Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/22/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Cliff Davidson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jim Nordlund
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 4 "An Act adding as an aggravating factor at
sentencing that a victim was elderly or disabled;
and relating to failure to report harm or assaults
of the elderly or disabled."
CSHB 4 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
HB 3 "An Act relating to public home care providers;
and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
HB 112 "An Act relating to limited partnerships; and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Court Building, Room 602
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4925
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 4 and HB 3
MARGOT KNUTH
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Criminal Division
P. O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Provided information related to HB 4
ART SNOWDEN
Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 264-0547
Position Statement: Voiced concerns and suggested amendment
to HB 4
WALTER MAJOROS
Older Alaskans Commission
P. O. Box 110209
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-3478
Position Statement: Supported HB 3
PAT O'BRIEN
Department of Health and Social Services
Division of Family and Youth Services
P. O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-2145
Position Statement: Discussed HB 3
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4451
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 112
ART PETERSON
Uniform Law Commissioner
National Conference of Commissioners
for Uniform State Law
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 202
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-4000
Position Statement: Supported HB 112
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 4
SHORT TITLE: PROTECT ELDERLY AND DISABLED ADULTS
BILL VERSION: CSHB 4(JUD)
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACKIE
TITLE: "An Act relating to failure to report harm or
assaults of the elderly or disabled."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/04/93 25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/11/93 25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 25 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/04/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/08/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/08/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/10/93 586 (H) HES RPT 4DP 1DNP 3NR
03/10/93 586 (H) DP: TOOHEY, B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA,
BRICE
03/10/93 586 (H) DNP: VEZEY
03/10/93 586 (H) NR: B.DAVIES, G.DAVIS, BUNDE
03/10/93 586 (H) -2 FISCAL NOTES (DCED, CORR)
3/10/93
03/10/93 586 (H) -3 ZERO FNS (DHSS, ADM, ADM)
3/10/93
03/22/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF HOME CARE PROVIDERS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACKIE,Ulmer
TITLE: "An Act relating to public home care providers; and
providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/04/93 25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/11/93 25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 25 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/04/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/08/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/08/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/10/93 585 (H) HES RPT 7DP 2NR
03/10/93 585 (H) DP: BUNDE, G.DAVIS, TOOHEY,
OLBERG
03/10/93 585 (H) DP: B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA, BRICE
03/10/93 585 (H) NR: KOTT, VEZEY
03/10/93 585 (H) -2 FISCAL NOTES (DHSS) 3/10/93
03/10/93 586 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
3/10/93
03/22/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 112
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT UPDATE
BILL VERSION: HB 112 AM S
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES
TITLE: "An Act relating to limited partnerships; and
providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/01/93 199 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/01/93 199 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
03/02/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/02/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/03/93 517 (H) L&C RPT 6DP
03/03/93 517 (H) DP: PORTER, SITTON, MULDER,
WILLIAMS
03/03/93 517 (H) DP: GREEN, HUDSON
03/03/93 517 (H) -2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DCED,
LAW) 3/3/93
03/22/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-39, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to
order at 1:08 p.m., on March 22, 1993. A quorum was
present. Chairman Porter announced that the committee would
take up HB 4 first.
HB 4: PROTECT ELDERLY AND DISABLED ADULTS
Number 021
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 4, said
that the bill would add, as an aggravating factor at the
time of sentencing, that a victim was elderly or disabled.
He stated that his bill would serve as a deterrent against
crimes against elderly and disabled individuals. He
indicated that HB 4 would amend the Code of Criminal
Procedure, which allowed presumptive sentences to be
aggravated, by adding a new paragraph to include victims
aged 65 or over, or with a disability which limited major
life activities.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE commented that HB 4 would amend the
elderly and disabled adult protection laws to provide a
penalty of a class B misdemeanor for conviction of or
failure to report a crime under those statutes. He said
that the bill would also require the court to report
convictions to licensing or regulatory entities. Conviction
of a professional, licensed person for a crime against an
elderly or disabled person could result in disciplinary
action or sanctions.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE noted that elderly and disabled
persons were more vulnerable to and disproportionately
damaged by crimes against them. He added that these people
took longer to recover from the impacts of financial,
emotional, or physical abuse. He mentioned the rapid growth
of the senior citizen population in Alaska. He stated that
28 states had adult protection statutes. He said that about
200 reports of elder abuse were made in Alaska every year.
He asserted that HB 4 would provide an incentive to report
abuse and a deterrent to crimes against the elderly.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE pointed out that bills identical to
both HB 4 and HB 3, Regulation of Home Care Providers, had
passed the House the year before. He mentioned the
Chairman's interest in deleting section 2 from the bill,
because a similar aggravator already existed in present law.
He expressed his support for deleting that section.
Number 136
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER commented that Margot Knuth, from the
Department of Law (DOL), had brought the redundancy of
section 2 to the committee's attention.
Number 144
MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DOL, stated that the proposed new aggravator substantially
overlapped an existing aggravator. She expressed the DOL's
opinion that it would make the most sense to simply leave
the aggravator statutes the way they were. She noted that
there was a slight difference between a defendant who knew
or reasonably should have known that a victim was vulnerable
or incapable of resistance due to advanced age, and a
defendant who knew or reasonably should have known that a
victim was at least 65 years old.
MS. KNUTH believed it would be difficult to apply an
absolute cut-off point at the age of 65, as defendants would
not often know exactly how old a victim was. She said that
the existing framework of "advanced age" was used by
prosecutors without any apparent problems.
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE mentioned that the intent of placing
the 65-year-old cut-off in HB 4 was to help the DOL get
appropriate sentences in these cases. However, he commented
that if the DOL was not having any difficulty in proving
that defendants knew or reasonably should have known that a
victim was 65 years old or older, then he saw no reason to
change the existing aggravator.
Number 198
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a MOTION to DELETE section 2
of HB 4 and renumber subsequent sections accordingly.
Number 210
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE commented that the proposed change
would probably result in a change to HB 4's title.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he would consider the change
to the title as a friendly amendment to his motion.
Number 230
REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON asked Ms. Knuth to explain the
effect of the amendment.
Number 234
MS. KNUTH mentioned that there was currently an aggravating
factor for defendants who knew, or reasonably should have
known, that a victim was particularly vulnerable or
incapable of resistance due to advanced age, disability, ill
health, or extreme youth, or who was for any other reason
substantially incapable of exercising normal physical or
mental powers of resistance.
MS. KNUTH commented that the addition proposed in HB 4 would
largely overlap the existing aggravator. She said that the
DOL believed it would be best to continue using the existing
aggravator. She noted that having both aggravators on the
books would likely confuse the courts. She mentioned the
large degree of success the DOL has had with using the
existing aggravator. She expressed concerns about the
language contained in the aggravator proposed in HB 4.
MS. KNUTH noted that the proposed amendment to HB 4 would
delete the new aggravator and leave the state with its
existing, similar aggravator. There being no objection to
the amendment, IT WAS ADOPTED.
Number 283
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 4
(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations. She
then REMOVED HER MOTION.
CHAIRMAN PORTER called for an "at ease."
Number 297
ART SNOWDEN, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
mentioned a small concern with HB 4. He said that the bill
provided that the court system would notify licensing or
regulatory entities if a professional, licensed person was
convicted of a crime against an elderly or disabled person.
He said that the bill's language was overly broad, and
requested an amendment indicating that the court should
notify the primary licensing or regulatory entity.
Number 318
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested adding the word
"appropriate" instead of "primary."
MR. SNOWDEN approved of Representative Phillips' proposed
language.
Number 328
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to ADD the word
"appropriate" to page 2, line 4 and line 10 of HB 4.
Number 335
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE expressed his support for
Representative Phillips' motion. There being no objection
to the amendment, IT WAS ADOPTED.
Number 342
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 4 (JUD)
out of committee, with individual recommendations. There
being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 3 was the next item of
business before the committee.
HB 3: REGULATION OF HOME CARE PROVIDERS
Number 352
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 3, stated
that his bill would restrict the ability of a home care
provider to assume powers of attorney, and required criminal
history background checks for home care providers being paid
with public funds. He said that HB 3 would provide a
measure of protection for elderly and disabled persons from
those responsible for their care. He said that these people
were particularly vulnerable to abuse, due to age, illness,
disability, and the isolation of being alone in their home
with a care giver.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE commented that Alaska was on the brink
of an explosion in home care services. He mentioned the
rapid expansion of Alaska's senior citizen population, and
said that the state had just received approval for Medicaid
waivers for home- and community-based services, as an
alternative to institutionalization. He said that once the
Medicaid waiver program was in effect, the home care
services industry would see rapid growth.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE commented that HB 3 would also require
criminal history records' checks for home care providers
paid by Older Alaskans Commission (OAC) grants and respite
care providers paid by the Division of Family and Youth
Services (DFYS). He noted that HB 3 would require the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) to implement
regulations identifying actions to be taken upon receiving
reports of harm by home care providers.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE mentioned an incident in his district
which had given rise to the introduction of HB 3. He said
that in that incident, a home care provider had walked off
with approximately $500,000 of an elderly person's money.
He noted that similar situations had occurred across the
state. He said that elderly persons, due to their
vulnerability, were being targeted for exploitation. He
mentioned that the state Pioneers Homes were full, with long
waiting lists to get in.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said that more and more elderly people
would be cared for in their own homes, making it important
for the state to regulate home care providers. He said that
the Department of Public Safety (DPS) had informed him that
30% of criminal history background checks run on school
teachers, day care providers, and others revealed criminal
histories. He said that a bill similar to HB 3 had passed
the House the year before.
Number 428
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that HB 3 seemed like a very
good bill. However, he did not see representatives of the
senior citizen community present, and asked Representative
Mackie if he had spoken with members of that community.
Number 433
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied that the OAC was on record in
support of the bill. He added that he was not aware of any
opposition to either HB 3 or HB 4.
Number 453
WALTER MAJOROS testified on behalf of the OAC in support of
HB 3. He noted that the OAC would like to see section 1,
relating to powers of attorney, strengthened. He
recommended that powers of attorney for publicly-paid home
care providers be prohibited, except in certain
circumstances, or alternatively stipulating that the person
with whom the power of attorney was shared could not be a
person who had either a financial or a personal relationship
with the home care worker.
Number 479
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked what incentive a third party
might have to become a partner in a power of attorney
situation.
Number 485
MR. MAJOROS did not feel prepared to answer Representative
Davidson's question.
Number 492
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said that when a person took a job
as a home care provider, that person took on a certain
amount of risk and liability. He expressed concern that a
person could unknowingly become involved in a messy
situation.
Number 507
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative Davidson if he was
referring to an additional signer, in addition to the home
care provider, on the power of attorney. He thought of the
third party as being a relative of the person receiving the
home care, co-signing with the home care provider as a
convenience.
MR. MAJOROS expressed the OAC's position that those two
people should share the power of attorney to ensure there
was no abuse.
Number 524
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Majoros if he had any proposed
language to offer.
MR. MAJOROS had no language to offer at this time.
Number 527
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON commented that his question had been
prompted by a situation in which an elderly person had no
remaining relatives.
Number 531
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that surviving relatives sometimes
lived far away from an elderly person receiving home care
services.
Number 539
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE noted that home care providers were
sometimes relatives of those for whom they cared. He
commented that not every situation could be covered by
statute. He said that the main purpose of HB 3 was to not
allow a home care provider to also have sole power of
attorney. He said that at least one other person should be
involved in the relationship, to prevent a home care
provider from abusing the position. He commented that HB 3
would only apply in cases where public funds were being
used.
Number 567
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES mentioned that the
legislature could not solve every problem that existed
through statute. Sometimes, she said, the legislature
passed laws to solve one problem, and created even more
problems in the process. She commented that the job of a
home care provider was not an easy one. She supported
criminal history background checks for home care providers.
She was of the opinion that powers of attorney could affect
more than just financial transactions. She did not see why
a home care provider would need to have a power of attorney
for a person in his or her care.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern that putting two
people on a power of attorney would create an impediment to
making quick decisions. She preferred that a power of
attorney be held by one individual, someone other than the
home care provider.
Number 595
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said that in some instances, a home
care provider was the only person caring for a particular
individual. In that case, he said, the home care provider
would do all of the shopping, banking, and bill paying
transactions. In that situation, he said, it would be
convenient for a home care provider to have a power of
attorney. House Bill 3 would allow for that to happen, as
long as a third party co-signed on the power of attorney.
He noted that he had tried to focus HB 3 on those areas with
the greatest potential for abuse.
Number 615
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that HB 3 only affected home care
providers whose services were paid for by the state. She
commented that if a person had a great deal of money to
steal, that same person probably would not be eligible for a
publicly-funded home care provider. She expressed her
opinion that HB 3 should be expanded to include all home-
care providers, not just those who received public funds.
Number 627
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said that Representative James had
made a good point. However, he noted that there were
constitutional problems involved in regulating privately-
funded home care providers.
Number 643
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Representative Mackie why he
chose to apply the provisions of HB 3 only to publicly-
funded home care providers.
Number 647
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE reiterated his point that people could
spend their own money in any manner they saw fit. However,
when public funds were involved, he did not feel that home
care providers should be allowed to exercise a great deal of
control over the affairs of elderly or disabled persons.
Number 666
PAT O'BRIEN, on behalf of the DHSS, commented that the year
before, the DHSS had suggested language to tighten up who
could have a power of attorney. She said that the House
Health, Education, and Social Services (HESS) Committee had
raised the issue of the cumbersomeness of requiring two
signatures on every transaction. Also, she said that the
HESS committee had mentioned the difficulty of finding home
care providers in the first place, due to the heavy
responsibility associated with the job. If too many
restrictions were placed on the profession, she noted, it
would become even harder to find people willing to serve as
home care providers.
Number 680
MS. O'BRIEN said that although the HESS Committee had
considered tightening up the requirements for powers of
attorney, they had eventually agreed that that was not a
good idea. The result was the language now contained in HB
3, she added.
Number 687
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. O'Brien if she saw HB 3 as
being a burden on home care providers.
Number 702
MS. O'BRIEN replied in the negative. She said that a home
care provider would not be required to accept a grant of
power of attorney, and might choose not to accept such a
designation.
Number 709
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE noted that HB 3's provisions might
help to weed out those home care providers with bad
intentions. He said that powers of attorney could take many
different forms. He admitted that the provision in question
could not be easily enforced. The intent behind the
provision was simply to create a condition of employment and
a vehicle for disciplinary action or termination.
Number 726
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to MOVE HB 3 out of
committee with individual recommendations and an
accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS
SO ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 112 was the next item of
business before the committee.
HB 112: UNIFORM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT UPDATE
Number 741
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 112,
mentioned that the year before, Alaska's Uniform Limited
Partnership Act was amended so as to conform with
recommendations of the National Conference of Commissioners
for Uniform State Laws. He noted that one significant
component had been omitted from the bill which was enacted
the year before.
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said that section 1 of HB 112 placed
the notice form into statute and replaced the "long" notice
form with a shorter one. He said that this would reduce
current cumbersome registration requirements. He noted that
the effective date of HB 112 would coincide with the
effective date of last year's SB 193, allowing the entire
body of amendments to become law on July 1, 1993. He stated
that the bill would result in no fiscal impact to the state.
Number 770
ART PETERSON, UNIFORM LAW COMMISSIONER, STATE OF ALASKA,
testified in strong support of HB 112. He said that Alaska
had enacted the Uniform Limited Partnership Act in 1917, and
left it in place, unamended, until 1990, when one small
portion was updated. He said that in 1976, the Uniform Law
Commissioners came out with a thorough revision of the Act.
Additionally, amendments to the 1976 revision had come out
in 1985, he noted. He commented that part of the 1985
amendments appeared in HB 112. He mentioned that all of the
provisions of HB 112, with the exception of section 1, were
compatibility amendments.
MR. PETERSON stated that the gist of HB 112 was to change
the current long form of limited partnership certificates to
a shorter form, or "notice form." He stated further that
the partnership agreement, not the certificate, formed the
heart of the business entity of partnerships. All the
certificate needed to show, he said, was the name of the
partnership, and the names of the general partners involved.
Additionally, he said that the certificate showed the five
items listed on lines 8-13, on page 1 of HB 112.
MR. PETERSON indicated that the certificate did not need to
show the name and address of all of the limited partners,
and the amount of capital contribution of each limited
partner. He said that the problem was that as the use of
limited partnerships had developed over the decades, many
had grown to include hundreds and thousands of limited
partners. He commented that it was no longer feasible,
given the number of partners involved in many partnerships,
to meet the requirements of the current Uniform Limited
Partnership Act. He noted that one requirement was that a
certificate be signed by all partners, general and limited.
MR. PETERSON said that when the Uniform Limited Partnership
Act was written in 1917, partnerships were very much small,
local entities. Now, however, partnerships were used
primarily as financing, capital acquisition structures, and
were no longer local in nature. By retaining the old
version of the Uniform Limited Partnership Act, he said,
Alaskans were being hindered in two respects: the ability
of outside partnerships to deal with Alaskans, and the
ability of Alaskans to participate in partnerships.
TAPE 93-39, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. PETERSON said that HB 112 would enhance the business
climate in Alaska. He mentioned that the reason that the
provisions of HB 112 were not included in the bill that
passed the year before was that one California law professor
preferred the old-fashioned notice requirements. That
professor had convinced the sponsor of the year before's
SB 193 that he should not include the notice provisions of
the 1985 amendments in his bill.
MR. PETERSON noted that as SB 193 made its way through the
legislative process, the sponsor became convinced that he
should amend it to include the notice requirement changes.
However, time ran out, and it was passed the way it had been
introduced. House Bill 112 fixed the "glitch" contained in
last year's SB 193, he said.
Number 044
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked Mr. Peterson what was lost and
what was gained in changing the notice form from the long
form to the shorter form. Also, he asked Mr. Peterson to
address the 1985 amendments to the Uniform Limited
Partnership Act, in light of the deregulation that occurred
in the 1980s, and its resulting problems.
Number 072
MR. PETERSON replied that HB 112 had nothing to do with
deregulation, which was a popular idea in the federal
government during the 1980s.
Number 080
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked if the deregulation climate of
the 1980s drove the 1985 amendments to the Uniform Limited
Partnership Act.
MR. PETERSON did not think so. He felt that the source of
the change contained in HB 112 was not the philosophical
climate of the 1980s, but rather the change in the use of
limited partnerships. He said that some state legislatures
had already amended their uniform limited partnership acts
to provide for a short form certificate requirement. He
said that the information which used to be required on the
long form was now required to be kept available by a
partnership, just not on the certificate form.
MR. PETERSON reiterated his point that limited partnerships
had developed using the partnership agreement as the vehicle
that explained which partner held which number of shares.
The certificate was no longer an appropriate place to put
all of that information, he added. He mentioned three
categories of people who might be interested in who held
limited partnerships: potential investors, potential
lenders, and the partners themselves. All of those people,
he stated, would still have access to the information they
desired to review.
Number 164
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON mentioned Individual Fishing Quotas,
or IFQs. He said IFQ laws held that no one individual could
hold more than 1% of those fishing shares. He asked if
HB 112 would make it more or less difficult for regulatory
agencies to track ownership of shares.
Number 181
MR. PETERSON did not see HB 112 as making it more difficult
for regulators to know who had invested in which
partnership. He asked Representative Davidson if he was
assuming that a limited partnership held an IFQ.
Number 185
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON wanted to ensure a wide-open
process, so that no individual could, through clever
manipulation of corporate or partnership laws, hold more
than 1% of the shares of a fishery.
Number 193
MR. PETERSON did not view HB 112 as posing any difficulties
to regulators.
Number 199
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked if HB 112 would result in it
being easier or more difficult for the public or regulators
to know who was involved in limited partnerships.
Number 209
MR. PETERSON stated that in his opinion, HB 112 did not
change the availability of information on partnerships. He
explained that he also should have listed regulators among
those categories of people who would need to know who was
involved in limited partnerships.
Number 217
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that if a person wanted to
preclude disclosure of hidden investments, there were
mechanisms for doing that. Currently, he said, public
disclosure of corporate shareholders was not a part of the
articles of incorporation.
Number 226
MR. PETERSON said that limited partnerships were the only
entity in which persons with a limited role in that entity
were extensively listed on a certificate or similar
document. He noted that corporations and other types of
partnerships did not have a similar requirement.
Number 241
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why the 1985 amendments were
being acted on by the Alaska Legislature eight years later.
MR. PETERSON responded that he was the most active Uniform
Law Commissioner in Alaska, and had just never gotten around
to putting the 1985 amendments before the legislature until
recently.
Number 252
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if SB 193, from the year before,
had passed.
MR. PETERSON replied in the affirmative, but mentioned that
one piece of the 1985 amendments had been omitted. House
Bill 112 remedied that omission, he noted.
Number 261
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON referred to a letter from the law
firm of Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe in the members'
bill packets. (A copy of that letter may be found in the
House Judiciary Committee Room, Capitol Room 120, and after
the adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska
State Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.)
He asked to what "deviations" the letter referred.
Number 274
MR. PETERSON responded that the "deviations" referred to in
the letter were the omission in SB 193 of the provisions now
contained in HB 112.
Number 280
CHAIRMAN PORTER reiterated that HB 112 contained a provision
of the 1985 amendments to the Uniform Limited Partnership
Act which had been omitted from SB 193.
Number 286
MR. PETERSON concurred. He added that 33 states had already
adopted the 1985 amendments to the Uniform Limited
Partnership Act.
Number 296
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to MOVE HB 112 out of
committee, with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 2:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|