Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/05/1995 01:12 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
April 5, 1995
1:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 10: "An Act relating to payment for emergency services
responding to certain motor vehicle accidents."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 286: "An Act providing an exemption from gambling and
certain alcoholic beverage laws for gambling
conducted by cruise ships for their ticketed
passengers in the offshore water of the state;
relating to promotions on board cruise ships;
defining `cruise ship'; providing for
exemption procedures for certain cruise ships
before they can conduct gambling in the offshore
water of the state; providing an exemption from
the coin-operated device tax for cruise ships
exempted from the gambling laws; and providing
for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CSSB 106(JUD): "An Act prohibiting minors from patronizing
businesses that offer adult entertainment and
prohibiting the employment of minors at businesses
offering adult entertainment."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CSSB 41(JUD): "An Act relating to reports by fishing vessels
that are not licensed under the laws of the
state."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 285: "An Act relating to the amount of the homestead
exemption and to the method of changing amounts of
exemptions."
BILL POSTPONED
HB 130: "An Act relating to agency review of public
comment on the adoption, amendment, and repeal of
regulations; relating to the examination of
proposed regulations, amendments of regulations,
and orders repealing regulations by the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee and the
Department of Law; relating to the submission to,
and acceptance by, the lieutenant governor of
proposed regulations, amendments of regulations,
and orders repealing regulations; and requiring
agencies to make certain determinations before
adopting regulations, amendments of regulations,
or orders repealing regulations."
BILL POSTPONED
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 422
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4457
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 10
DAVE TYLER
Alaska Fire Chiefs Association
1610 Hans Way
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-5672
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 10
TOM DOW, Vice President
Princess Cruise Lines
2815 2nd Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: Not Available
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 286
TERRY OTNESS, Legislative Assistant
Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 30
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3873
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 41
TERESA SAGER, Senate Rules Committee Aide
Senator Mike Miller
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 125
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4976
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 106
ANNE CARPENETI, House Judiciary Committee Aide
Representative Brian Porter
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4990
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 106
CHARLES MCKEE
P.O. Box 143452
Anchorage, AK 99514
Telephone: Not Available
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 106
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 10
SHORT TITLE: PAYMENT OF COSTS OF DWI ACCIDENTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DAVIES,Green
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 23 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 23 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/18/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/18/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/20/95 802 (H) STA RPT 4DP
03/20/95 803 (H) DP: JAMES, GREEN, IVAN, ROBINSON
03/20/95 803 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DCED, LAW)
03/20/95 824 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
03/22/95 835 (H) CORRECTED STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP 1NR
03/22/95 835 (H) DP: GREEN, IVAN, JAMES, ROBINSON
03/22/95 835 (H) NR: PORTER
03/22/95 835 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DCED, LAW)
3/20/95
03/31/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/31/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 286
SHORT TITLE: CRUISE SHIP GAMBLING & PROMOTIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIAMS,Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/28/95 955 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/28/95 955 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 106
SHORT TITLE: NO MINORS WORK/ATTEND ADULT BUSINESSES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER, Pearce, Salo, Lincoln, Torgerson,
Green, Kelly, Leman, Frank, Halford, R.Phillips
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 438 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 438 (S) JUD
03/15/95 (S) JUD AT 02:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/17/95 678 (S) COSPONSOR: SALO
03/17/95 (S) JUD AT 03:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/17/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/20/95 697 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/20/95 697 (S) ZERO FNS (LABOR #1, LAW #2)
03/22/95 (S) RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/22/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/23/95 766 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/23/95
03/23/95 769 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/23/95 769 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/23/95 769 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LINCOLN, TORGERSON,
GREEN,
03/23/95 769 (S) KELLY, LEMAN, FRANK, HALFORD,
PHILLIPS
03/23/95 769 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 106(JUD)
03/23/95 769 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
03/23/95 772 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/24/95 879 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/24/95 879 (H) JUDICIARY
04/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 41
SHORT TITLE: REPORTS BY OUT OF STATE FISHING VESSELS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Mackie
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/20/95 58 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/20/95 58 (S) RES, FIN
02/03/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/03/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/06/95 181 (S) RES RPT 4DP 1NR
02/06/95 181 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G #1)
02/06/95 181 (S) JUD REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE FINANCE
02/13/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/13/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/14/95 267 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE
02/14/95 267 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G #1)
02/28/95 425 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
03/02/95 (S) RLS AT 11:25 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/02/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/08/95 537 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/8/95
03/08/95 539 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/08/95 539 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/08/95 539 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/08/95 539 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 41(JUD)
03/08/95 540 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
03/08/95 544 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/09/95 671 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/09/95 671 (H) FISHERIES, JUDICIARY
03/09/95 691 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MACKIE
03/20/95 823 (H) FSH REFERRAL WAIVED
04/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 285
SHORT TITLE: AMOUNT OF HOMESTEAD AND OTHER EXEMPTIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/27/95 933 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/27/95 933 (H) JUDICIARY
04/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 130
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION ADOPTION PROCEDURES & REVIEW
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY,James,
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/95 157 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/27/95 157 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/95 (H) ARR AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/15/95 396 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/95 (H) ARR AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/22/95 (H) ARR AT 04:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/22/95 (H) MINUTE(ARR)
02/22/95 (S) MINUTE(ARR)
02/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/09/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/18/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/20/95 805 (H) STA RPT 1DP 2NR 1AM
03/20/95 805 (H) DP: JAMES
03/20/95 805 (H) NR: GREEN, IVAN
03/20/95 805 (H) AM: ROBINSON
03/20/95 806 (H) 5 FISCAL NOTES (3-GOV, DHSS, DPS)
03/20/95 806 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (LAW)
03/20/95 806 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM,GOV,DNR)
03/22/95 840 (H) CORRECTED STA RPT CS(STA) NT 2DP
2NR 1AM
03/22/95 841 (H) DP: JAMES, PORTER
03/22/95 841 (H) NR: GREEN, IVAN
03/22/95 841 (H) AM: ROBINSON
03/22/95 841 (H) 5 FNS (3-GOV, DHSS, DPS) 3/20/95
03/22/95 841 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (LAW)
3/20/95
03/22/95 841 (H) 3 ZERO FNS (ADM, GOV, DNR) 3/20/95
03/31/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/31/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-42, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:12
p.m. on Wednesday, April 5, 1995. All members were present.
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER stated that the following bills would be
heard: CSHB 10, HB 286, CSSB 106, and CSSB 41.
HB 10 - PAYMENT OF COSTS OF DWI ACCIDENTS
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, bill sponsor, introduced HB 10. It
requires driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenders convicted of
causing a motor vehicle accident to pay for the cost of emergency
services responders to that accident. The problems and associated
costs of driving while intoxicated are clear. According to
national statistics, 43 percent of all fatal motor vehicle
accidents involve alcohol. According to the Department of Public
Safety, 40 percent of all DWI arrests involve repeat offenders.
Furthermore, alcohol related accidents nationwide result in
economic costs of $46.1 billion per year, according to United
States Transportation Department in 1990. HB 10 attempts to
address these problems in two ways. First, as a deterrent to those
who drive while intoxicated, by raising the financial penalty for
doing so. By raising the financial burden to those breaking the
law, HB 10 emphasizes the seriousness of the crime. Secondly, this
bill shifts the financial responsibility of emergency services from
the law abiding, tax paying citizens to the convicted DWI offender.
There are three states, California, Indiana, and Kansas that have
already enacted similar reimbursement laws.
Number 090
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked what would happen if the person
was indigent.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said what would happen is the same thing that
happens now in other types of cases. If there is a court judgment
against a person who is unable to pay or has relatively small
resources, the court will agree to a payment schedule of $10 per
month, or whatever the person can afford.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY thought we should be able to attach the
permanent fund to this. They should be held responsible.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked if they had looked into the process
of issuing a court order to pay a third party in a criminal
proceeding, as opposed to a civil proceeding.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said they did have lawyers look it over.
Some municipalities actually have a similar law now allowing courts
to issue a bench warrant, and so it would add a little bit of clout
behind the billing.
DAVE TYLER testified via teleconference, representing the Alaska
Fire Chief's Association. DWIs do create lots of types of
tragedies, people are left crippled, and property is destroyed.
Other issues that do not generally come to light and are not so
obvious, are the risks to responders and the costs involved. It is
quite hard on our responders. For example, when a woman is killed
in an accident it is real hard to give an answer when a husband
comes up and asks how the wife is doing. This really causes a lot
of stress. We also have the physical hazards, such as fire hazards
when attending to vehicle accidents. Another possibility that
exists is the exposure to bloodborne pathogens. Emergency
responders go through hours and hours of training to learn how to
handle these situations safely. We realize this all goes with the
job, but the criminals should somehow be held accountable for their
actions.
Number 220
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said he was very supportive of what the
sponsor was trying to do and has little patience for DWI offenders.
He asked if Representative Davies could see this law broadening out
to include reckless driving. Why should someone who is drunk and
cause this expense be more liable than someone who is reckless and
causes the expense?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that was a good question. We had
thought about generalizing the bill, but as you know, this bill
only amends the drunk driving statute, and so it is limited to that
arena. One might fairly consider those other things. We wanted to
keep this particular bill focused narrowly on the DWI issue. He
felt this reasoning was justified because of the very large number
of accidents that are caused by drunk drivers (40 - 50 percent of
fatal accidents).
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move CSHB 10(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 286 - CRUISE SHIP GAMBLING AND PROMOTIONS
Number 275
TOM DOW, Vice President, Princess Cruise Lines, Seattle, presented
the following sponsor statement on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Bill Williams:
"House Bill 286 gives the state authorization to offer an exemption
from gambling statutes to cruise ships. This exemption would allow
cruise ships to operate their casinos in Alaska waters.
"Casino gambling aboard cruise ships is an amenity needed to keep
Alaska on a par with other cruise destinations. While gambling is
not the main attraction of cruises to other parts of the world, it
is an accepted and expected part of the experience.
"In these times of strict budget discipline it is important to find
new sources of income. Ships that take advantage of this exemption
will pay the state of Alaska fees ranging from $10,000 to $40,000
per year. Initial projections suggest this could add an additional
$500,000 per year to state coffers.
"This bill supports the tourism industry and raises state revenues.
I ask you to support House Bill 286."
MR. DOW stated that this practice of operating on-board casinos has
been in place for over 20 years prior to a question being raised in
1993. The result of that question being raised was an Attorney
General's Opinion stating that since there is nothing to exempt
these operations in Alaska law, they were not exempt. We took that
as a clue that something should be done. Last year, this committee
as well as the House Finance Committee, and the same committees on
the Senate side reviewed the bill. There have been a couple of
changes this year. One, is that under current law, there is a
prohibition against an employee of a casino from serving alcohol in
a casino. There are bars and lounges in and adjacent to casinos.
Employees are commingled in those rooms, so the current bill
reflects an exemption from that statute. Secondly, under the
charitable gaming laws, there is a requirement for a license for
video games, pinball machines, etc., which do not pay out cash, but
might offer prizes. As the business evolves, we are finding more
and more teens and young adults on our cruises, so many cruise
lines are offering video arcade games. The license fee is $25 per
year. We have asked to be exempt from that fee. We estimate that
the cruise ships will bring an estimated $575,000 in revenues to
the state this year. This video game licensing fee would require
some auditing and calculation of the pro rata share of the time
these video machines were actually in the state. It would be some
fraction of four months a year, perhaps half of that time. So you
would be talking about 1/6 of $25 per machine. The accounting for
that would eat up the fee. This has nothing to do with the concern
over gift shop promotions that came up last year. What we had
agreed to do in the previous bill would require full disclosure of
these on-board gift shop promotions.
Number 420
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked about the shore excursion
trips. Are these trips solicited by you to sell? Do you pick and
choose?
MR. DOW said they do pick and choose. His company responds to
solicitations, and they look at the product and sample it. We
examine the reliability, dependability, cost and cleanliness of the
operation. We probably have 150 of these on-shore adventures in a
booklet for customers to pick from.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked about the on-shore excursion part
of the bill. What is the difference between on-shore excursions
and gift shops? The previous discussion was not just about gift
shops, it was about on-shore services. In that scenario you just
described, you did not mention whether or not that on-shore company
is paying you to be in that catalog.
MR. DOW answered that the vendors absolutely do pay a commission
for the sale. They are not paying a consideration cost to be
listed in the book. The gift shop promotion business differs a
little bit, in that these are usually verbal presentations and
there are a lot of possibilities for abuse by the employee giving
the lectures, perhaps giving a little extra body language to one
gift shop over another, because somebody is paying them on the side
to do it. It is a system that has been abused in the past, and we
have never participated in it. The cruise line's defense of on-
board promotions is that in some international venues, they believe
people are concerned about where they might be ripped off. If
there is a problem, these people can come back and say, "Wait a
minute. You recommended this gift shop, and I got some shoddy
merchandise, and they would not give me a refund." The passengers
have some leverage in the deal. We do not think that is a problem
in Alaska.
Number 550
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked for clarification on what the ship's
booklet included. She did not like the idea of them sending people
to particular shops.
MR. DOW said sending someone to a gift shop is different than
putting them on a helicopter. If we suggest a helicopter tour or
raft trip, we assume some liability there, just by offering it. We
have on board, the equivalent of an in-flight magazine, such as
Alaska Airlines has. People can buy advertising in those
magazines. We do not have promotions, but we do have printed
advertising like you would find if you opened up your drawer at the
hotel room or in the front of your seat on the airplane. Everybody
has an opportunity to advertise.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what the commission was for advertising.
MR. DOW answered that it is somewhere from 15 to 20 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what the distance from shore was for
allowing gambling in international waters.
MR. DOW said it is three miles.
Number 690
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted the point is that the three mile restriction
extends from the port to the cruise ship, rather than from the ship
to the shore, because while coming up the passage, the ships are
always within three miles of the shore.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered an amendment to page 4, line 8.
He wanted to insert "on a commission basis" after the word "sold."
CHAIRMAN PORTER objected and a roll call vote was taken.
Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes. Representatives
Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no. The amendment
failed five to two.
Number 800
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if someone could quickly explain what an
unsworn falsification consists of, referring to page 3, line 7.
ANNE CARPENETI, House Judiciary Committee Aide, said it is when you
sign something certifying that it is true, but you do not take an
oath.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was any assurance for age
restrictions for cruise ship gambling.
MR. DOW did not know.
CHAIRMAN PORTER assumed that since the casinos are in general
proximity to a lounge, which precludes anyone under 21, that the
gambling would also preclude anyone under 21.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HB 286 out of committee
with individual recommendations and no fiscal notes. Seeing no
objection, it was so ordered.
TAPE 95-42, SIDE B
Number 000
CSSB 106(JUD) - NO MINORS WORK/ATTEND ADULT BUSINESSES
TERESA SAGER, Committee Aide, Senate Rules Committee, introduced
the bill. Sponsor statement:
"Senate Bill 106 would prohibit businesses that provide adult
entertainment, such as strip tease establishments, from allowing
persons under 18 to patronize or be employed at such businesses.
"Most adult entertainment establishments in Alaska serve alcohol
which requires that employees be at least 19 and customers at least
21 years of age. However, recently some adult entertainment
businesses have opened in Anchorage and Fairbanks that do not serve
alcohol, therefore, the age limit rules that are usually imposed
because of the service of alcohol do not apply.
"CSSB 106(JUD) aims to close that loophole, ensuring that minors
may not work in or patronize any such establishment, regardless of
the nature of the work and regardless of whether the business does
or does not serve alcohol.
"The bill establishes the following penalties:
Business allowing minors as patrons:
Class A Misdemeanor(up to $5,000 fine, up to 1 year
jail)
Business employing minors, 1st offense:
Class A Misdemeanor (up to $5,000 fine, up to 1 year
jail)
Business employing minors, 2nd & subsequent offenses:
Class C Felony (up to $50,000 fine, up to 5 years jail)"
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY could not recall a single business venture
that has survived commercially, that has not served alcohol. Do we
even need to worry about these businesses continuing?
CHAIRMAN PORTER said one of the reasons these businesses providing
entertainment to minors do not work, is that the law enforcement
agencies in the communities are forced into monitoring these places
night after night after night. This is the only way to disallow
the function of consuming alcohol on or near the premises. This
bill would do away with the need to monitor these clubs, because it
would pretty well do away with the employers' ability to run them.
Number 080
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked about Section 3. In (f) 1 and 2
we have set up a standard for what the violation is: "dancing
partly or completely unclothed, removing clothes," and the
penalties seem to make sense. If you are caught doing it, you get
the lowest level of misdemeanor, a fine up to $500, and up to 90
days in jail. Then the penalties go up from there. None of that
makes any sense to me for (f) 3. Here is a person who is
participating in either actual or simulated sexual penetration, or
various categories of exhibition or bestiality. It is like apples
and oranges in this section. We have a little stiffer laws than
these already for someone who was to engage a minor in these kinds
of activities. Am I missing something here?
MS. SAGER asked if Representative Finkelstein was saying that there
is a differentiation of penalties for the type of activity and for
the type of entertainment offered?
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN answered no, but to clarify it, he
completely understands the penalties and the provisions as they
would apply to numbers 1 and 2 under Section 3. But when you get
to number 3 of Section 3, we have already got a whole variety of
laws that deal with an adult or individual who engages or hires a
minor to be involved in sexual penetration or some of these other
things. It does not seem that we would want to apply these lower
penalties to something like this. It does not necessarily relate
to what this bill is after.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Section 3 is a prohibition against
allowing a minor to work in a premise that does this. The
presumption would be that this would be an adult premise,
precluding minors from being patrons, but there are exceptions for
minors to work in places that have liquor licenses, for example.
He said he knows that there are jurisdictions within the United
States where they actually allow live sex acts.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that is right but we do not allow
such acts. That is the point.
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that in case we ever do allow them, we are
saying that we are sure we do not want minors working there.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN still felt that if it did occur, this is
way too small of a penalty for this kind of activity.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said this would not be for the activity itself, it
would be just for allowing a minor to work there.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that Section 4 appears to be for
the minor, and Section 5 for the employer.
ANNE CARPENETI, House Judiciary Committee Aide, explained that all
of the penalties in this bill are for the employer, or his/her
agent.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the difference was between
Sections 4 and 5.
MS. CARPENETI answered that Section 4 sets forth the penalty for
allowing a minor to be present at an establishment, whereas Section
5 sets the penalty for employing them at one.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that made sense.
CHARLES MCKEE testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said
with what this bill is attempting to do, the penalties are not
stiff enough. They are only misdemeanors. He did not know if any
of the committee members would appreciate their 18-year-old
daughters working in establishments such as these mentioned. He
recommended these establishments be shut down. They should not be
in business. He talked to an operator last Sunday who was bragging
to another individual that he had 14 back rooms for activities
other than stage acts. He realized who he was talking to, and they
do not have the appropriate liability coverage, nor does the state.
Under Senate Bill 53, they tried to violate his individual property
rights. Seeing how they do not have the right to purchase
appropriate liability coverage, they should not be in business at
all.
Number 270
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to move the bill out of
committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes.
Seeing no objection, CSSB 106(JUD) moved.
CSSB 41(JUD) - REPORTS BY OUT OF STATE FISHING VESSELS
Number 275
TERRY OTNESS, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor,
introduced CSSB 41(JUD). Sponsor statement:
"This legislation would require foreign fishing vessels transiting
or lying in state waters to report their catch by species, quantity
and the area where harvested.
"The bill was introduced at the request of the Ketchikan Trollers
Committee in response to the rapid expansion of the fishery off
Cape Muzon and Cape Chacon. It has gone from a relatively minor
fishery with a dozen or so trollers, to a modern freezer fleet,
that is at times in excess of 100 vessels. It will be possible to
monitor this fishery because a transit to Canadian harbors is some
30 miles across waters exposed to the ocean -- so the ships often
anchor in state waters until their holds are full.
"The committee substitute changes the phrase `Foreign fishing
vessels' to `unlicensed fishing vessels' and defines an unlicensed
fishing vessel as a vessel that is not licensed under AS 16.05.490
- 530. This change eliminates possible confusion with federal
statutes which place a different definition on `foreign fishing
vessels.'
"In a letter to Senator Taylor and Representative Williams, the
trollers committee states, `Southeast Alaskan fishermen are
suffering irreparable harm at the U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
due to the inability or willingness of fishery managers in British
Columbia to monitor this growing fishery.' The letter continues,
`these reporting requirements would result in better harvest
information during the season.'
"While it would be ideal to have the Board of Fish implement this
for the upcoming season, timing considerations preclude this from
occurring until next year. The Department of Fish and Game has
given this measure a zero fiscal note. I encourage your support of
this measure."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said there was a problem earlier this spring
with scallop fisheries. Will this have any impact on that problem?
MR. OTNESS said it would not, to his knowledge. They were an
unlicensed vessel, so they may be able to monitor that if they came
into state waters.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE thought the problem was that they stayed
outside, and did not come into state waters.
CHAIRMAN PORTER recalled that they fished outside, came inside, but
since they did not fish inside, they did not have to be licensed
inside.
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked if this has happened with any
of the other countries other than Canada; perhaps the Taiwanese?
MR. OTNESS said not to his knowledge, but it is possible.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if we are certain that in the
meantime, the Board of Fish, or Fish and Game could not impose this
reporting requirement as an emergency measure or temporary measure
for the remainder of this season.
MR. OTNESS thought there were existing laws that would preclude
them from processing their fish in our state waters, but he had not
looked into that.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the chance would be if this
went into effect, that this would discourage them from pulling into
Alaskan waters.
MR. OTNESS said if you looked at the map, the 30 miles transit
distance would discourage them from coming into our waters.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if this would apply to sport fishing
vessels.
MR. OTNESS did not think so, but he would have to look at the
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he really would like to know.
MR. OTNESS explained that the map indicated the areas in which the
fishing was actually occurring. The idea is for the Department of
Fish and Game to be able to accurately obtain information on the
type of species caught, and the amount. In order to obtain this
information, we need to have the fishing vessels in our
jurisdiction. We can do this by requiring them to report to us
when they are anchoring or transiting our waters.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if they are actually going back to
Canada to market their fish.
MR. OTNESS said yes, they are.
CHAIRMAN PORTER pointed out that this would not apply to sport
fishing, since the particular statute references are to commercial
fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt it was unclear, because it refers to
licensed vessels under the particular statute, and sport fishing
boats are not licensed under the statute either. He felt the bill
should make it very clear that they are NOT addressing sport
fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move CSSB 41(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes.
Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|