committee's action.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that Commissioner  Drygas gave him a "thumbs                                                               
up" to indicate that the department was good with Amendment 8.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX stated  that  she was  both impressed  and                                                               
amazed  that  this  was accomplished  and  thanked  everyone  who                                                               
worked on this bill to come up with a "win-win for everybody."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented  that this is a  "great example" of                                                               
the public and private sector  working together toward the common                                                               
goal of taking care of employees.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
6:30:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report CSHB 79, Version 30-                                                                     
GH1789\O,   as  amended,   out  of   committee  with   individual                                                               
recommendations and  the accompanying fiscal notes.   There being                                                               
no  objection, CSHB  79(JUD) passed  out of  the House  Judiciary                                                               
Standing Committee.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
                SB 55-OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
6:31:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 55(FIN),  "An Act relating to criminal law                                                               
and  procedure; relating  to controlled  substances; relating  to                                                               
sentencing;   relating   to   protective  orders;   relating   to                                                               
restitution;  relating to  the period  of probation;  relating to                                                               
revocation,    termination,    suspension,    cancellation,    or                                                               
restoration of  a driver's license; relating  to parole; relating                                                               
to  the  duties   of  the  Department  of   Corrections  and  the                                                               
Department of  Health and Social  Services; and providing  for an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
6:32:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 6:32 p.m. to 6:34 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
6:34:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR JOHN  COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature,  advised that SB                                                               
55 was borne out of  the recommendations from the Alaska Criminal                                                               
Justice Commission, and it is  mostly technical and conforming in                                                               
nature.  He noted that SB  54 contains policy calls and has taken                                                               
on  a  life of  its  own.   This  bill  is  based on  issues  the                                                               
Department of  Law (DOL) brought  to the Alaska  Criminal Justice                                                               
Commission wherein  the commission put something  in one statute,                                                               
and  through the  amendment process  there was  not a  conforming                                                               
change, and this bill conforms  those changes, he explained.  The                                                               
goal  is to  be as  "technically clean"  as possible  during this                                                               
session,   which  would   help  both   the  DOL,   Department  of                                                               
Transportation  & Public  Facilities (DOTPF),  Division of  Motor                                                               
Vehicles while hammering  out some of the  policy call questions.                                                               
Senate  Bill   91  [passed  in  the   Twenty-Ninth  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature]  was  a  large  omnibus   crime  package  with  many                                                               
amendments, and it is now necessary to line up the statutes.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
6:36:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JORDAN  SHILLING,  Staff,  Senator  John  Coghill,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,  offered  a  sectional   summary  and  advised  that                                                               
Sections 1,  2, and 3,  of the bill  all do  the same thing.   He                                                               
explained that  in 2015, the  Alaska Criminal  Justice Commission                                                               
recommended that the  felony theft threshold be  raised, which is                                                               
the  dividing line  between misdemeanor  theft and  felony theft.                                                               
The commission had  advised to not only raise  that threshold but                                                               
to link it to inflation so  the legislature would not have to act                                                               
in  the future  on  that issue.   However,  with  Senate Bill  91                                                               
having 193  sections there  were some  drafting errors,  and this                                                               
drafting error occurred when the  drafter inadvertently, in three                                                               
instances, linked  the higher amount  of grand  larceny, $25,000,                                                               
to inflation adjustment.  He  opined that this was an inadvertent                                                               
result  of a  floor amendment  in the  House of  Representatives,                                                               
last year.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
6:37:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING advised  that Section  [3] of  the bill  relates to                                                               
drug possession, and  as recommended by the commission  in 2015 a                                                               
simple drug  possession shall be  a misdemeanor,  with exceptions                                                               
to that recommendation.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX offered  that she  doesn't understand  why                                                               
adjusting  for   inflation  would   be  considered   a  technical                                                               
amendment because it appears to be a fairly substantive change.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  responded that the  commission and  Senator Coghill                                                               
consider  it  a technical  change  because  the commission  never                                                               
recommended that that  the higher amount be  linked to inflation.                                                               
He explained  that it is  the sponsor's understanding  that there                                                               
was  never  an  intention  to   link  $25,000  to  the  inflation                                                               
adjustment.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   said  that  if  he   was  adjusting  for                                                               
inflation, why  there was never  an intention to link  $25,000 to                                                               
the inflation adjustment.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
6:39:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  opined  that  this  was the  subject  of  a  floor                                                               
amendment and  was a  compromise to adjust  for inflation  at the                                                               
lower level, but not at the higher level.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP explained  that the  lower level  determines                                                               
the  first  level  of  felony when  moving  from  misdemeanor  to                                                               
felony,  and that  the  broad agreement  was  that $25,000  would                                                               
probably always be a class  B felony throughout "our lifetime and                                                               
the next  lifetime."  The  lower level  is more sensitive  to the                                                               
market,  inflation, the  actual  value of  items most  frequently                                                               
stolen, and  that the market is  sensitive because it is  a lower                                                               
amount  moving from  a misdemeanor  to a  felony theft,  he said.                                                               
Whereas, the higher amounts are  actually not as sensitive to the                                                               
threshold they are  attached to on the felony scale.   There will                                                               
always be felonies, he reiterated,  but the lower level is moving                                                               
from  misdemeanor  to felony,  and  the  debate was  around  when                                                               
something should go from a misdemeanor to a felony.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX disagreed  with this being the  result of a                                                               
House  of  Representative floor  amendment  because  she did  not                                                               
recall any of those floor amendments actually passing.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  agreed with Representative LeDoux  and advised that                                                               
he believes  it was not a  subject of a House  of Representatives                                                               
floor amendment,  it was  actually a  function of  the amendments                                                               
offered in the House Judiciary Standing Committee last year.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
6:41:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  whether   it  was  Chair  Claman's                                                               
recollection that  the committee  meant to do  this in  the House                                                               
Judiciary  Standing  Committee,  in  which  case  it  was  not  a                                                               
technical amendment.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that it  was a technical amendment because                                                               
the House Judiciary Standing Committee "did  it, but we did it in                                                               
most sections," and Mr. Shilling  explained that there were a few                                                               
sections that  appeared as though they  were drafted erroneously.                                                               
Therefore, he said, this is  conforming the statute to the intent                                                               
of the bill as it came through committee.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
6:42:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
NANCY  MEADE, General  Counsel, Administrative  Staff, Office  of                                                               
the Administrative Director, Alaska  Court System, clarified that                                                               
the  language being  eliminated was,  "adjusted for  inflation as                                                               
provided  in  AS  11.46.982"  and  explained  that  AS  11.46.982                                                               
specifically  reads that  the judicial  council will  only adjust                                                               
for  inflation  the $250  amount  and  the  $1,000 amount.    She                                                               
pointed out  that the  Judicial Council  does not  have authority                                                               
anywhere  to address  the $25,000  amount, so  that really  was a                                                               
case  of the  drafters  going  through, and  each  time they  saw                                                               
something added  "adjusted for inflation," but  erroneously doing                                                               
it for the dollar amount that was not authorized.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
6:43:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING advised  that Section 4 of the bill  relates to drug                                                               
possession,   and  as   recommended   by   the  Alaska   Judicial                                                               
Commission,  Senate  Bill  91  made   simple  drug  possession  a                                                               
misdemeanor, with exceptions such  as, felony forms of possession                                                               
in the law.  Unfortunately,  he said, those changes inadvertently                                                               
created some  overlapping penalties, specifically  for possession                                                               
of less  than one ounce  of a schedule VIA  controlled substance.                                                               
This   section  eliminates   those  overlapping   penalties,  and                                                               
accommodates  for  the  fact  there  are  felony  forms  of  drug                                                               
possession referenced  in other statutes  and it simply  needs to                                                               
be referenced in Section 4 as well, he explained.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
6:44:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to "overlapping penalties."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING referred  to CSSB 55(FIN), Version T,  page 3, lines                                                               
3-6, which read as follows:                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
                    (4) under circumstances not proscribed                                                                      
     under AS 11.71.030(a)(3), 11.71.040(a),                                                                                
     11.71.040(a)(4), [AS 11.71.040(a)(3)] or                                                                               
     11.71.060(a)(2) [11.71.060(a)(2)(B)], possesses any                                                                    
     amount of a schedule 1A, IIA, IIIA, IVA, VA, or VIA                                                                        
     controlled substance.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING explained that this  statute makes simple possession                                                               
of  drugs a  class  A  misdemeanor, and  it  makes possession  of                                                               
schedule  1A, IIA,  IIIA, IVA,  VA, or  VIA substance  a class  A                                                               
misdemeanor.    However,  he pointed  out,  another  statute  has                                                               
another  penalty for  possession  of  less than  one  ounce of  a                                                               
schedule VIA  substance.   He explained there  is a  statute that                                                               
makes it a  class B misdemeanor for someone to  possess less than                                                               
one  ounce of  a VIA  controlled substance,  and another  statute                                                               
simultaneously makes it a class A misdemeanor.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  surmised   that  there  are  inconsistent                                                               
penalties.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  answered in the  affirmative, and offered  that the                                                               
sponsor chose  to default to  the class B misdemeanor,  which was                                                               
the law prior to Senate Bill 91.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
6:45:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   REINBOLD   referred  to   previous   testimonies                                                               
referencing  the  State  of  Texas  and  asked  Mr.  Shilling  to                                                               
describe how similar  or different the drug issues  are in Senate                                                               
Bill 91 in Alaska versus Texas.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING  pointed out  that  he  is  not  an expert  on  the                                                               
sentencing  frameworks  of  other   states,  but  generally  when                                                               
speaking of  Texas it  was spoken  of as being  one of  the first                                                               
conservative states to  embark on these types  of criminal reform                                                               
efforts.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related  that she would like  to speak to                                                               
the committee  at a  later time  as to  the differences  in Texas                                                               
because  many  times  people  have   been  misled,  and  stressed                                                               
considerable concern regarding Section 4.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
6:46:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.   SHILLING  advised   that  Section   5  relates   to  victim                                                               
notification.   Senate Bill 91  created a new requirement  of the                                                               
court  by  requiring  that information  regarding  sentencing  be                                                               
given to  the victim, thereby,  giving the victim  an opportunity                                                               
to update  their contact information with  the Victim Information                                                               
and Notification  Everyday (VINE) system.   However, the language                                                               
was not written  in a manner that would accommodate  for the fact                                                               
that many victims simply do not  show up to court and; therefore,                                                               
the  court system  has been  out  of strict  compliance with  the                                                               
statute.   Oftentimes, he  commented, victims do  not want  to be                                                               
part of  these hearings, and because  it is not the  court's role                                                               
to maintain  a contact  list of victim  information, it  would be                                                               
inappropriate to require the court  to seek out these victims and                                                               
provide this  information.  Instead,  he explained,  the language                                                               
"if practicable"  was added in  recognition that many  victims do                                                               
not show up to court.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
6:48:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked permission  to read "Section 24" of                                                               
the constitution.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   CLAMAN   stated  that   the   committee   did  not   need                                                               
Representative  Reinbold  to  read from  the  constitution  while                                                               
moving  through  the  bill  sectional,  and  she  would  have  an                                                               
opportunity  during the  committee  comment segment  of the  bill                                                               
hearing.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   CLAMAN,   in   response  to   Representative   Reinbold's                                                               
continuing  argument,  stated  that   the  committee  would  move                                                               
through the sectional summary at this time.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
6:48:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.   SHILLING  clarified   that  the   requirement  to   provide                                                               
information to  victims did  not exist prior  to Senate  Bill 91.                                                               
He  explained that  it  is  a piece  of  information the  sponsor                                                               
strongly believes  should be  assessable to  victims, and  it was                                                               
established  in law  last year.   He  further explained  that had                                                               
they  identified a  need for  the language  "if practicable,"  it                                                               
would have been changed last year.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
6:49:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  explained that Secs. 6,  7, 8, 9, and  10, all have                                                               
to do with the suspended entry  of judgment (SEJ).  Last year the                                                               
commission recommended  a diversionary  tool called  a "suspended                                                               
entry of judgment (SEJ)" which  resembles a "suspended imposition                                                               
of sentence  (SIS)".  The  SEJ was established under  Senate Bill                                                               
91, and  was intended to operate  a bit differently than  the SIS                                                               
wherein a conviction would not  be entered for defendants granted                                                               
an  SEJ, thereby,  avoiding some  of  the consequences  resulting                                                               
from a conviction.   He explained that Section 6  provides for an                                                               
array of  authorities for  the court system,  and is  the general                                                               
statute  authorizing the  court system  to impose  community work                                                               
service, fines, and  sentences of imprisonment.   Section 6 makes                                                               
it explicitly  clear that  the court does  have the  authority to                                                               
impose a suspended entry of judgment (SEJ).                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
6:50:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING turned  to Section 7, and advised  that this section                                                               
is necessary to bring the  suspended imposition of sentence (SIS)                                                               
and suspended entry of judgment  (SEJ) closer into alignment.  It                                                               
ensures that  when a restitution  order is made as  a requirement                                                               
under an  SEJ, that  the responsibility  to pay  that restitution                                                               
does not go  away or disappear when  that individual successfully                                                               
completes an SEJ, and their  case is discharged.  The requirement                                                               
to  pay restitution  remains just  as it  does under  a suspended                                                               
imposition of sentence (SIS).                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
6:50:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   REINBOLD  requested   an   explanation  of   the                                                               
difference between an SEJ and an SIS.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  explained that [under  an SEJ] a judgment  is never                                                               
entered, the  individual is  truly not  convicted, the  case does                                                               
not  appear  on CourtView,  and  they  can  legally write  on  an                                                               
employment application that  they have never been  convicted of a                                                               
crime.  He pointed out that  this is designed for first time, low                                                               
risk  offenders, and  deferred to  the Department  of Law  or the                                                               
Alaska Court System for any additional questions.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
6:51:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING advised  that  Section  8 deals  with  an SEJ,  and                                                               
explained  that it  was unclear  in  the SEJ  statutes whether  a                                                               
brief prison  stay could  be imposed, similar  to what  can occur                                                               
under  an  SIS.   He  related  that practitioners  had  requested                                                               
clarification as  to whether  there was an  option of  imposing a                                                               
brief  period of  imprisonment for  individuals going  through an                                                               
SEJ.   He  clarified that  the commission  never intended  "shock                                                               
incarceration," for example,  to be used under an SEJ  and if the                                                               
commission  had,   it  certainly   would  have   recommended  the                                                               
appropriate  language.   The commission  felt it  was prudent  to                                                               
clarify in  statute that  incarceration may not  be imposed  as a                                                               
condition  of  probation  under a  suspended  entry  of  judgment                                                               
(SEJ).                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
6:52:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  paraphrased  that "the  court  may  not                                                               
impose a sentence of imprisonment  under this section," and asked                                                               
for additional  information as to  this language tying  the hands                                                               
of the court.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING explained  that it  was  not the  intention of  the                                                               
commission to impose shock incarceration under an SEJ.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
6:53:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR COGHILL  reminded the committee that  under the suspended                                                               
entry  of judgment  (SEJ), the  judgment is  still there  and the                                                               
idea  is to  get  the person  into treatment.    The person  must                                                               
complete that treatment in order  to have that judgment suspended                                                               
and  set aside.   He  described it  as an  accountability measure                                                               
because in  order for the  judgment to  be set aside,  the person                                                               
must complete the program requirements.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that with an  SEJ, the court made the decision                                                               
to suspend entry  of judgment and send the person  to a treatment                                                               
program.  Therefore,  the court decides at the  very beginning of                                                               
the process  whether it  will give  the person  that opportunity.                                                               
The court's  hands are not tied,  he pointed out, this  is simply                                                               
recognizing that a court decided to  give a person that chance to                                                               
rehabilitate and not have a conviction.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR COGHILL described  it as a methodology tool  that a court                                                               
may or may not use.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
6:54:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  paraphrased "the court may  not impose a                                                               
sentence  of  imprisonment  under this  section,"  and  expressed                                                               
concern  that   many  times  funding  and/or   programs  are  not                                                               
available in certain areas, and  in those instances what would be                                                               
the next step.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR COGHILL answered  that the court may use  the programs if                                                               
they are  available, and if  they are not available,  the chances                                                               
are a  court would not  suspend an  entry of judgment  because it                                                               
couldn't practically follow the rules.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
6:55:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN referred  to  [Section 8]  and asked  how                                                               
broadly or  narrowly imprisonment was  defined, and if  the court                                                               
decided a person  needed to be hospitalized for  a certain amount                                                               
of time whether that falls under imprisonment.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  commented that he  was unaware whether there  was a                                                               
definition for  imprisonment in  Title 12,  and opined  that when                                                               
the word "imprisonment" is used,  it refers to incarceration at a                                                               
Department  of Corrections  (DOC)  facility.   He explained  that                                                               
different  terms   such  as,  home  confinement   and  electronic                                                               
monitoring  are used  when referring  to something  other than  a                                                               
hard bed facility within the DOC.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
6:57:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING explained  that Section  9 also  has to  do with  a                                                               
suspended entry  of judgment (SEJ),  and under existing law  if a                                                               
person successfully  completes probation under an  SEJ, the court                                                               
may discharge  the person  and dismiss  the proceedings  any time                                                               
after  one year  from the  date of  the original  probation.   He                                                               
related that practitioners  were confused by this  language as to                                                               
whether  it referred  to the  start date,  end date,  or at  what                                                               
point in  the probation term  was being discussed.   He clarified                                                               
that because probation  terms are longer than one  single day, it                                                               
is an  increment of time and  it makes sense to  add the language                                                               
"was imposed," which  is a grammatical issue to  clarify that the                                                               
statute  was  referring  to  the   start  date  of  the  term  of                                                               
probation.  Also,  he said, this section clarifies  that a person                                                               
is not convicted if they successfully complete an SEJ.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
6:57:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD referred  to an  SEJ, and  asked whether                                                               
the person was ever convicted,  and paraphrased: "a person who is                                                               
discharged  in this  section may  not be  convicted of  a crime."                                                               
She said  she wanted to look  at the full ramifications  from the                                                               
beginning to the end with regard to that sentence.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  explained that  under an SEJ,  the person  is never                                                               
convicted  and this  language makes  it crystal  clear that  that                                                               
person is not convicted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
6:58:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  said,  "Yet,  he   or  she  has  to  do                                                               
probation and a  whole bunch of other things,"  and something was                                                               
missing.  She  commented that if they are not  convicted, why are                                                               
they on probation.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING responded  that a  person  faces many  consequences                                                               
associated with  being charged with  a crime and are  required to                                                               
perform  community service,  fines,  or  treatment, for  example.                                                               
However, he said, the uniqueness of  an SEJ that sets it apart is                                                               
that the person  is not truly convicted and,  thereby, avoids the                                                               
consequences that follow a conviction.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
6:59:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD   surmised  that  the   person  actually                                                               
committed the crime  and this is a way to  erase the offense, but                                                               
argued  that  people  have  the right  to  know  whether  someone                                                               
actually committed a crime and see it listed on CourtView.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  asked Mr. Shilling to  explain who would                                                               
know about  the SEJ,  wherein the  person actually  committed the                                                               
crime but was not convicted.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  explained that  this is exactly  how an  SEJ works,                                                               
the person  is not convicted  and as  a result their  record does                                                               
not appear on the CourtView criminal record.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD argued, "But, they committed it."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
7:00:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  explained to Representative  Reinbold that  she was                                                               
exactly  correct, under  the criminal  justice reform  efforts an                                                               
SEJ  is a  tool  the court  can  use for  someone  who admits  to                                                               
committing a crime,  to give them an  opportunity to rehabilitate                                                               
themselves.  He related that  he fully understands Representative                                                               
Reinbold does  not agree with  that part of the  criminal justice                                                               
reform efforts, and her distaste is clear.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said  this is an issue that  has been "of                                                               
great alarm" and she wanted to put it on record.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN assured Representative  Reinbold that it was clearly                                                               
on record.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
7:01:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP explained  to  Representative Reinbold  that                                                               
suspended  entry of  judgment  (SEJ) means  there  is no  written                                                               
official  record  of  the  conviction.   He  explained  that  the                                                               
defense,  prosecution,  [and  judge]  must  all  agree  that  the                                                               
conviction could be set aside if  a whole host of conditions were                                                               
fulfilled  on probation.   He  pointed out  that the  legislature                                                               
determined  that  a person  was  not  eligible  for an  SEJ  when                                                               
involving  crimes  against  a  person,  sexual  assault,  violent                                                               
crimes,  and  almost any  serious  offense.   The  whole  purpose                                                               
behind this  is to allow first  time offenders a chance  to avoid                                                               
that initial conviction which could  put them in the death spiral                                                               
of un-employability for the rest of  their lives, he related.  In                                                               
the  event  someone  violates  that  probation  they  lose  their                                                               
ability for that SEJ, and it  will be a conviction.  He described                                                               
it as a refined process.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
7:03:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  advised that  Section 10 is  a continuation  of the                                                               
previous  conversation regarding  a suspended  entry of  judgment                                                               
(SEJ).   It  uses the  words  "convicted of"  and "convicted"  in                                                               
three instances, and  because the person had  not been convicted,                                                               
it made sense to refer to  the charge rather than the conviction.                                                               
The  fourth replacement  of  the words  "convicted  of" with  "is                                                               
charged with"  is for a different  reason, there are a  number of                                                               
exceptions, and a  number of individuals are not  eligible for an                                                               
SEJ.   Under  current  law,  a person  convicted  of  a crime  of                                                               
domestic  violence is  not eligible,  "with convicted  being past                                                               
tense"  leads  some  practitioners   to  believe  that  might  be                                                               
referring  to a  previous conviction  of domestic  violence.   He                                                               
stressed that  the sponsor  wants to ensure  that someone  who is                                                               
"currently,  right now,"  being  charged  with domestic  violence                                                               
would not be eligible for an SEJ.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
7:04:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING explained  that Section  11 eliminates  overlapping                                                               
probation  term  lengths  because   Senate  Bill  91  established                                                               
maximum probation  term lengths.   For example,  he said,  one of                                                               
the maximums was 15 years for  a felony sex offense, and 10 years                                                               
for an unclassified  felony under Title 11, and  there are felony                                                               
sex offenses that are also  unclassified felonies under Title 11.                                                               
He  explained that  there  is an  ambiguity  about which  maximum                                                               
probation term  lengths would apply,  and this section  clears up                                                               
that ambiguity.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
7:05:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING pointed  to Sections  12 and  13, and  related that                                                               
they do the  same thing.  Senate Bill 91  raised the maximum fine                                                               
amount  that could  be imposed  for  a class  A misdemeanor  from                                                               
$10,000   to  $25,000,   and  opined   this  was   part  of   the                                                               
aforementioned House  of Representatives amendment, but  he would                                                               
perform research.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN said  he was certain that amendment came  out of the                                                               
House Judiciary Standing Committee and  not from the floor of the                                                               
House of Representatives.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
7:05:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING remarked  that these  two statutes  require certain                                                               
information  to  be  on  the protective  order  form,  and  these                                                               
sections talk about  what the penalties might be  for violating a                                                               
protective order.   He noted that  the form says that  one of the                                                               
possible penalties would  be a fine up to $10,000  except that is                                                               
no longer the maximum fine,  and these two sections simply update                                                               
the information on the form to  specify that the maximum fine can                                                               
be up to $25,000.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
7:06:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  asked whether  the  money  goes to  the                                                               
court system, the general fund, or whether it was restitution.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING responded  that he does not know the  answer to that                                                               
question,  and this  is  just a  technical  change that  conforms                                                               
Alaska's  fines statutes  with the  protective order  statutes in                                                               
Title 18.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE answered  that all  fines for  all crimes  go straight                                                               
into the general fund.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
7:07:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING  said  that  Section  14 has  to  do  with  license                                                               
revocations and this  section removes a reference to  the type of                                                               
dismissal  that would  serve  to meet  the  requirements of  this                                                               
section,   and   removing   this  reference   to   prejudice   is                                                               
appropriate.  The intent of this  policy is to return the license                                                               
to  the individual  if they  have  been acquitted  or their  case                                                               
dismissed  regardless  of  whether  the  dismissal  was  with  or                                                               
without,  prejudice.    This  simply  removes  the  reference  to                                                               
prejudice and gets back to the intent of that policy, he noted.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
7:07:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING explained that Section 15  is a new addition into SB                                                               
55  from the  Senate  Finance  Committee.   In  2015, the  Alaska                                                               
Criminal  Justice Commission  recommended that  municipalities be                                                               
prohibited  from  having   greater  punishments  under  municipal                                                               
ordinances that  go beyond the  punishments for  similar offenses                                                               
described  under  state  law.   Senate  Bill  91  enshrined  that                                                               
recommendation  in  statute,  but   afterwards  it  came  to  the                                                               
sponsor's attention that folks were  interpreting the language to                                                               
not  only apply  to crimes,  but also  non-criminal offenses  and                                                               
traffic infractions.   He noted that  this has had the  effect of                                                               
limiting  significant revenue  sharing  for  the Municipality  of                                                               
Anchorage,  for example,  and creating  an  inability to  collect                                                               
greater  fines  for traffic  infractions.    This section  simply                                                               
changes  the  statute to  apply  only  to criminal  offenses,  he                                                               
explained.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
7:09:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether this is similar to HB 223.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN responded "identical."                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
7:09:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING referred to Section  16, and advised that the Alaska                                                               
Criminal   Justice  Commission   recommended  that   agencies  be                                                               
required to  collect specific data  on key  performance measures,                                                               
to  analyze the  data, prepare  reports for  the legislature,  to                                                               
continue to make recommendations, and  play an oversight role for                                                               
the next  five years.   Due  to an  apparent oversight,  the bill                                                               
missed an important  data point that does need to  be reported to                                                               
the commission relating to earned compliance credits, he said.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
7:09:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  said that  Section 17  has to  do with  the Alcohol                                                               
Safety Action Program  (ASAP), and this section  aligns two bills                                                               
that were passed  around the same time.  Senate  Bill 165 [passed                                                               
in  the   Twenty-Ninth  Alaska  State  Legislature]   made  minor                                                               
consuming  alcohol a  violation and  provided that  the fine  for                                                               
this  violation  may be  reduced  if  that juvenile  successfully                                                               
participated  in ASAP.    Senate  Bill 91  limited  the types  of                                                               
offenses that could be referred  to ASAP, in order to accommodate                                                               
for the  fact that  Senate Bill 165  felt strongly  about sending                                                               
these juvenile offenders  to ASAP, this section of  the bill adds                                                               
those  two juvenile  offenses to  the list  of offenses  that not                                                               
only the court can refer to ASAP, but the ASAP can accept.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
7:10:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING advised that Section  18 eliminates the notification                                                               
requirement  for a  parole hearing  that  will never  occur.   He                                                               
explained that this  is a statute that says  that individuals who                                                               
have committed  a crime  against a person  or committed  arson in                                                               
the  first  degree, and  become  eligible  for an  administrative                                                               
parole that notification should be  sent to the victim.  However,                                                               
he  pointed out,  those  individuals are  just  not eligible  for                                                               
administrative  parole;  therefore,  no notification  would  ever                                                               
need to be sent and it is being repealed here.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
7:11:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING noted that Sections  19 and 20 are the applicability                                                               
provisions  with  respect  to  the   entire  bill.    Section  20                                                               
clarifies that any decision made by  the Board of Parole prior to                                                               
January  2017, is  not somehow  invalidated by  the passage  of a                                                               
certain section of Senate Bill 91, he explained.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
7:11:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHILLING  related that Section  21 provided for  an immediate                                                               
effective date of all of the sections of Senate Bill 91.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  noted that  it is  his intention  to move  the bill                                                               
from committee today.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  objected to moving  the bill as  this is                                                               
the bill's  first presentation and public  safety is government's                                                               
number one mandate.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
7:13:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  referred  to the  Constitution  of  the                                                               
State of Alaska, Article 1, Section 24, which read as follows:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section 24.  Rights of Crime Victims  Crime victims, as                                                                    
     defined  by law,  shall have  the  following rights  as                                                                    
     provided by  law: the right to  be reasonably protected                                                                    
     from the accused through  the imposition of appropriate                                                                    
     bail or conditions  of release by the  court; the right                                                                    
     to  confer  with  the  prosecution;  the  right  to  be                                                                    
     treated with dignity, respect,  and fairness during all                                                                    
     phases of  the criminal  and juvenile  justice process;                                                                    
     the right  to timely disposition of  the case following                                                                    
     the  arrest  of  the  accused;   the  right  to  obtain                                                                    
     information about and  be allowed to be  present at all                                                                    
     criminal or juvenile proceedings  where the accused has                                                                    
     the right to be present; the  right to be allowed to be                                                                    
     heard,  upon request,  at sentencing,  before or  after                                                                    
     conviction  or   juvenile  adjudication,  and   at  any                                                                    
     proceeding where the accused's  release from custody is                                                                    
     considered; the right to  restitution from the accused;                                                                    
     and  the right  to be  informed, upon  request, of  the                                                                    
     accused's  escape or  release  from  custody before  or                                                                    
     after conviction or juvenile adjudication.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD remarked  that it  is important  to keep                                                               
the constitution  at close hand,  and expressed concern  with the                                                               
technical changes.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
7:14:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   opened  public  testimony   on  SB  55.     After                                                               
ascertaining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
7:15:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN advised  the committee that his  office had received                                                               
"only one amendment," which was  from Representative Reinbold and                                                               
it was  received after 12:00  noon, which was after  the deadline                                                               
for receiving  amendments.   He pointed out  that the  subject of                                                               
"those amendments"  was addressed in  two other bills, SB  54 and                                                               
HB 228, which  are Representative Reinbold's bills.   For both of                                                               
those reasons  he ruled  those amendments out  of order  and they                                                               
would not be considered, he stated.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
7:15:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  said he was curious  about Chair Claman's                                                               
last statement,  and commented  that, obviously,  not all  of the                                                               
bills that  come before  the committee will  pass, and  asked how                                                               
the fact that the information was  in another bill would keep the                                                               
committee from putting an amendment on this bill today.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained  that when "we have the  exact thing" that                                                               
has  already been  referred to  a different  committee, it  takes                                                               
that work away from that committee.   The amendment was also late                                                               
and for  both of those reasons  the committee would not  hear the                                                               
amendment, he said.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN, in  response to  Representative Eastman,  answered                                                               
that his  view as committee  chair is that  the bill needs  to be                                                               
moved out of committee.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
7:16:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD expressed  her  disappointment and  said                                                               
that her amendment  being ruled out of order  was unnecessary and                                                               
she objected to her concerns not being heard.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
7:17:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  said, "Good  bill, Mr. Chairman,  let's move                                                               
it."                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to  Section 15, and asked whether                                                               
there had  been discussion,  "as we're  tightening down"  on what                                                               
municipalities can  do because the change  essentially encourages                                                               
municipalities to put  higher costs on citations,  and asked what                                                               
was driving the desire for those higher costs.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHILLING   responded  that   the  Alaska   Criminal  Justice                                                               
Commission never  recommended that this limitation  be imposed on                                                               
municipalities in a manner that  restricted them from doing their                                                               
own thing  when it came  to non-criminal offenses.   He expressed                                                               
that it was simply not  what the commission recommended, and when                                                               
this language was in Senate Bill  91, the sponsor thought that it                                                               
did  what the  commission had  recommended.   After the  bill was                                                               
signed it  was determined  that the language  did not  follow the                                                               
commission's recommendation, thus the change.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
7:19:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report CSSB 55, Version 30-                                                                     
LS0119\T out of committee with individual recommendations and                                                                   
the accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
7:19:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote  was taken.   Representatives  LeDoux, Fansler,                                                               
Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins  and Claman voted  in favor of  passing CSSB                                                               
55 out of committee.   Representatives Eastman and Reinbold voted                                                               
against  it.   Therefore, CSSB  55(FIN) passed  out of  the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
7:21:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB204 Draft Proposed CS ver D 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 204
HB204 Explanation of Changes 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 204
HB204 CS (JUD) Sponsor Statement 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 204
HB204 ver A 4.13.17.PDF HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 204
HB204 Sectional Analysis ver A 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 204
HB204 Supporting Document-AAA State Move Over Laws 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 204
HB204 Supporting Document-Minor Offenses Table 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 204
HB204 Supporting Document-DoT Work Zone Safety Week PR 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 204
HB204 Supporting Document-Delaware Move Over Law Informational 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 204
HB204 Supporting Document-Citation Statistics 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 204
HB204 Fiscal Note DPS-AST 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 204
SB55 ver T 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
SB 55
SB55 Sponsor Statement ver T 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
SB 55
SB55 Bill Contents ver T 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
SB 55
SB55 Summary of Changes ver D to T 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
SB 55
SB55 Sectional Summary ver T 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
SB 55
SB55 Additional Documents-ACJC Recommendations 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
SB 55
SB55 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
SB 55
SB55 Fiscal Note Various-Executive 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
SB 55
HB079 ver O 3.27.17.pdf HJUD 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/5/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB079 Transmittal Letter 3.27.17.pdf HJUD 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/5/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB079 Sectional Analysis ver O 3.27.17.pdf HJUD 4/5/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB079 Letters Index 4.3.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB079 Supporting Document-Letters of Support 4.3.17.pdf HJUD 4/5/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB079 Opposing Document-Letters of Opposition 4.3.17.PDF HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB079 Additional Document-Sponsor's Reply to House Judiciary Committee Questions 4.5.17.pdf HJUD 4/5/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB079 Supporting Document-Letter Alaska State Home Building Association 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB079 Supporting Document-Letter Alaska Trucking Association 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB079 Supporting Document-Letter NFIB 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB079 Amendments #1-9 HJUD Final Votes 4.13.17.pdf HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB079 Fiscal Note DOA-DRM 3.27.17.pdf HJUD 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/5/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB079 Fiscal Note DOLWD-WC 3.28.17.pdf HJUD 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/5/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 79
HB079 Fiscal Note DOLWD-SIF 3.27.17.pdf HJUD 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/5/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM
HB 79