Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/24/1993 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 24, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cliff Davidson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 136 "An Act relating to the offenses of driving while
intoxicated and refusal to submit to a breath
test; and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 136 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 28 "An Act relating to the penalty for providing
alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of
21; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND PLACED IN A SUBCOMMITTEE
HB 168 "An Act relating to multiple-beneficiary
charitable gaming permits and door prizes for
charitable gaming; and providing for an effective
date."
CSHB 168 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH NO RECOMMENDATION
WITNESS REGISTER
MARGOT KNUTH
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Criminal Division
P. O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Supported HB 136; Discussed HB 28
JUANITA HENSLEY
Chief, Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P. O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 465-4335
Position Statement: Discussed HB 136
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-3424
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 28
JEANNEANE HENRY
1038 Dunton Street
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-2429
Position Statement: Supported HB 28
SUE PICKRELL
Drug Prevention Specialist
Alaskans for Drug-Free Youth
2417 Tongass Avenue
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 247-2273
Position Statement: Supported HB 28
LYNDA ADAMS, Executive Director
Alaskans for Drug-Free Youth
2417 Tongass Avenue
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 247-2273
Position Statement: Supported and suggested amendments to HB
28
JOHN SALEMI
Director
Public Defender Agency
900 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090
Phone: 279-7541
Position Statement: Opposed HB 28; suggested alternatives
DANA LATOUR
Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Corrections
P. O. Box 112000
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-3376
Position Statement: Explained the fiscal note to HB 28
JIM FISK
Bayside Fire Department
P. O. Box 2968
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-7088
Position Statement: Opposed HB 28; Supported HB 168
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-4451
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 168
GAYLE HORETSKI
Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-6841
Position Statement: Outlined components of CSHB 168 (JUD)
JOHN HANSEN
Gaming Manager
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P. O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-2581
Position Statement: Provided information related to HB 168
RON PAGENKOPF
Juneau Soccer Club
613 West Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-2027
Position Statement: Supported HB 168
GARRY LANGILLE, President
Kodiak Liquor License Association
P. O. Box 947
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-2700
Position Statement: Supported HB 168
SAM KITO
Aleutian/Pribilof Association
2713 David Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 364-2659
Position Statement: Expressed Dimitri Philemonof's support
of HB 168
BILL BISHOP
American Legion
P. O. Box 687
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-3258
Position Statement: Supported HB 168
ELSIE O'BRYAN
Project Director
Mid-Valley Seniors
P. O. Box 168
Houston, Alaska 99694
Phone: 892-6114
Position Statement: Supported HB 168
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 136
SHORT TITLE: DRUNK DRIVING AND BREATH TEST OFFENSES
BILL VERSION: CSHB 136(FIN)
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER,Phillips
TITLE: "An Act relating to revocation of and limitations on
a driver's license to the offenses of driving while
intoxicated and refusal to submit to a breath test; imposing
a limited license fee; amending Alaska Rule of Civil
Procedure 32(b); and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/05/93 238 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/05/93 238 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/25/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/02/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/02/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/05/93 543 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NEW TITLE 3DP
6NR
03/05/93 543 (H) DP: B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA, BRICE
03/05/93 543 (H) NR: KOTT, VEZEY, G.DAVIS,
BUNDE,
03/05/93 543 (H) NR: OLBERG, TOOHEY
03/05/93 543 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (CORR) 3/5/93
03/05/93 543 (H) -2 ZERO FNS (DPS, LAW) 3/5/93
03/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/19/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/19/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/19/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/22/93 739 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS
03/24/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 28
SHORT TITLE: PENALTY FOR PROVIDING ALCOHOL TO A MINOR
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIAMS,Phillips,B.Davis,
Nicholia,Olberg,Bunde,Kott
TITLE: "An Act relating to the penalty for providing
alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21; and
providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/04/93 31 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/11/93 31 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 31 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/13/93 54 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OLBERG
01/14/93 62 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
02/10/93 312 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT
03/04/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/04/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/05/93 539 (H) HES RPT 3DP 3NR
03/05/93 539 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY, NICHOLIA
03/05/93 540 (H) NR: KOTT, VEZEY, BRICE
03/05/93 540 (H) -2 FISCAL NOTES (CORR, ADM)
3/5/93
03/05/93 540 (H) -3 ZERO FNS (LAW, DPS, ADM)
3/5/93
03/24/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 168
SHORT TITLE: CHARITABLE GAMING AMENDMENTS
BILL VERSION: CSHB 168(FIN) AM
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST
TITLE: "An Act establishing a testing program for
charitable gaming permittees and operators; relating to the
duties of a member in charge; requiring regulations relating
to pull-tabs to be consistent with North American Gaming
Regulators Association standards on pull-tabs to the extent
permitted by charitable gaming laws; allowing permittees to
contract with vendors to sell pull-tabs on behalf of the
permittee at an establishment holding a package store
license and certain establishments holding a beverage
dispensary license; allowing municipalities to prohibit
vendors from conducting gaming activities within the
municipality; restricting the purchase of pull-tabs by
permittees, licensees, and vendors and their owners,
managers, and employees; requiring receipts before prizes of
$50 or more may be awarded in pull-tab games; prohibiting
distributors from supplying pull-tabs to vendors; relating
to the distribution of pull-tabs from one distributor to
another distributor; requiring the registration of vendors
and regulating activities involving them; requiring the
licensing of out-of-state pull-tab manufacturers and
increasing the annual licensing fee for pull-tab
manufacturers; requiring the department regulating
charitable gaming to approve contracts between permittees
and operators before gaming may occur; preventing persons
with felony convictions or convictions for crimes involving
theft or dishonesty or a violation of gambling laws from
being involved in charitable gaming activities as a
permittee, licensee, vendor, person responsible for the
operation of an activity, fund raiser or consultant of a
licensee or vendor, or employee in a managerial or
supervisory capacity, and providing exceptions for certain
persons whose convictions are at least 10 years old and are
not for violation of an unclassified felony described in AS
11, a class A felony, or extortion; relating to multiple-
beneficiary charitable gaming permits and door prizes for
charitable gaming; requiring operators to pay permittees at
least 30 percent of the adjusted gross income from a pull-
tab activity and limiting operators to expenses of not more
than 70 percent of the adjusted gross income from that
activity; requiring operators to pay permittees at least 10
percent of the adjusted gross income from a charitable
gaming activity other than pull-tabs and limiting operators
to expenses of not more than 90 percent of the adjusted
gross income from that activity; requiring a permittee who
uses a pull-tab vendor to enter into a contract with that
vendor; requiring a vendor contracting with a permittee to
pay the permittee at least 70 percent of the ideal net for
each pull-tab series delivered to the vendor by the
permittee; requiring that operators report an adjusted gross
income of at least 15 percent of gross income; allowing the
commissioner regulating charitable gaming to issue orders
prohibiting violations of state gaming laws; relating to the
authority of the commissioner regulating charitable gaming
to suspend or revoke a permit, license, or registration;
prohibiting the payment of any portion of the net proceeds
of a bingo or pull-tab game to a registered lobbyist;
providing a penalty for false statements in gaming license
applications; providing communities with the authority by
local option election to prohibit charitable gaming within
the community; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/19/93 390 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/19/93 390 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
03/09/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/09/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/10/93 588 (H) L&C RPT 2DP 5NR
03/10/93 588 (H) DP: SITTON, HUDSON
03/10/93 588 (H) NR: PORTER,WILLIAMS,MACKIE,
GREEN,MULDER
03/10/93 588 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 3/10/93
03/24/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-40, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to
order at 1:10 p.m., on March 24, 1993. A quorum was
present. Chairman Porter announced that the committee would
address HB 136 first. He announced that the meeting was
being teleconferenced.
HB 136: DRUNK DRIVING AND BREATH TEST OFFENSES
Number 043
MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW (DOL), expressed her support for HB 136.
She then gave an overview of the draft committee substitute
for HB 136 dated March 23, 1993. She said that the bill
would place first and second driving while intoxicated (DWI)
offenders in halfway houses, and require them to pay for
their incarceration, up to $1,000. Additionally, those
offenders would be required to perform community service
while housed in the halfway house. She said that the
current version of HB 136 defined halfway house placements
in such a way that it would exclude house arrests.
MS. KNUTH stated that HB 136 also solved serious problems
that had been created with regard to limited licenses. She
noted that section 2 of the bill changed the period of time
for mandatory minimum revocations on third and fourth DWI
offenses so that the mandatory minimum time would now be the
same period for which a person's license would be revoked
and the person was ineligible for a limited license. She
said that the bill would get rid of limited license
privileges for offenders convicted of second, third, fourth,
and subsequent DWI offenses.
Number 100
MS. KNUTH commented that sections 1 and 3 allowed the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the court system to
restore driving privileges to people who, under former
versions of the law, had their licenses revoked for much
longer periods of time than the mandatory minimum times.
She said that this would only occur if people had met the
mandatory minimum periods, had completed alcohol treatment
programs, and were otherwise in good standing with the court
system and the DMV. She said that people in Alaska who were
making a good recovery were often greatly hampered by not
being allowed to drive.
Number 140
MS. KNUTH noted that section 4 rewrote the limited license
statute. She said that the new section provided that there
would be no more limited licenses for anything except a
first offense DWI conviction. She mentioned that the
section included a special definition of "previously
convicted." Ms. Knuth commented that for the purposes of a
limited license, the state would count a ".08 conviction"
from another jurisdiction. She noted her earlier concern
that a person could have multiple .08 convictions from other
jurisdictions and still not be subject to repeat DWI
offender laws in Alaska. That would no longer happen under
section 4's provisions, she said.
Number 175
MS. KNUTH stated that section 5 ensured that offenders
enrolled in and complied with alcohol treatment programs
before they receive their licenses back. Section 6 added a
$100 fee for obtaining a limited license. She said that
another $100 fee would be charged at the time that a person
went from a limited license to a regular driver's license.
Number 197
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked how long a limited license
would be in effect.
Number 205
JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF OF DRIVER SERVICES, DMV, DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY, replied that after the period of
revocation, a person was eligible to get a regular, five
year license. At that time, she added, a person would pay a
reinstatement fee of $100. She also mentioned the $100
application fee for a limited license, which would be in
effect for 60 days.
Number 222
MS. KNUTH called the members' attention to section 7 of
HB 136. That section clarified to the court of appeals that
limited licenses could not be granted to people whose
licenses had been revoked for driving while a license was
revoked or cancelled. She said that the rest of section 7
related to placements in halfway houses and requiring
payment of up to $1,000. She reiterated that the bill
contained a tight definition of what appropriate placements
would be. She noted that all convicted DWI offenders would
be required to pay up to $1,000 toward the cost of their
placement, regardless of whether they were housed in a
prison or a halfway house.
MS. KNUTH commented that section 11 indicated that there was
a court rule change regarding making it a part of a
defendant's judgment that he or she pay the cost of the
incarceration. She stated that if HB 136 did not pass the
legislature with a 2/3 vote, as required for a court rule
change, section 11 would not take effect and judgments would
not necessarily contain an order for payment of up to $1,000
for placement. However, she said that the court system
could enforce that requirement on its own initiative.
MS. KNUTH mentioned the applicability section of HB 136, and
the effective date. She stated that the provisions of
HB 136 relating to limited licenses would start applying to
people regardless of when their conviction occurred.
Number 295
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER agreed with Ms. Knuth that the current
version of HB 136 was a very good bill, as earlier concerns
with the bill had been addressed.
Number 303
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to ADOPT
CSHB 136 (JUD), dated March 23, 1993. There being no
objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
Number 318
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a MOTION to PASS CSHB 136
(JUD), dated March 23, 1993, out of committee, with attached
fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 28 next.
HB 28: PENALTY FOR PROVIDING ALCOHOL TO A MINOR
Number 356
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 28,
mentioned that a similar bill had been introduced the year
before by former-Representative Cheri Davis, in response to
the tragic alcohol-related deaths of two Ketchikan youths.
He said that the purpose of the bill was to change the
penalty for providing alcoholic beverages to persons under
the age of 21. He said that the crime of furnishing alcohol
to a minor was currently a misdemeanor with a maximum
penalty of one year in jail and a $5,000 fine. House Bill
28, he said, would make the same crime a class C felony with
a maximum jail sentence of five years and a maximum fine of
$50,000.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS commented that HB 28 would serve as
a greater deterrent to those providing alcohol to minors.
Number 395
JEANNEANE HENRY testified via teleconference from Ketchikan.
She mentioned that Kathy Blauser, Director of Ketchikan
Youth Services, was unable to be present, but wished to
convey her organization's wholehearted support for HB 28.
MS. HENRY is the mother of one of the boys who was killed in
1991, after an adult provided a gallon of vodka to him and
four other youths. She said that the man who purchased the
vodka was arrested, sentenced, and then left the community
after serving part of his sentence. She mentioned that the
man had previously been sentenced in Oregon, to receive
alcohol screening and treatment. However, due to a lack of
monitoring, the man never received the treatment and left
Oregon for Ketchikan. She said that if Oregon officials had
monitored the man, her son might be alive today.
Number 440
MS. HENRY said that adults giving children drugs was a
serious crime that violated the rights of children to be
protected by their parents and by the community. She said
that many adults willingly provided alcohol to minors. She
commented that one month after the man who had provided her
son with alcohol was sentenced, another man provided alcohol
to a minor, who was killed as a result. She said that
children deserved more protection than the current law
offered. She urged support for HB 28.
REPRESENTATIVES NORDLUND and PHILLIPS joined the committee.
Number 474
SUE PICKRELL, a drug prevention specialist with ALASKANS FOR
DRUG-FREE YOUTH, testified via teleconference from
Ketchikan. She urged the committee to pass out HB 28. She
is a former police officer, who had often investigated minor
consuming cases. She said that teenagers would often not
tell law enforcement officers who had purchased alcohol for
them, making arrests and prosecutions of adults difficult.
She said that making a second offense of providing alcohol
to a minor a felony was not out-of-line. She said that it
would send a clear message to adults that furnishing alcohol
to minors would no longer be tolerated.
Number 493
LYNDA ADAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKANS FOR DRUG-FREE
YOUTH, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. She
mentioned that the bill introduced by former-Representative
Cheri Davis had contained two components that were not
included in HB 28. She suggested putting those two
components back into the bill. One would require that signs
regarding the penalties for furnishing alcohol to a minor be
posted in bars and liquor stores. The other section
provided that a minor who solicited an adult to purchase
alcohol for him or her would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
MS. ADAMS noted that the second provision would place some
responsibility on the minor. She expressed her opinion that
HB 28 was an effective tool for reducing alcohol consumption
among youth. She urged the committee to pass the bill.
Number 523
JOHN SALEMI, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He said that passage of HB
28 would have a fiscal impact on his agency. He expressed
his opinion that everyone could agree that alcohol was a
drug, and was commonly abused by youth in our society,
creating tremendous suffering. He commented that alcohol
was a prevalent part of the social fabric in our society.
He said that disagreement existed with regard to what effect
HB 28 would have on the social problem of youth and alcohol.
He stated that his agency felt that HB 28 would not have the
desired impact of addressing the real problem of alcohol
abuse.
MR. SALEMI noted that not all social problems were
susceptible to elimination or reduction through the passage
of laws. He mentioned the federal Prohibition Law, which
had significant penalties, but was consistently violated.
He stated that in past hearings, HB 28 had been promoted as
a means of deterring adults from furnishing liquor to
minors. He said that if he thought HB 28 would serve as a
deterrent, he would support it. However, he said that over
the last ten years in Alaska, it had been found that
enhancing penalties was not a guarantee that people would be
less likely to engage in criminal conduct.
MR. SALEMI commented that the Alaska criminal laws had been
completely overhauled, yet crime was on the rise, and prison
populations continued to grow. He said that the problem was
that in many instances, crime was a thoughtless and
impulsive act, and an offender did not necessarily consider
the consequences of his or her actions. He questioned the
value of stiff penalties and sentences.
MR. SALEMI anticipated, based on DOL estimates, that HB 28
would result in the Public Defender Agency handling an
additional 75-100 felony cases per year. Based on national
caseload standards, he said, that would mean that his agency
would require an additional half-time attorney and some
support staff. He said that his agency's current staff
simply could not absorb the increased caseload that would
result from HB 28.
MR. SALEMI suggested an alternative to HB 28. He said that
furnishing alcohol to a minor was already a crime, with a
maximum penalty of up to one year in prison and a $5,000
fine. He recommended that judges be educated about the need
to impose maximum penalties on those who furnished alcohol
to minors. Additionally, he suggested that liquor stores
post notices stating that it was a crime for adults to
furnish alcohol to minors, and stating the penalties for
committing that crime. He commented that the state might
already have adequate laws on the books, but simply needed
to educate judges and inform potential violators of the
consequences of their actions.
Number 647
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Salemi how increasing the
penalty for an existing crime would increase the number of
cases handled by his agency.
Number 653
MR. SALEMI replied that HB 28 would change the character of
cases that his agency received. He noted that the DOL had
estimated there were about 200 cases of adults furnishing
alcohol to minors every year, and that 100 of those cases
could be prosecuted as felony offenses, if HB 28 was
enacted. That, he said, meant cases that his agency now
handled as misdemeanors would become felonies, which
entailed much more work.
Number 679
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Mr. Salemi if increasing the
penalty for furnishing alcohol to a minor to life
imprisonment would serve as a deterrent, in light of Mr.
Salemi's earlier questioning of the deterrent value of
increasing penalties for furnishing alcohol to minors.
Number 686
MR. SALEMI responded that if penalties were grave enough for
all crimes, society might eventually see some deterrent
effect. The question then became, he said, what was society
willing to spend in order to achieve that deterrent effect?
He stated that capital punishment or life imprisonment would
likely result in some deterrent effect, but the issue was
whether or not offenders would process that information, if
they knew it at all, at the time they were considering
committing the crime.
Number 705
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Mr. Salemi to comment on the
potential deterrent effect of posting signs in liquor
stores, stating what the penalties were for providing
alcohol to minors.
Number 711
MR. SALEMI said that he had mentioned posting signs in
liquor stores, because in reviewing his notes from when
HB 28 was heard in the House Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee, proponents of the bill had
mentioned adding a section to HB 28 requiring the posting of
signs. He did not necessarily agree that posting signs
would have a deterrent effect. However, he said that under
current law, signs could be posted in liquor stores. He
said that posting signs certainly would not hurt, and would
cost very little money.
Number 731
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that someone had testified earlier
that HB 28 would only apply to second and subsequent
convictions for furnishing alcohol to minors. However, he
clarified for committee members that the bill would also
affect first-time offenders. He asked Mr. Salemi if a
person convicted of a misdemeanor for furnishing alcohol to
a minor could be subject to civil litigation.
Number 734
MR. SALEMI replied that nothing that had occurred in
criminal court would preclude an injured party or his or her
family from filing a civil action. He stated that a
criminal court could also order restitution, upon conviction
of an individual.
Number 748
MS. HENRY stated that, as the mother of a child who was
killed after an adult furnished him with alcohol, a penalty
of life imprisonment for that adult would be fine with her.
However, she said that she knew that that was impractical.
She recommended putting some "meat" into the current law and
sending a clear message to adults that it was not acceptable
to furnish minors with alcohol. She stated that providing
alcohol to minors was a serious crime. She indicated that
in many cases, civil litigation did not work, as offenders
were sometimes indigent. She stated that making the crime a
misdemeanor did not send a strong enough message to society.
Number 793
MS. KNUTH stated that making Alaska a "dry" state would
result in much less crime and suffering. She said that a
very substantial percentage of crimes committed were
alcohol-related. She added that there was a double standard
when it came to alcohol in our society. Parents did not
want their children to drink, she said, yet the parents
would not stop drinking themselves. Not only was it legal
for children to start drinking once they turned 21, she
said, but it also was not a crime for parents to furnish
alcohol to their own children.
Number 805
MS. KNUTH noted the existing disparity between adults
lawfully providing alcohol to their own children, and adults
illegally providing alcohol to other minors. House Bill 28,
she said, would create an even greater disparity. She
commented that making the furnishing of alcohol to minors a
felony offense might not have the desired effect. Now, she
said, furnishing alcohol to a minor was a serious
misdemeanor, one taken very seriously by judges, and
punished rather severely. If the crime was changed to be a
felony, she continued, offenders would be brought before
superior court judges instead of district court judges.
Number 830
MS. KNUTH said that in comparison to other crimes that
superior court judges saw, furnishing alcohol to a minor
would seem like a pretty minor offense.
TAPE 93-40, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. KNUTH stated that the effect of HB 28 would probably be
that offenders would serve even less jail time than they did
now. She said that Representative Cheri Davis' bill had
proposed making second and subsequent offenses felonies.
She again mentioned that making the crime a felony at all
was troublesome to her. She commented that a situation in
which furnishing alcohol to a minor resulted in that minor's
death could result in an adult being prosecuted for
homicide. She commented that the Ketchikan case was a
tragedy.
Number 042
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Knuth to comment on the
social stigma associated with being a felon, and its
deterrent value.
Number 057
MS. KNUTH stated that being labeled a felon had a
significant impact on non-indigent individuals, as it made
it difficult for a person to get a job. Yet she did not
know that it would have any deterrent effect because
offenders, in her view, did not consider the consequences
prior to furnishing alcohol to minors. She expressed doubt
that people would know that the crime was a felony. The
criminal mentality, she said, was very limited, and
offenders did not expect to get caught.
Number 083
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Knuth to express her opinion
on posting signs in liquor stores.
Number 097
MS. KNUTH was aware of signs already in liquor stores, which
stated that minors were not allowed on the premises. She
said that if those signs did not make a person furnishing
alcohol to a minor think about his or her actions, she was
not sure that a new sign would serve as a deterrent. She
said that a large part of the problem was that many people
did not feel that furnishing alcohol to minors was an
inherently bad thing, as evidenced by the large number of
adults who were willing to provide alcohol to minors.
Number 126
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND asked Ms. Knuth if a parent
could be prosecuted for a situation in which his or her
child, accompanied by another minor, raided that parent's
liquor cabinet, unbeknownst to the parent.
Number 139
MS. KNUTH replied that that parent could be prosecuted,
although the prosecution would be difficult.
Number 155
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that under HB 28, then, a
parent in that situation could be subject to a five-year
prison sentence.
MS. KNUTH concurred.
Number 159
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked what the mean sentence was for
violation of the current law regarding furnishing alcohol to
minors.
Number 166
MS. KNUTH did not have that information with her.
Number 174
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the state had any data
pertaining to what type of people furnished alcohol to
minors.
Number 184
MS. KNUTH replied that two classes of people would be
subjected to liability under HB 28's provisions. The first
class was liquor store clerks, she said, easily caught and
prosecuted. However, she said that those people were not
whom HB 28 meant to target. With regard to non-liquor store
clerks, she suspected that offenders would be more
responsible than the average defendant in criminal court.
She said that most defendants would probably believe they
were not doing any harm by providing alcohol to minors.
Number 222
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if a Department of Corrections
(DOC) representative could explain that agency's fiscal
note.
Number 228
DANA LATOUR, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF THE
DOC, described how she had prepared the fiscal note on
HB 28. She called the members' attention to the third
paragraph on page 2 of the DOC's fiscal note. She said
that, for the purposes of the fiscal note, she had assumed
that the lowest mean sentence for a class C felony of this
type was 7.5 months, or 225 bed days. The average mean
sentence for a class A misdemeanor, as providing alcohol to
a minor currently was, was 1.5 months, or 45 days, she
added.
Number 265
MS. LATOUR said that by raising the offense from a class A
misdemeanor to a class C felony, offenders would receive
sentences of an additional 180 days. Subtracting one-third
of that sentence for "good time," she said, left an increase
of 120 days. Multiplying 120 bed days by 100 convictions (a
figure that she got from the DOL), by the average cost of
incarceration at a community residential center, $50 per
day, she arrived at the cost of HB 28 at $600,000 per year.
Number 281
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how she had arrived at the mean
sentence of 45 days for the class A misdemeanor for
providing alcohol to a minor.
Number 294
MS. LATOUR replied that the 45-day figure was based somewhat
on assumption. She said that she had spoken with many
experts to determine how long these offenders served.
Number 306
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that the correctional data
information system in the state needed to be improved.
Number 313
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Latour if the DOC's fiscal
note would be less, in light of Ms. Knuth's testimony that
elevating the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony might
result in judges handing down shorter sentences.
Number 342
MS. LATOUR did not know how Ms. Knuth's theory would impact
the DOC's fiscal note.
Number 351
JIM FISK testified via teleconference from Kodiak. He has
been involved in the liquor business for over 40 years, and
said that the problem of minor consuming was an age-old
problem that started at home. He stated that all the
legislation in the world would not stop minors from
drinking. He said that the education process needed to
begin at home and in the schools.
Number 378
MR. FISK added that Alaska was unique in its approach of
having the legislature, the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board, and the liquor industry work together to bring about
the use of alcohol management techniques. He cited a bill
that would require alcohol dispensers to pass an alcohol
management course. He asserted that the state could not
simply post signs and expect deterrence. He indicated his
lack of support for HB 28.
Number 416
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE HB 28 out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes.
Number 422
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND OBJECTED.
Number 430
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED for the purpose of taking an
"at ease" at 2:18 p.m. The committee then reconvened at
2:19 p.m.
Number 436
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WITHDREW her MOTION to MOVE HB 28 out
of committee.
Number 439
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that he would WITHDRAW his
OBJECTION.
Number 440
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that with the motion withdrawn, the
objections were already removed. He said that during the
brief "at ease," it had come to his attention that it was
the will of the committee that HB 28 needed work. He
APPOINTED A SUBCOMMITTEE consisting of Representatives
Phillips, Kott, and Nordlund to consider amendments to HB
28. He asked the subcommittee to bring the bill back before
the committee as soon as they had done their work.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would address
HB 168 next.
HB 168: CHARITABLE GAMING AMENDMENTS
Number 469
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 168,
testified that if enacted, his bill would clarify in statute
what activities were permissible and also create a new
charitable gaming permit called a "multiple beneficiary
permit." Two to six qualified organizations would be
allowed to apply jointly for a multiple beneficiary permit,
he stated. The organizations could then conduct as many
games and sessions as allowed by law for each permittee,
multiplied by the number of holders of the multiple
beneficiary permit.
Number 501
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, outlined the components of a draft committee
substitute, dated March 24, 1993. She said that the draft
committee substitute was identical to the original HB 168,
except for three additional sections. The first additional
language appeared in section 6, on page 2 of the bill, she
said. She said that John Hansen, from the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development (DCED) would explain the
new language and its effect later.
MS. HORETSKI commented that sections 7 and 9 were also new
additions to HB 168. She said that the new language would
require 40% of the adjusted gross income from a pull-tab
activity be provided to the sponsoring charity. Conversely,
the bill held that the total amount of authorized expenses
could not exceed 60% of the adjusted gross income. She
deferred to Mr. Hansen to explain the practical effect of
that new language.
Number 538
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS noted that the changes to the
body of HB 168 would require a title change.
Number 539
MS. HORETSKI replied that the title of the draft committee
substitute reflected the changes made in the body of HB 168.
Number 543
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Horetski a question regarding
the language on page 3, section 7, line 12, of the draft
committee substitute.
Number 549
MS. HORETSKI said that, in her understanding, at least 40%
of the adjusted gross income from pull-tab activities, or at
least 15% of the adjusted gross income from gaming
activities other than pull-tabs had to be provided to the
sponsoring charity.
Number 555
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern with the language.
He asked what would happen in the event that an operator ran
gaming activities consisting of both pull-tabs and other
types of games.
Number 562
MS. HORETSKI stated that if an operator ran both pull-tab
and other gaming operations, he or she would apply one
percentage rule to the pull-tab activity and another
percentage rule to the other activity.
Number 569
JOHN HANSEN, GAMING AMANGER, DCED, said that the amendments
included in the draft committee substitute required two
separate expense limitations. Specifically, he said that
pull-tab expenses would be limited to 60% of adjusted gross
income, or net income. Other activities, he said, would
have to have at least 15% of adjusted gross income for net
proceeds. Under current law, he said that operators were
required to pay 15% of adjusted gross income for all gaming
activities within two consecutive quarters.
MR. HANSEN said that currently, an operator could incur a
loss in one quarter and pay no net proceeds. In the
following quarter, he said, the operator could pay the 15%
minimum and be in compliance with the law. Therefore, he
said, although current law required that charities receive
15% of adjusted gross income, in reality they sometimes
received substantially less than that.
Number 597
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Hansen to address a situation
in which an operator ran both pull-tab and other gaming
activities.
Number 601
MR. HANSEN replied that each activity would stand on its
own, in terms of expenses. He stated that under current
law, an operator could offset bingo or pull-tab expenses
with other types of gaming activity. House Bill 168,
however, would separate pull-tab activity from other
activities.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if an operator running both pull-tab
and other gaming activities would have to keep expenses and
revenues separate.
Number 618
MR. HANSEN responded that under current law, that separation
was already required. On both financial statements and
quarterly reports, he said, each activity's income and
expenses were separately identified. However, he said that
when the finances of those two activities were combined on
the front of the financial statement, they became a joint
net income, where one could offset the other. House Bill
168, he said, would isolate pull-tabs from other types of
gaming activity and set percentages which would end up as
net proceeds.
Number 628
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated his understanding of the
practical applications of HB 168.
Number 634
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if the 40% threshold would
present any problems for operators or charitable
organizations.
Number 642
MR. HANSEN stated that the DCED had some financial
statements on file, which were completed under the 40%
requirement that had been imposed via regulation. He said
that some operations would have to change as a result of HB
168. While the 40% requirement was in effect, he said, some
operators said that they had shut down less-profitable
operations. Other operators had complied with the
regulation, and continued to comply with the regulation,
although it was no longer in effect.
MR. HANSEN commented that HB 168 would have an effect not
just on operators, but also on organizations that conducted
their own gaming activity. He said that there were
currently no expense limitations on permittees who ran their
own gaming activities. He expressed an opinion that the
changes that would result from HB 168 would be positive
changes.
Number 667
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT recalled that the regulations had
affected the larger gaming operations. He asked Mr. Hansen
to elaborate on the effect of the regulations.
Number 674
MR. HANSEN replied that the Alaska gaming industry had seen
substantial changes over the last several years. Most of
the changes that resulted in operators going out of
business, he said, had nothing to do with the regulations.
He stated that today, there was only one operator left out
of the six largest operators doing business in 1990. He
mentioned that prior to the regulations going into effect,
there were 26 operators in Alaska. Today, there were almost
40, he added.
JIM FISK testified via teleconference from Kodiak in support
of charitable organizations and the Charitable Gaming Reform
Act of 1988. He said that the goal of that act was to put
the money in the hands of the charitable organizations.
That, he stated, had not happened. He said that his
organization, the Bayside Fire Department, and other Kodiak
charitable organizations, strongly supported the 60%
expenses/40% charities break-out. He also urged support for
a forthcoming bill which related to gaming agents
representing charitable organizations. He said that
permittees needed to get more money from charitable gaming.
TAPE 93-41, SIDE A
Number 000
RON PAGENKOPF said that he was a gaming operator and had
gone into the business one year earlier to support youth
athletics in Juneau. He said that in several days, he was
going to turn his business over to the charities that he had
been representing. He noted that under current law, it was
very complicated to turn his operation over to the five
permittees.
MR. PAGENKOPF mentioned that HB 168 would allow the process
that he was currently going through to be expedited.
Additionally, he said that the bill would put less of a
burden on charities when it came to auditing. He indicated
his strong support for HB 168. He did not see any negative
aspects of the bill, even for operators. He said that the
bill would allow those charities that had the time and
expertise to run gaming operations the ability to reap
maximum profits.
Number 079
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Mr. Pagenkopf how HB 168 would
change the way in which operators currently did business.
MR. PAGENKOPF understood that HB 168 would allow several
charities to share a location, have volume purchasing power,
and file a single report with the DCED.
Number 117
MR. HANSEN stated that HB 168 would allow for up to six
organizations to conduct gaming activity at a single
location, under a single permit. Under current regulations,
he said, this was already allowed, to some extent. He
commented that when the 1988 reform act was passed, pull-
tabs were legalized, and operators were recognized as
another class of licensee. He said that particularly for
large gaming operations, the law was more likely to
recognize a licensed operator.
MR. HANSEN mentioned that the DCED had gone as far as it
could, through the regulatory process, to allow multiple
organizations to band together and conduct gaming operations
without a licensed operator. He said that HB 168 would
recognize a new class of licensee: a group of permittees
that operated out of a single facility and had a blanket
license for that activity. He said that the bill would
result in greater purchasing power, fewer reporting
requirements, and economies of scale for labor.
Number 170
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Mr. Hansen if the charitable
organizations would share the gaming proceeds equally.
MR. HANSEN replied that organizations with a multiple-
beneficiary permit could allocate the proceeds any way they
desired.
Number 205
GARRY LANGILLE, PRESIDENT, KODIAK LIQUOR LICENSE
ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference from Kodiak in
support of HB 168. He favored the 60/40 split. He
commented that the bill would allow non-profit organizations
not currently involved in charitable gaming to become
involved.
Number 233
SAM KITO made a statement on behalf of Dimitri Philemonof,
Executive Director of the Aleutian/Pribilof Association. He
said that that organization operated Lucky Strike Bingo in
Anchorage, and had requested the introduction of HB 168, so
that multiple permittees could operate gaming activities in
a single location. He said that the bill would allow the
organizations to use a single permit and distribute net
income as they saw fit.
MR. KITO mentioned that the 60/40 split would create
problems for some organizations, including Lucky Strike
Bingo. He said that HB 168 would result in a 73% reduction
in the amount of money that would go to the charities, due
to non-consolidated federal business income taxes.
Number 324
BILL BISHOP, from the AMERICAN LEGION, testified in support
of HB 168 via teleconference from Kodiak. He said that his
organization relied heavily on the proceeds from charitable
gaming activities to fund community service projects. He
supported the 60/40 split.
Number 355
ELSIE O'BRYAN, PROJECT DIRECTOR, MID-VALLEY SENIORS IN
HOUSTON and a permit-holder, testified via teleconference.
She said that in 1992, her organization had used an
operator, received 15% of the adjusted gross income, and
paid taxes on that 15%. She strongly endorsed the 60/40
split. She asked Mr. Hansen if her organization were to
become part of a multiple-beneficiary pull-tab permit, would
it be prohibited from solely holding a bingo permit.
Number 382
MR. HANSEN understood that the holder of a multiple-
beneficiary permit would not be allowed to hold another
gaming permit. He said that gaming laws were designed to
spread the wealth among many organizations, by limiting
annual prize amounts. He stated that the DCED would likely
not oppose an amendment allowing a participant in a
multiple-beneficiary permit to also be involved in a
different gaming activity at a different location.
MS. O'BRYAN asked Mr. Hansen about prize limitations for
multiple-beneficiary gaming operations.
MR. HANSEN stated that under a multiple-beneficiary permit,
the $1 million prize limitation would be multiplied by the
number of organizations conducting gaming activities at a
single location.
Number 437
MS. O'BRYAN responded that it was her interpretation that
HB 168 would allow her organization to double its potential
income from charitable gaming, by getting involved in a
multiple-beneficiary operation, and not utilizing an
operator.
Number 441
MR. HANSEN concurred. He added that under current law, a
self-directed charitable organization was allowed a $1
million prize limitation.
Number 447
MS. O'BRYAN indicated her organization's strong support of
HB 168, saying that it provided charities with options. She
stated that the amendments incorporated into the Judiciary
Committee's draft committee substitute were positive changes
to HB 168.
Number 463
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Mr. Hansen to elaborate on his
earlier comment that the DCED would not likely oppose an
amendment allowing participants in a multiple-beneficiary
venture to hold another gaming permit for a different type
of gaming activity.
Number 467
MR. HANSEN called the members' attention to section 8 of the
draft committee substitute, which held that a participant in
a multiple-beneficiary gaming operation could not hold
another gaming permit. He stated that the DCED would not
object to changing that provision of the bill, provided that
a charity still adhered to its $1 million prize limitation
requirement.
Number 492
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked who had requested the changes
that appeared in the draft committee substitute.
Number 497
MR. HANSEN replied that the amendment relating to the 60/40
split had been drafted by the DCED, and embodied the essence
of the Hickel administration's stance on charitable gaming.
Regarding the second amendment, he mentioned that under
current law, an operator and a permittee entered into a
contract, which had to be submitted to the DCED within 15
days. He said that under current law, the DCED had no
rights to approve or disapprove contracts. The Mid-Valley
Seniors had had contract problems, he said, and had
requested some sort of legislative fix to ensure that
contracts complied with the law and were approved by the
DCED.
MR. HANSEN added that under the bill's provisions a contract
would set out the amount of compensation that an operator
and a permittee would receive.
Number 537
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked the Chairman to consider
holding HB 168 in committee until Friday. He wanted to hear
from additional gaming operators in the Anchorage area, to
find out their opinions on the bill. He mentioned that he
had heard that some gaming operators ran their bingo games
at a deficit, and used pull-tab proceeds to make up for that
deficit. He expressed concern about the effects of HB 168
on those types of gaming operations and the charities which
benefited from them.
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the committee had heard from
operators, the DCED, and charitable organizations, and
stated that no one had mentioned the concern raised by
Representative Nordlund.
Number 574
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES was comfortable with moving HB 168 out
of committee.
Number 577
MR. HANSEN stated that Anchorage bingo games were often
operated as a "loss leader," to get people in the door of a
gaming facility to play pull-tabs. If a gaming operation
had no adjusted gross income, there would be no expense
report to file, he said. He mentioned that it was up to
operators to set prize amounts. He stated that some bingo
facilities paid out enormous prizes, because of competition.
He said that HB 168 might force gaming operators to adjust
their prize pay-offs to be more profitable.
MR. HANSEN commented that committee members would hear that
HB 168 would have a big impact. He admitted that the bill
would have an impact, but said that the impact would be
positive, because it would be across the board.
Number 601
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND hoped to achieve a higher comfort
level with regard to HB 168. He again requested that the
Chairman hold the bill in committee until Friday.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that because the bill had a House
Finance Committee referral, he was inclined to pass the bill
out of committee today. He said that if Representative
Nordlund's research turned up serious concerns with the
bill, they could be addressed in the House Finance
Committee.
Number 616
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 168 (JUD)
out of committee, with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note.
Number 621
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT OBJECTED. He questioned whether the
committee had adopted the draft committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WITHDREW her MOTION to MOVE CSHB 168
(JUD) out of committee. She made a new MOTION to ADOPT
CSHB 168 (JUD), dated March 24, 1993. There being no
objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
Number 634
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 168 (JUD)
out of committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note.
Number 638
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND said that he would not object to the
motion. He added that he would bring his concerns before
the House Finance Committee.
There being no objection to Representative James' motion,
CSHB 168 (JUD) MOVED out of committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:14 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|