Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

04/09/2018 01:00 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
-- Delayed to 2:00 pm --
+ SB 202 NATIVE CORP. LIABILITY FOR CONTAMINATION TELECONFERENCED
Moved HCS SB 202(JUD) Out of Committee
+ HB 336 SUPPORTIVE DECISION-MAKING AGREEMENTS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 9, 2018                                                                                          
                           2:12 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Matt Claman, Chair                                                                                               
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Vice Chair                                                                              
Representative Louise Stutes                                                                                                    
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Representative David Eastman                                                                                                    
Representative Chuck Kopp                                                                                                       
Representative Lora Reinbold                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)                                                                                     
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky (alternate)                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 202                                                                                                             
"An Act relating to the liability of a Native corporation for                                                                   
the release or threatened release of hazardous substances                                                                       
present on certain lands."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS SB 202(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 336                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to supported decision-making agreements to                                                                     
provide for decision- making assistance; and amending Rule 402,                                                                 
Alaska Rules of Evidence."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 202                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: NATIVE CORP. LIABILITY FOR CONTAMINATION                                                                           
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) HOFFMAN                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
02/19/18       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/19/18       (S)       RES, JUD                                                                                               
02/26/18       (S)       RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/26/18       (S)       Moved SB 202 Out of Committee                                                                          
02/26/18       (S)       MINUTE(RES)                                                                                            
02/28/18       (S)       RES RPT  4DP 2NR                                                                                       
02/28/18       (S)       DP: GIESSEL, BISHOP, COGHILL, VON IMHOF                                                                
02/28/18       (S)       NR: STEDMAN, MEYER                                                                                     
03/26/18       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
03/26/18       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/26/18       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/28/18       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
03/28/18       (S)       Moved SB 202 Out of Committee                                                                          
03/28/18       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/29/18       (S)       JUD RPT  4DP 1NR                                                                                       
03/29/18       (S)       DP:   COGHILL,   WIELECHOWSKI,   SHOWER,                                                               
                         COSTELLO                                                                                               
03/29/18       (S)       NR: KELLY                                                                                              
04/02/18       (S)       TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                     
04/02/18       (S)       VERSION: SB 202                                                                                        
04/04/18       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
04/04/18       (H)       JUD                                                                                                    
04/09/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 336                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORTIVE DECISION-MAKING AGREEMENTS                                                                              
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
02/07/18       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/07/18       (H)       HSS, JUD                                                                                               
03/01/18       (H)       HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/01/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/01/18       (H)       MINUTE(HSS)                                                                                            
03/08/18       (H)       HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/08/18       (H)       Moved CSHB 336(HSS) Out of Committee                                                                   
03/08/18       (H)       MINUTE(HSS)                                                                                            
03/09/18       (H)       HSS RPT CS(HSS) 6DP                                                                                    
03/09/18       (H)       DP: JOHNSTON, CLAMAN, EDGMON, SULLIVAN-                                                                
                         LEONARD, KITO, TARR                                                                                    
04/09/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MARIDON BOARIO, Staff                                                                                                           
Senator Lyman Hoffman                                                                                                           
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SB 202, presented the                                                              
legislation.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOHN HALVERSON, Environmental Program Manager                                                                                   
Contaminated Sites Program                                                                                                      
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of SB 202, discussed                                                                  
Amendment 1 and answered questions.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HANS RODVICK, Staff                                                                                                             
Representative Charisse Millett                                                                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 366, presented the                                                              
legislation and provided a sectional analysis.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
PROFESSOR HELEN GAEBLER                                                                                                         
Senior Research Attorney                                                                                                        
University of Texas School of Law                                                                                               
Austin, Texas                                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 336, testified.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
ANNE APPLEGATE, Program Coordinator                                                                                             
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education                                                                        
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 336, testified.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
IAN MINER                                                                                                                       
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 336, testified.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
KEN HELANDER, Advocacy Director                                                                                                 
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing HB 366, testified in                                                                  
support of the legislation.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HEIDI KELLY                                                                                                                     
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 336, testified.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:12:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MATT  CLAMAN called the House  Judiciary Standing Committee                                                             
meeting  to  order at  2:12  p.m.  Representatives Claman,  Kopp,                                                               
LeDoux  and Kreiss-Tomkins  were present  at the  call to  order.                                                               
Representatives Reinbold  and Eastman arrived as  the meeting was                                                               
in progress.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
        SB 202-NATIVE CORP. LIABILITY FOR CONTAMINATION                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:12:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE CS  FOR SENATE BILL NO.  202(JUD), "An Act relating  to the                                                               
liability of a  Native corporation for the  release or threatened                                                               
release of hazardous substances present on certain lands."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded  the committee that it  previously heard HB
67 [companion bill to SB 202] and  his plan is to pass SB 202 out                                                               
of committee today.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:13:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  moved to adopt Amendment  1, labeled 30-LS1422\A.4,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 6:                                                                                                            
          Delete "and (n)"                                                                                                  
          Delete "exception set out in (i)"                                                                                     
          Insert "exceptions [EXCEPTION] set out in (i) and                                                             
     (n)"                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 27, through page 3, line 1:                                                                                   
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(n)  A Native corporation that acquired land                                                                         
     under  43 U.S.C.  1601 et  seq.  (Alaska Native  Claims                                                                    
     Settlement Act) is not liable  under this section for a                                                                    
     release or threatened release  of a hazardous substance                                                                    
     on the  land unless the  Native corporation, by  an act                                                                    
     or omission,  caused or contributed  to the  release or                                                                    
     threatened release of the hazardous substance."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:14:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARIDON  BOARIO,  Staff,  Senator  Lyman  Hoffman,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, explained  that Amendment 1 creates  an exception to                                                               
strict liability under  AS 46.03.822.  Under  this amendment, she                                                               
advised, strict  liability does not apply  to Native Corporations                                                               
for any  release or threatened  release of a  hazardous substance                                                               
on land  granted under  the Alaska  Native Claims  Settlement Act                                                               
(ANCSA) unless  the Native  Corporation, by  an act  or omission,                                                               
caused or contributed to the  release or threatened release.  The                                                               
amendment  also  removes the  burden  of  proof from  the  Native                                                               
Corporation, and  she added that  Senator Hoffman  fully supports                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:14:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised  that the intention of Amendment  1 is that                                                               
the  Senate bill  will  track  the language  passed  on a  recent                                                               
federal law within an appropriations bill (Indisc.).                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOARIO responded  that Chair Claman was  correct because when                                                               
this bill  was introduced there was  pending federal legislation,                                                               
which has since  passed.  When that law was  passed, she advised,                                                               
it came to light that  possibly Alaska's statute was not tracking                                                               
as closely as  it should have, and this language  makes state law                                                               
compatible with the federal law.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:15:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  offered a  scenario of someone  finding a                                                               
hazardous  substance on  another person's  property and  surmised                                                               
that under this  amendment, if someone goes to  that property and                                                               
finds "something,  in order  for them  to be  liable, we  have to                                                               
prove that they were to blame for the substance."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOARIO  answered that the  burden of  proof is on  the person                                                               
who caused the contamination.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:16:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked whether the  burden of proof  is on                                                               
the  Native  Corporation to  prove  that  it  did not  cause  the                                                               
problem,  or must  someone, possibly  the government,  prove that                                                               
they did cause the contamination.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOARIO replied that Representative Eastman was correct.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:17:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  surmised  that that  scenario  would  be                                                               
different  for the  Native Corporation  than it  is for  everyone                                                               
else because  in other  property situations  the burden  of proof                                                               
would be  on the person  to prove  that they did  not contaminate                                                               
the property.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOARIO  deferred to  Chair Claman,  and said  that this  is a                                                               
specific situation for Alaska  Native Corporations on transferred                                                               
land.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:18:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that  it appears Amendment 1 simply                                                               
makes  clear that  the Native  Corporation owned  lands were  not                                                               
conveyed  liability in  the  Alaska Native  Settlement  Act.   In                                                               
other words,  he explained, as  SB 202 currently reads,  the onus                                                               
is  on  the  Native  Corporation  to  prove  it  is  not  liable.                                                               
Wherein,  under  this  amendment   the  Native  Corporations  are                                                               
basically  moved to  a neutral  position, and  the assumption  is                                                               
that  the Native  Corporations were  not  conveyed any  liability                                                               
when lands were conveyed to the Native Corporations.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOARIO replied that Representative Kopp was correct.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:19:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES withdrew  her objection.   There  being no                                                               
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:19:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX moved  to adopt  Amendment 2,  labeled 30-                                                               
LS1422\A/1, which read as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 1:                                                                                                            
          Delete "Native corporation"                                                                                         
          Insert "person"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 24, through page 3, line 2:                                                                                   
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
        "* Sec. 2. AS 46.03.822(d) is amended to read:                                                                      
          (d)  To establish that a person had no reason to                                                                      
     know that  the hazardous substance was  disposed of on,                                                                    
     in, or at  the facility, as provided in  (c)(1) and (l)                                                                    
     of this section,  or to establish that a  person had no                                                                
     reason  to  know  that   the  hazardous  substance  was                                                                
     present on  the land at  the time the ownership  of the                                                                
     land was transferred to the  person, as provided in (n)                                                                
     of this  section, the person  must have  undertaken, at                                                                
     the  time  of  voluntary  acquisition,  all  reasonable                                                                    
     inquiries into  the previous ownership and  uses of the                                                                    
     property consistent  with good commercial  or customary                                                                    
     practice  in  an  effort  to  minimize  liability.  For                                                                    
     purposes  of this  subsection a  court shall  take into                                                                    
     account all relevant facts, including                                                                                      
               (1)  any  specialized knowledge or experience                                                                    
     the person has;                                                                                                            
               (2)   the relationship of the  purchase price                                                                    
     to   the   value   of   the   property   if   it   were                                                                    
     uncontaminated;                                                                                                            
               (3)       commonly   known    or   reasonably                                                                    
     ascertainable information about the property;                                                                              
               (4)    the  obviousness of  the  presence  or                                                                    
     likely presence of contamination at the property; and                                                                      
               (5)   the ability to detect  contamination by                                                                    
     appropriate inspection.                                                                                                    
        * Sec.  3. AS 46.03.822 is  amended by adding  a new                                                                  
     subsection to read:                                                                                                        
          (n)  In an action to recover damages or costs, a                                                                      
     person  otherwise  liable  under  this  section  for  a                                                                    
     release or threatened release  of a hazardous substance                                                                    
     on the  person's land is relieved  from liability under                                                                    
     this section if the person proves that the                                                                                 
               (1)   person did not  know and had  no reason                                                                    
     to  know that  the hazardous  substance was  present on                                                                    
     the  land at  the time  the ownership  of the  land was                                                                    
     transferred to the person; and                                                                                             
               (2)   hazardous substance was present  on the                                                                    
     land  at  the  time  the  ownership  of  the  land  was                                                                    
     transferred to the person."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:19:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that "this  is a very good bill,"                                                               
except  it brings  out a  problem  in Alaska's  laws in  general.                                                               
There  is  the  problem  that  someone  could  be  a  good  faith                                                               
purchaser or grantee of a property  and end up getting stuck on a                                                               
strict  liability standard  for a  hazard on  the property.   She                                                               
opined that  that situation is  not fair, which has  been pointed                                                               
out  in the  context of  Native Corporations.   Amendment  2, she                                                               
explained, basically  "changes our law,  period, so that  no good                                                               
faith person ends  up to be liable."  She  acknowledged that this                                                               
is a huge  change in Alaska law  and she does not  want to impede                                                               
this bill because  it will help the Native  Corporations with its                                                               
contaminated   lands.     Representative   LeDoux  advised   that                                                               
Amendment 2  was drafted to  shed light on this  existing problem                                                               
in  the  Department  of   Environmental  Conservation  (DEC)  and                                                               
environmental  law  wherein  a future  legislature  may  possibly                                                               
change this  law for  everyone.  She  advised that  she withdraws                                                               
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:21:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  moved to  adopt Amendment 3,  labeled 30-                                                               
LS1422\A.2, which read as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
       Page 2, line 29, following the first occurrence of                                                                       
     "the":                                                                                                                     
          Insert "(1)"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 31:                                                                                                           
          Delete "and the"                                                                                                      
          Insert ";                                                                                                             
               (2)"                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 1, following "granted":                                                                                       
          Insert "; and                                                                                                         
               (3)  Native corporation did not have control                                                                     
     of the land at the time the hazardous substance was                                                                        
     disposed of or placed on the land"                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:21:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   referred  to   [SB  202,  Sec.   3.  AS                                                               
46.03.822, page 3,  line 1], and explained that  Amendment 3 adds                                                               
the language after the word "granted." as follows:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
               (3) Native corporation did not have control                                                                      
     of the land at the time the hazardous substance was                                                                        
     disposed of or placed on the land.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  explained  that the  language  clarifies                                                               
that a Native Corporation managed  its land prior to the granting                                                               
of land,  and if the  corporation is already responsible  for the                                                               
land  "and there's  things  being  done to  it,"  this would  not                                                               
inadvertently   absolve  those   responsible  parties   of  their                                                               
responsibility  to make  certain  the  hazardous substances  were                                                               
appropriately disposed.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:22:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN asked  the sponsor  of the  bill, in  light of  the                                                               
passage of  Amendment 1, whether  the sponsor  supports Amendment                                                               
3.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BOARIO  opined  that  Senator   Hoffman  would  not  support                                                               
Amendment 3.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:22:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  noted  that  [within  the  committee  packet]  are                                                               
letters  from  Daniel  Cheyette,  Vice President  for  Lands  and                                                               
Natural Resources,  Bristol Bay  Native Corporation;  and Jaeleen                                                               
Kookesh, Vice  President, General Counsel &  Corporate Secretary.                                                               
He referred  to the last sentence  of paragraph 3, of  the 4/9/18                                                               
letter  from  the  Sealaska Corporation  which  read  as  follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Representative Eastman's amendment would be moot if                                                                       
       your amendment is adopted by the Committee and the                                                                       
     legislature.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative  Eastman whether the passage of                                                               
Amendment 1 moots his motion to adopt Amendment 3.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:23:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[CHAIR  CLAMAN and  Representative Eastman  discussed receipt  of                                                               
the letter and its content.]                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  again asked whether  Representative Eastman  had an                                                               
argument that the passage of Amendment  1 did not moot his motion                                                               
for the adoption of Amendment 3.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN commented  that  it is  hard  for him  to                                                               
understand why Amendment 3 is now moot.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:24:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  directed Representative Eastman's attention  to the                                                               
4/9/18 letter from the Bristol  Bay Native Corporation [contained                                                               
within the committee  packet] and asked that he  read paragraph 4                                                               
as  it explains  why  Amendment 3  is moot.    He requested  that                                                               
Representative Eastman  offer a  basis within which  Chair Claman                                                               
should not rule Amendment 3 out-of-order.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN opined  that "this  actually gets  to the                                                               
substance"  of  the  matter  and  Amendment  3  is  important  to                                                               
discuss.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:24:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN ruled  Amendment 3  out-of-order because  he agreed                                                               
with the analysis  provided by the Sealaska  Corporation that the                                                               
adoption  of Amendment  1 takes  out  the burdens  "that you  are                                                               
actually talking about."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  advised  that even  though  the  committee  passed                                                               
Amendment 1,  it raised a  fiscal note issue that  John Halverson                                                               
of the Department of Environmental Conservation would address.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:25:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  HALVERSON,  Environmental   Program  Manager,  Contaminated                                                               
Sites  Program, Department  of Environmental  Conservation (DEC),                                                               
advised that there would likely be  a need for a fiscal note with                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN requested more clarity as  to whether it would be an                                                               
increased  fiscal  note  and  whether there  was  a  fiscal  note                                                               
previously.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HALVERSON  responded  that  there was  a  zero  fiscal  note                                                               
previously  and  with  Amendment  1  there  would  likely  be  an                                                               
increase in state costs because the  burden of proof will have to                                                               
fall to the state.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:26:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP asked  whether the  burden is  normally with                                                               
the  state  when  it  comes  to  DEC  litigated  claims  on  land                                                               
transfers that  move from the  state to private ownership,  or is                                                               
the burden  of proof normally  with the  person to whom  the land                                                               
was transferred to, and whether  there is a standard that applies                                                               
here.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. HALVERSON  responded that  normally it  would be  through the                                                               
parties to the transaction rather than to the state.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:27:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP said  (Indisc.) transaction  happened to  be                                                               
the state  and the person  to whom the  land was conveyed  to, he                                                               
asked  whether  it  would  be   the  state's  job  to  prove  the                                                               
liability.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. HALVERSON answered that the burden  would be on the party who                                                               
previously owned the  property.  This case  deals with properties                                                               
that   were  under   federal  ownership   and  conveyed   to  the                                                               
corporations.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:28:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KREISS-TOMKINS   noted   that  many   of   these                                                               
conveyances  are  from  the  federal  government  to  the  Native                                                               
Corporations  under  the  Alaska  Native  Claims  Settlement  Act                                                               
(ANCSA), and  asked where the  State of  Alaska and DEC  fit into                                                               
that equation, and  why DEC would have any obligation  if this is                                                               
a  transaction between  two parties  that  are not  the State  of                                                               
Alaska.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. HALVERSON opined that if  there is a disagreement between the                                                               
current landowner and the  federal government over responsibility                                                               
for contamination on the land,  the state would typically look to                                                               
those parties  to sort it out  and it would provide  oversight on                                                               
any necessary cleanup.  Under  adopted Amendment 1, the state may                                                               
incur some additional expenses in  trying to research the history                                                               
on   when  contamination   occurred   and   whether  the   Native                                                               
Corporation  had caused  or contributed  to existing  problems at                                                               
the site.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN added  that one of the key concepts  to recognize in                                                               
SB 202, page 1, lines 9-11, read as follows:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     damages,  for  the   costs  of  response,  containment,                                                                    
     removal, or  remedial action incurred  by the  state, a                                                                    
     municipality,  or a  village,  and  for the  additional                                                                    
     costs   of    a   function   or    service,   including                                                                    
     administrative  expenses for  the incremental  costs of                                                                    
     providing the                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN advised  the if  there is  contamination, typically                                                               
the state  or municipality  engages costs and  then looks  to the                                                               
landowner  for reimbursement.   The  above provision  essentially                                                               
says that  if there is  an effort by the  state to try  to recoup                                                               
those costs,  it would have  to be able  to show that  the Native                                                               
Corporation had caused the contamination.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:30:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that this  comes down to a fundamental                                                               
due process issue because Native  Corporations are a corporation,                                                               
but they are also Alaskans and  have been given land under ANSCA.                                                               
Without this amendment, they would  be required to wage legal war                                                               
with the  federal government,  who has  limitless resources.   He                                                               
opined that  this puts  the Native Corporations  on a  more equal                                                               
footing wherein  they are  not presumed  guilty until  they prove                                                               
otherwise.  He said that  it introduces a due process protection,                                                               
which is "very important."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:31:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  pointed out that  no motion had been  introduced to                                                               
change the  committee's action  on Amendment 1,  and moved  on to                                                               
committee discussion.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:31:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  noted that Amendment 2  was not discussed                                                               
because its  sponsor withdrew the  amendment.  He  commented that                                                               
the  sponsors of  this bill  make a  strong point  that liability                                                               
ought not  be placed where  it does  not belong, and  Amendment 2                                                               
makes that  same point.  He  said that he looks  forward to being                                                               
able to  support that  amendment or other  language at  the first                                                               
opportunity.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:32:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented  that she is happy to  see SB 202                                                               
because her  district contains some contaminated  areas that have                                                               
absolutely crippled  the Native  Corporation from  developing the                                                               
areas.  She  opined that possibly with SB 202,  it will allow the                                                               
Native Corporations some recourse to  move forward because in her                                                               
area  as well,  as  many other  rural areas,  housing  is a  huge                                                               
problem and the  Native Corporations are unable  to develop their                                                               
lands for housing due to these types of issues.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:32:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  commented that  he  is  particularly pleased  with                                                               
Amendment 1  because it  puts state  law and  federal law  on the                                                               
same path,  which is a positive  step.  Thereby, he  advised, the                                                               
Native  Corporations would  not  have to  look  at two  different                                                               
rules for two different jurisdictions as they move forward.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:33:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  REPRESENTATIVE moved to  report SB
202,  labeled  30-LS1422\A, as  amended,  out  of committee  with                                                               
individual  recommendations and  the  accompanying fiscal  notes.                                                               
There being  no objection,  SB 202(JUD) passed  out of  the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:33:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 2:33 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:51:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  336,  "An Act  relating  to supported  decision-                                                               
making  agreements to  provide for  decision- making  assistance;                                                               
and amending Rule 402, Alaska Rules of Evidence."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
          HB 336-SUPPORTIVE DECISION-MAKING AGREEMENTS                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:51:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HANS  RODVICK,  Staff,  Representative Charisse  Millett,  Alaska                                                               
State  Legislature,  advised   that  HB  336  is   known  as  the                                                               
"Supported  Decision-Making  Agreements  Act," (Indisc.).    This                                                               
legislation  basically  creates a  new  legal  framework to  help                                                               
Alaskans  with  intellectual  and developmental  disabilities  to                                                               
live fuller, happier, more  individualized, and automatous lives.                                                               
He offered that  this bill promotes a philosophy  grounded in the                                                               
principles of equal  rights and a belief that  all individuals do                                                               
possess inherent capacities to make  decisions and share opinions                                                               
regarding  their   lives.    Working  in   conjunction  with  the                                                               
Governor's Council  on Disabilities  and Special  Education, this                                                               
legislation is  brought forward  to create a  new avenue  to help                                                               
adults  with intellectual  and  developmental disabilities  (IDD)                                                               
receive  necessary support  and help  those Alaskans  avoid being                                                               
placed under full guardianship.   Guardianship in Alaska is over-                                                               
utilized,  he described,  because  currently there  are over  100                                                               
wards  per  public  guardian while  the  national  recommendation                                                               
caseload is one public guardian  for 40 wards.  Full guardianship                                                               
is selected when there are  no other less restrictive options for                                                               
individuals who need  that support, and in Alaska,  there are not                                                               
many  other options  outside of  full guardianship.   Individuals                                                               
with  intellectual  and  developmental  disabilities  (IDD)  many                                                               
times are  placed under  full guardianship  even though  they may                                                               
have  the capacity  to makes  their  own decisions.   These  high                                                               
caseload numbers can  lead to the potential failure to  meet on a                                                               
monthly basis as required by  state law, and loss of independence                                                               
and self-expression  and less employment opportunities  for those                                                               
individuals with disabilities, he said.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:54:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  RODVICK explained  that HB  336 will  assist the  elderly in                                                               
Alaska with  IDD issues and  retain their inherent right  to make                                                               
decisions for themselves.   Likewise, he related,  it will ensure                                                               
that the  Office of Public  Advocacy (OPA) is truly  spending its                                                               
time helping  and assisting those who  require full guardianship.                                                               
The sponsor  believes, he offered,  that it is necessary  to give                                                               
the  Alaskans  stuck in  full  guardianship  the opportunity  for                                                               
self-direction  and  restoring  their  inherent  right  to  self-                                                               
decision making.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:54:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  moved to  adopt  CS  for HB  336,                                                               
labeled 30-LS1239\U, Bannister, 3/29/18  as the working document.                                                               
There being no objection, Version U was before the committee.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN opened invited testimony on CSHB 336.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:56:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PROFESSOR HELEN GAEBLER, Senior  Research Attorney, University of                                                               
Texas  School of  Law, advised  that she  is the  Senior Research                                                               
Attorney  for  the  William  Wayne   Justice  Center  for  Public                                                               
Interest  Law at  the University  of Texas  School of  Law.   She                                                               
offered her  appreciation for  the opportunity  to share  some of                                                               
what they  have learned in Texas  about supported decision-making                                                               
following enactment  of its  own Supported  Decision-Making (SDM)                                                               
legislation  which went  into effect  on September  1, 2015.   As                                                               
previously   noted,  supported   decision-making   (SDM)  is   an                                                               
important  tool  for  persons  who  need  some  support  but  not                                                               
necessarily  a guardianship.   In  Texas  and elsewhere,  limited                                                               
guardianship is seldom used as  a lesser restrictive alternative,                                                               
and the  SDM law in  Texas has  allowed for less  restrictions on                                                               
the   self-determination  of   persons  with   disabilities,  and                                                               
provides  an alternative  that keeps  families without  resources                                                               
out  of court.   Her  experience with  SDM, she  explained, stems                                                               
from  work  with  her  colleague,  Lucy  Wood  who  is  a  former                                                               
disability  rights Texas  attorney,  and their  law school's  pro                                                               
bono program.   Professor  Gaebler then  discussed the  work they                                                               
have been able to accomplish  that includes: SDM pro bono clinics                                                               
in and  around Austin,  including clinic each  year at  the Texas                                                               
School  for the  Blind  and  Visually Impaired,  and  in the  Rio                                                               
Grande Valley; partnered with  approximately 20 school districts;                                                               
counseled more  than 360 clients and  their families; facilitated                                                               
at least 78 Supported  Decision-Making (SDM) agreements; provided                                                               
information  about SDM  and the  Texas legal  requirements around                                                               
guardianship   alternatives  for   many   more  individuals   and                                                               
families.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:58:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PROFESSOR  HELEN  GAEBLER  advised  that  for  purposes  of  this                                                               
hearing,  she attempted  to  gather  additional information  from                                                               
other  legal providers  and advocates.   Specifically,  she said,                                                               
she reached out  to Disability Rights of Texas,  Texas Rio Grande                                                               
Legal Aid, and the  guardianship reform supported decision-making                                                               
stakeholder groups  which first  spearheaded the SDM  movement in                                                               
Texas.  As  of this afternoon, she advised that  she received the                                                               
following information: Disability Rights  of Texas reports having                                                               
served an  additional 158  clients and  almost all  having signed                                                               
SDM agreements  as a result of  meeting with the "RTX."   The RTX                                                               
also performs  much of the  state's training pursuant to  a Texas                                                               
Council on Developmental Disabilities  Training Grant, and within                                                               
the  first  two years  of  that  grant,  the RTX  reports  having                                                               
trained  almost 6,000  individuals  on Supported  Decision-Making                                                               
(SDM) and  the Texas  legal requirements.   The training  was for                                                               
self-advocates  and   families,  legal   professionals,  schools,                                                               
parents,  service providers,  and other  professionals.   For its                                                               
part, she explained, Texas Rio  Grande Legal Aid estimates it has                                                               
assisted approximately  100 individuals  with SDM  agreements and                                                               
most  of these  clients were  transitioning use  and it  involved                                                               
families who  were combining SDM  agreements with other  forms of                                                               
legal  support, such  as limited  powers of  attorney.   Its lead                                                               
trial  attorney  advised   that  she  has  seen   more  and  more                                                               
applicants specifically  seeking SDMs and the  power of attorneys                                                               
as opposed  to guardianship, noting  that the SDM  reforms appear                                                               
to  have  done a  lot  to  educate  the larger  population  about                                                               
guardianship alternatives more generally.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:00:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PROFESSOR HELEN  GAEBLER said  she would  point out  three trends                                                               
that  have  been quite  consistent  across  all of  these  cases.                                                               
First, overwhelmingly the  population Texas is serving  is one of                                                               
transitioning use  who are in  or have recently graduated  from a                                                               
transitional learning  program.  Second, the  majority of clients                                                               
served,  certainly through  the law  school, are  individuals who                                                               
are on  the autism spectrum,  although many  also may have  a co-                                                               
occurring  secondary diagnosis.   Third,  almost all  of the  law                                                               
school's  clients  have  chosen  their parents  or  other  family                                                               
members  to serve  as their  supporters,  and she  said that  she                                                               
believes  this  is  also  the  case for  the  RTX  and  (indisc.)                                                               
clients.    Importantly, she  commented,  the  feedback on  these                                                               
agreements has been universally positive,  the law school has not                                                               
received  any  complaints regarding  use  or  misuse of  the  SDM                                                               
agreements, and  a professor  at Rio Grande  Legal knows  of only                                                               
two incidents from all of  its client contacts and other outreach                                                               
where an  agreement was  not accepted  by a third  party.   In at                                                               
least  one of  those  cases  and possibly  both,  the refusal  to                                                               
accept was due to a lack of  awareness about the SDM law in Texas                                                               
and  not  due  to  any  substantive concern.    In  the  case  of                                                               
(indisc.) clients,  the lead probate attorney  reported that most                                                               
of the third  parties she has been involved with  have been happy                                                               
to have something  "official" to rely upon in  dealing with their                                                               
individual disability and their family.   As to the challenges in                                                               
implementation, she  offered, the one recurring  comment has been                                                               
the challenge of  educating the public about the  statute and the                                                               
alternatives  to  guardianship more  generally.    Even with  the                                                               
RTX's  extensive  training and  programs  like  the law  school's                                                               
clinics,  it  is slow  work  (coughing)  all  of Texas.    (Audio                                                               
difficulties.)   The  comment she  received from  (indisc.) today                                                               
was  that when  families hear  about SDM  agreements, they  "sigh                                                               
with relief"  and are  happy with  the idea  of not  taking their                                                               
child's rights away.   The consensus is that  this helps families                                                               
in  a  meaningful  manner,  and she  offered  that  this  comment                                                               
certainly comports with  the experience they have had  at the law                                                               
school   with  clients.     It   is  exciting   that  Alaska   is                                                               
contemplating  a  SDM  statute   and,  she  reiterated  that  the                                                               
experiences in Texas have been  positive and it continues to push                                                               
for implementation.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:02:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  RODVICK  paraphrased  the   sectional  analysis  as  follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section  One:   Amending  AS   13,  which   related  to                                                                    
     decedents'  estates,  guardianships, transfers,  trusts                                                                    
     and health  care decisions, by  adding a new  chapter                                                                      
     chapter 56                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.010: Authorizes adults to enter into a                                                                          
      supported decision-making agreement(SDMA) and spells                                                                      
     out reasons why an adult may not enter a SDMA.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.020: Describes the  requirements adults must                                                                    
     meet to be qualified as supporters in SDMAs.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.030:  Sets the  parameters for  what a  SDMA                                                                    
     must  contain   to  be  legitimate.  Also   deals  with                                                                    
     alternate   supporters  and   sharing  of   information                                                                    
     amongst supporters.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.040:  This  section  lays  out  the  precise                                                                    
     requirements  for  a SDMA  to  be  valid, and  how  the                                                                    
     principal  and supporter(s)  may formalize  the signing                                                                    
     of the SDMA.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.050:    Mandates    that   each    supporter                                                                    
     acknowledge their  relationship with the  principal and                                                                    
     their responsibilities to support the principal.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.060:  Delineates   who  a  witness   to  the                                                                    
     signing of the SDMA can and cannot be.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.070:   Clarifies   when   a   SDMA   becomes                                                                    
     effective and how long they last.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.080:  This  section  details  how  either  a                                                                    
     principal or  supporter(s) of a SDMA  may terminate all                                                                    
     or portions of a  SDMA. Likewise, explains what happens                                                                    
     to a SDMA if only portions of it are terminated.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.090:   States   the    general   duties   of                                                                    
     supporters.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.100:  Outlines the  areas  of a  principal's                                                                    
     life,   including  health,   finances,  education   and                                                                    
     communication,  that a  supporter  may provide  support                                                                    
     in.  Also provides  a way  for supporters  to help  the                                                                    
     principal  deal with  health information  covered under                                                                    
     federal healthcare privacy laws.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.110:  Prohibits  supporters from  wrongfully                                                                    
     guiding  and influencing  the  principal  in a  harmful                                                                    
     manner.  This section  also  prohibits supporters  from                                                                    
     using   or    obtaining   the    principal's   personal                                                                    
     information without their consent.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.120:   Requires   the  supporter(s)   of   a                                                                    
     principal  to  keep  all  information  related  to  the                                                                    
     principal  confidential,  protected and  shielded  from                                                                    
     unauthorized use.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.130:  Directs   people  who   interact  with                                                                    
     principals/supporter(s)      to      recognize      the                                                                    
     communication,  requests  and  decisions  made  by  the                                                                    
     principal (with  support from  the supporter(s))  as if                                                                    
     that  communication,  request   or  decision  was  made                                                                    
     solely by the principal.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.140:  This section  absolves  a person  (for                                                                    
     three   distinct  reasons)   from  civil   or  criminal                                                                    
     liability or  discipline for unprofessional  conduct if                                                                    
     they  either  comply  or  decline  to  comply  with  an                                                                    
     authorization in a SDMA.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.150: Delineates  the circumstances  in which                                                                    
     a principal  is capable  and has capacity.  A principal                                                                    
     doesn't lack  capacity based  on how  they communicate.                                                                    
     Likewise, a  principal may  make decisions  without the                                                                    
     support of  a supporter(s). Lastly, the  existence of a                                                                    
     SDMA doesn't mean a principal lacks capacity.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.160: Deals  entirely with  the affairs  of a                                                                    
     principal  that a  SDMA  may  cover. Work,  healthcare,                                                                    
     support    services    education,   finances,    living                                                                    
     arrangements and more are all discussed.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
          13.56.170: This  section spells out  the multitude                                                                    
     of support  services, as referenced in  13.56.160, that                                                                    
     supporter may  provide the principal as  agreed upon in                                                                    
     the SDMA.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     New   Section:  13.56.180:   This  section   creates  a                                                                  
     statutory    form    for   supported    decision-making                                                                    
     agreements as  prescribed in the  other sections  of HB
     336.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          1) Introduction:  Principal declares  their desire                                                                    
     to enter a SDMA.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
          2)   Supporters:   Supporters   fill   out   their                                                                    
     information and  select what they  will be  helping the                                                                    
     principal with. Provides for  an alternate supporter to                                                                    
     enter the SDMA.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
          3)  Information Access  Forms: Enables  supporters                                                                    
     to obtain the principal's private information.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          4)  Guardians  and  Conservators:  Principal  must                                                                    
     declare whether they have a guardian or conservator.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          5) Notice  to Third  Parties: Outlines  the rights                                                                    
     and obligations of supporters and  ensures that a third                                                                    
     party must recognize a  principal's request or decision                                                                    
     as declared under AS 13.56.130.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
          6)   Duration   and  Termination   of   Agreement:                                                                    
     Principals may end the agreement  at any time by giving                                                                    
     notice to their supporters.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          7)   Signature   of  Principal:   Recognition   of                                                                    
     voluntary signature of the principal to enter the SDMA                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          8) Signatures of Supporters: Self explanatory                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          9)  Declaration  of   Supporters:  Supporters  and                                                                    
     possible   alternate    supporter   sign    again   and                                                                    
     acknowledge their  role to help the  principal with the                                                                    
     mutually agreed upon terms.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          10) Notarization or  Witnessing: Provides area for                                                                    
     notary  or two  witnesses  to sign  and  make the  SDMA                                                                    
     official.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
          11) Approval  by Guardian: Space for  the guardian                                                                    
     to approve the principal entering the SDMA.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          12)   Approval  by   Conservator:   Space  for   a                                                                    
     conservator  to  approve  the  principal  entering  the                                                                    
     SDMA.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     13.56.190: Definitions                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     13.56.195: The  short title  of House  Bill 336  is the                                                                    
     Supported Decision-Making Agreements Act.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section 2:  Amends Alaska Court Rule  402, Alaska Rules                                                                    
     of Evidence,  to clarify that  the execution of  a SDMA                                                                    
     cannot   be  used   as   evidence   of  a   principal's                                                                    
     incapacity.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section  3:  Amends the  uncodified  law  of Alaska  by                                                                    
     amending Court  Rule 402  and clarifies  the two-thirds                                                                    
     majority  vote of  each house  needed  to achieve  such                                                                    
     action.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:09:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  asked whether  it  is  the intent  of  this                                                               
legislation  to have  a  non-governmental  private party  support                                                               
persons regardless  of the age of  the adult.  While  noting that                                                               
this legislation is  for adults, he said he could  imagine an 18-                                                               
year old with  certain disabilities to end of  life situations to                                                               
have  something outside  of the  standard guardian  relationship.                                                               
It appears that no money is  involved in this legislation, and it                                                               
is simply an agreement, he opined.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. RODVICK  said that Representative  Kopp "hit the nail  on the                                                               
head," because the point  of supported decision-making agreements                                                               
is  that they  are  non-governmental  agreements between  private                                                               
citizens.    Under  this  legislation  there  are  no  extraneous                                                               
regulations  created,  there  is  a  zero-fiscal  note,  and  the                                                               
sponsor was  able to "smooth  things out" with the  Department of                                                               
Health and  Social Services (DHSS).   The goal is to  ensure that                                                               
these individuals  have support  networks of their  family, their                                                               
friends,  and  individuals they  know,  to  help them  throughout                                                               
their life whether it be dealing with their taxes or otherwise.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:10:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN commented  that most  of the  public does                                                               
not  know what  these supported  decision-making agreements  are,                                                               
and if  someone from the public  were to ask whether  it could be                                                               
used to  help someone end  their life,  he asked how  Mr. Rodvick                                                               
would respond.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. RODVICK responded that the  legislation does not presume that                                                               
individuals  will be  using supported  decision-making agreements                                                               
to  terminate their  lives, its  intent  is to  help people  make                                                               
decisions to  promote and  ensure that  they have  positive lives                                                               
and  positive   outcomes.    He   referred  to  CSHB   366,  Sec.                                                               
13.56.140(3)  "Limitation of  liability,"  page  3, lines  12-18,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
               (3)    declining    to   comply    with    an                                                                    
     authorization  related to  health care  in a  supported                                                                    
     decision-making agreement,  if the person  is declining                                                                    
     because  the  action proposed  to  be  taken under  the                                                                    
     supported decision-making agreement  is contrary to the                                                                    
     good  faith medical  judgment  of the  person  or to  a                                                                    
     written  policy of  a health  care institution  that is                                                                    
     based on reasons of conscience.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. RODVICK explained that if  the doctor has the good conscience                                                               
and the  written policy  of a health  care institution  that does                                                               
not believe in terminating life  before its natural end, they can                                                               
certainly object.   He opined that  Alaska has not gone  down the                                                               
road of permitting [end of life efforts].                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:12:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered  a scenario of a  series of people                                                               
who all  want to be  involved in  helping someone end  their life                                                               
and  they decide  to use  this process  to pursue  that goal,  he                                                               
asked whether anything in the bill would prohibit those actions.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. RODVICK deferred to Anne  Applegate of the Governor's Council                                                               
on  Disabilities  and  Special  Education, and  opined  that  the                                                               
protections currently  outlined in law would  protect people from                                                               
going down  that road and it  is not currently under  the purview                                                               
of the legislation.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:14:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  opined  that  under  current  Alaska  law                                                               
assisting someone with  suicide is a crime and  suicide itself is                                                               
considered a crime.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP clarified (Indisc.)  would already be a crime                                                               
so anyone  assisting someone in  terminating their life  would be                                                               
in trouble, and  this bill is neutral on that  issue, it does not                                                               
facilitate suicide.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:15:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 366.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:16:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ANNE  APPLEGATE,  Program   Coordinator,  Governor's  Council  on                                                               
Disabilities   and   Special   Education,  explained   that   the                                                               
Governor's Council  on Disabilities and Special  Education is the                                                               
inner-agency  coordinating   council  for  the   infant  learning                                                               
program, and  is also the  special education and  (Indisc.) panel                                                               
for the  Department of Education  and learning development.   The                                                               
council's  members are  the real  movers behind  HB 336,  and the                                                               
majority of its members are  those who experience disabilities or                                                               
are the family members of people  with disabilities.  It is their                                                               
commitment to  SDMAs that brought  HB 336 to the  House Judiciary                                                               
Standing  Committee, and  continues  to be  the compelling  force                                                               
behind  this   legislation.    Ms.  Applegate,   in  response  to                                                               
Representative Eastman's  concern, advised that the  section that                                                               
dictates what type  of decision-making assistance can  be made is                                                               
under AS 13.56.100.   Beyond looking at the  specific language in                                                               
each  of  those  subsections  which provides  detailed  types  of                                                               
support,  the theme  running through  those subsections  is about                                                               
providing assistance for  a thought process, not for  any type of                                                               
action.  Therefore, she pointed  out, in the event the discussion                                                               
was about something  that was a legal action, there  would not be                                                               
that  type  of  assistance  from  someone  supporting  a  thought                                                               
process.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:18:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
IAN MINER advised he is  representing himself, and when he turned                                                               
18,  his   high  school  recommended  that   his  parents  obtain                                                               
guardianship in order to make  his decisions as to his education,                                                               
medical entities,  and finances.  (Audio  difficulties) 10-minute                                                               
hearing with the  judge and that his  parents/guardians could not                                                               
make  decisions  without  discussing  it with  him  first.    His                                                               
parents have always helped him with  his goals, he moved into his                                                               
own home, has a  full-time job, and a car.   He advised that when                                                               
he turned  23, his family hired  a lawyer and began  the two-year                                                               
process  of  having  the  order  removed.    (Indisc.)  power  of                                                               
attorney   for  his   finances,  and   Supported  Decision-Making                                                               
Agreements were  not even an  idea in  Alaska when he  turned 18.                                                               
In the  event it had  been an option,  that is probably  the road                                                               
they would  have taken so  he could  have described the  help and                                                               
information he wanted with the  financial decisions that made him                                                               
secure.     He  also  would   have  retained  his  rights.     He                                                               
acknowledged that he  does not know how his life  would have been                                                               
different,  but  he  now  knows  that he  did  not  need  a  full                                                               
guardianship.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:20:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KEN HELANDER, Advocacy Director,  American Association of Retired                                                               
Persons  (AARP),  explained  that  the  American  Association  of                                                               
Retired   Persons   Alaska   is  the   state's   largest   member                                                               
organization.   He related that  he has the privilege  of working                                                               
with  the American  Bar  Association's Working  Interdisciplinary                                                               
Networks  of  Guardianship  Stakeholders (WINGS)  project,  which                                                               
looks for  alternatives to court  appointed guardianship.   While                                                               
SDMAs  are more  and more  common for  people with  developmental                                                               
disabilities, the  concept is also  increasingly recognized  as a                                                               
useful tool for older people  and advanced planning.  He stressed                                                               
that  AARP fully  supports SDMAs  and was  involved in  the other                                                               
states,  notably Texas  and Delaware,  where similar  legislation                                                               
was  passed and  implemented.   The AARP  works with  stakeholder                                                               
groups  for the  assistance  and development  of  tools to  guide                                                               
named supporters in  their roles and offer  families and affected                                                               
individuals a framework tailored for  the types of problems older                                                               
people can face that  could lead to the need for  a guardian.  He                                                               
related  that AARP  Alaska will  certainly do  the same  for this                                                               
state.   He said SDMA are  particularly useful for people  with a                                                               
diagnosis of  early stage dementia, such  as Alzheimer's Disease.                                                               
These  individuals have  enough impairment  to make  a diagnosis,                                                               
but also  have sufficient  capacity to continue  to make  most of                                                               
their decisions.   Nevertheless, whether  by such a  diagnosis or                                                               
simply  by  age,  often these  individuals  become  invisible  to                                                               
medical providers,  banks, and even  family members  and friends.                                                               
He offered  that people  will often  direct conversations  to the                                                               
spouse or  to an adult child  as though the older  person was not                                                               
present and  could not possibly  understand anyway.  Not  only is                                                               
this  a gross  misunderstanding  of the  disease,  it denies  the                                                               
older person  the dignity and  respect of  self-determination and                                                               
making  choices.   The  SDMA utilizes  the  practice familiar  to                                                               
everyone  seeking  council  from  trusted  family,  friends,  and                                                               
professionals.  The  SDMAs simply structure that  practice into a                                                               
legal framework which can guide  decisions that must be made when                                                               
the  older   person's  capacity  may  diminish   as  the  disease                                                               
progresses.   Rather than becoming  invisible and  ignored, SDMAs                                                               
keep the affected individual at the center of the decision-                                                                     
making process.  He encouraged the  passage of HB 336 as a useful                                                               
tool for advanced planning.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:23:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HEIDI  KELLY  advised that  she  represents  herself as  a  self-                                                               
advocate for  the Governor's Council on  Disabilities and Special                                                               
Education.   She stressed that she  is honored to voice  how this                                                               
legislature's    actions    directly   affect    Alaskans    with                                                               
disabilities,  including  her  and  her son.    Their  lives  are                                                               
impacted by  the decisions of  this legislature, and  she offered                                                               
testimony as follows:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     You cannot wait  another second to pass  this bill into                                                                    
     law.   To understand  my passion for  testifying today,                                                                    
     my  son, my  daughter,  and  I are  all  on the  autism                                                                    
     spectrum.   Autism  doesn't define  who I  am or  who I                                                                    
     continue to become  (Audio difficulties.)  I  am a part                                                                    
     of  the  Council appointed  to  use  my voice  for  the                                                                    
     Governor's   Council   on  Disabilities   and   Special                                                                    
     Education.     I  am   an  autistic   speaker  advocate                                                                    
     (indisc.)   professionals   and   different   community                                                                    
     members at many venues  throughout Alaska with the help                                                                    
     of people  expanding me to  become a  national speaker.                                                                    
     I have  an autism-based business and  have accomplished                                                                    
     many  other  things,  and  I  hope  to  simply  inspire                                                                    
     others.   People  never thought  it  would be  possible                                                                    
     since  I  was  the  typical autistic  kid  that  people                                                                    
     assume autism  is all about.   But  I have grown  up, I                                                                    
     learn  along  the  way,  and   I  continue  to  make  a                                                                    
     difference.   This  is to  simply show  that if  people                                                                    
     decided  to  take  full guardianship  of  me,  and  not                                                                    
     (indisc.) my side support and  teach me to use my voice                                                                    
     to  make  my own  decisions  with  proper education,  I                                                                    
     would not be  who I am today.   Full guardianship takes                                                                    
     away your voice when you have  one to use.  When my son                                                                    
     turned  17, I  was structured  to become  his guardian.                                                                    
     Full guardianship  does not work  for my family,  but a                                                                    
     Supported Decision-Making  Agreement allows us  to have                                                                    
     a  voice of  our  own  lives, yet  receive  all of  the                                                                    
     information  and   support  we  need  to   make  proper                                                                    
     decisions  for  ourselves and  live  our  lives to  the                                                                    
     fullest,  and what  would  be the  best  route for  us.                                                                    
     Being who  I am,  what I've  gone through,  and knowing                                                                    
     what  my son  can become,  I  will not  take his  voice                                                                    
     away.  If any person  with disabilities has any form of                                                                    
     communication, they  should not have a  court system or                                                                    
     a family  member take their  voice away from them.   We                                                                    
     deserve  a  community  that   helps  us  do  everything                                                                    
     possible  to achieve  our very  best.   Because  people                                                                    
     allowed me  to make my  own decisions and give  me help                                                                    
     with what I  need, I'm here today to  make a difference                                                                    
     because  people came  along my  side to  help me  to do                                                                    
     that.   Passing this  bill is a  must to  help Alaskans                                                                    
     with disabilities have better lives.   When you do what                                                                    
     you need  to do today,  you help  all of us  become the                                                                    
     best we can  be.  (Audio difficulties)  logical part of                                                                    
     autism, it is  still logical to use the  power you have                                                                    
     to do  the job you  signed up for,  which is to  make a                                                                    
     difference for  the Alaskan  people.   So, I  thank you                                                                    
     ahead of  time from  me and many  others when  you move                                                                    
     forward with this  bill.  Don't wait  another second or                                                                    
     push  this  off  one  more   minute  because  the  most                                                                    
      important decision you make starts right now.  Thank                                                                      
     you.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:27:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN,  after  ascertaining  no one  wished  to  testify,                                                               
closed public testimony on HB 336.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:27:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Rodvick  whether the Commission on Uniform                                                               
Laws  has  taken  a  position  or  performed  any  work  on  this                                                               
particular concept.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. RODVICK responded that he did  not believe so, but his office                                                               
has not heard from the Commission on Uniform Laws.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the  Commission on Uniform Laws typically                                                               
does not  perform outreach and  may not  contact his office.   He                                                               
asked that prior  to the next hearing to research  whether this a                                                               
particular  subject within  which  the  commission has  performed                                                               
work because  it is  always interesting to  see whether  there is                                                               
any  evolving   consensus  that  would  be   reflected  in  model                                                               
legislation.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:27:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked Chair Claman  to explain to Mr. Rodvick                                                               
the types of  directives involved with the  Commission on Uniform                                                               
Laws.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN advised  that he would speak with  Mr. Rodvick after                                                               
this meeting.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
[HB 336 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:29:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB202 ver A 4.9.18.PDF HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Sponsor Statement 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Sectional Analysis ver A 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Fiscal Note DEC-SPAR 4.9.18.PDF HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Additional Document-Letter to Rep. Claman Re SB 202 ANC Contaminated Lands 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Amendments #1-3 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
HB336 Work Draft ver U 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Explanation of Changes ver U 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Sectional Analysis ver U 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Sponsor Statement 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Time Magazine Article on Fraud 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Q&A 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Pilot Program Evaluation Human Services Research Institute 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Guardianship Numbers in AK 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Governor's Council on Disabilities 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-OPA & Guardianship 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Example from Autistic Self Advocacy Network 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Example from Texas 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Law from Delaware 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Law Texas 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Nonotuck SDMA Example 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-National Core Indicators 2016 Survey 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA - Agenda for Action 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Bill from Rhode Island 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Texas Statutes 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SMDA Paper by Council on Quality and Leadership 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-AARP Alaska Letter 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Delaune Letter 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Additional Document-Rule 402 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Fiscal Note DHSS-SDSA 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Disability Law Center Letter 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Alaska Association on Developmental Disabilities Letter 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Public Comment 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
SB202 Supporting Document-Eyak Corporation Letter in Support of Amendment #1 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Supporting Document-Calista Corporation Letter in Support of Amendment #1 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Supporting Document-Koniag Letter in Support of Amendment #1 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Supporting Document-Bristol Bay Native Corporation Letter in Support of Amendment #1 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Supporting Document-Bering Straits Native Corporation Letter in Support of Amendment #1 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Supporting Document-Sealaska Corporation Letter in Support of Amendment #1 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Amendments #1-3 HJUD Final Votes 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202