Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/10/1999 01:38 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
May 10, 1999
1:38 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 4(FIN)
"An Act relating to victims' rights; relating to establishing an
office of victims' rights; relating to compensation of victims of
violent crimes; relating to eligibility for a permanent fund
dividend for persons convicted of and incarcerated for certain
offenses; relating to notice of appropriations concerning victims'
rights; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure,
Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency Rules, and Rule 501, Alaska Rules of
Evidence; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 172
"An Act establishing the office of victims' advocacy in the
Department of Law; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency Rules, and Rule 501, Alaska
Rules of Evidence."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 219
"An Act relating to the rule against perpetuities, nonvested
property interests, and powers of appointment; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 221
"An Act relating to a trustee's duties to inform and account to
beneficiaries; relating to the revocation, modification,
termination, reformation, construction, and trustees of trusts; and
relating to transfer restrictions in trusts."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 4
SHORT TITLE: OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD, Donley, Green, Leman, Taylor,
Wilken, Kelly Tim, Lincoln, Ellis, Parnell, Mackie, Miller, Kelly
Pete, Ward, REPRESENTATIVE(S) Porter
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 13 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/8/99
1/19/99 14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 14 (S) JUD, FIN
1/22/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
1/22/99 (S) MOVED CS (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
1/22/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
1/25/99 77 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 1NR SAME TITLE
1/25/99 77 (S) DP: TAYLOR, HALFORD, ELLIS;NR:
TORGERSON
1/25/99 77 (S) FNS TO SB & CS (LAA, DPS, COR)
1/25/99 77 (S) INDETERMINATE FN TO SB & CS (LAW)
1/25/99 77 (S) ZERO FNS TO SB & CS (ADM-2, DPS)
3/30/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/30/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/30/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/30/99 740 (S) COSPONSOR(S): WILKEN
4/22/99 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/22/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
4/27/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/27/99 (S) MOVED CS (FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/27/99 1130 (S) FIN RPT CS 7DP 1NR NEW TITLE
4/27/99 1131 (S) LETTER OF INTENT WITH FIN REPORT
4/27/99 1131 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,
GREEN
4/27/99 1131 (S) PETE KELLY, DONLEY, WILKEN; NR: ADAMS
4/27/99 1131 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM-2, DPS)
4/27/99 1131 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (COR, DPS)
4/27/99 1131 (S) PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN (LAW)
4/28/99 (S) RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/28/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/28/99 1148 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DPS)
4/29/99 1170 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/29/99
4/29/99 1171 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/29/99 1172 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/29/99 1172 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
4/29/99 1172 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 4(FIN)
4/29/99 1172 (S) (S) ADOPTED FIN LETTER OF INTENT
4/29/99 1172 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TIM KELLY, LINCOLN,
ELLIS,
4/29/99 1172 (S) PARNELL, MACKIE, MILLER, PETE KELLY,
4/29/99 1172 (S) WARD
4/29/99 1173 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
4/29/99 1173 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/29/99 1173 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/29/99 1175 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/30/99 1101 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/30/99 1101 (H) JUD, FIN
5/03/99 1145 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): PORTER
5/10/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 172
SHORT TITLE: OFFICE OF VICTIMS' ADVOCACY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) CROFT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/31/99 627 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/31/99 627 (H) JUD, FIN
5/10/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 219
SHORT TITLE: RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
5/04/99 1158 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/04/99 1158 (H) JUDICIARY
5/07/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
5/07/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
5/10/99 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
BRETT HUBER, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Rick Halford
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 121
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4958
POSITION STATEMENT: Present sponsor statement on SB 4.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4322
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 4.
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 4.
KAREN CAMPBELL
2024 Saratoga Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 261-7662
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 4.
CHARLOTTE PHELPS, Advocate
Victims For Justice
733 West 4th Avenue, Suite 690
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-0988
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 4.
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault
130 Seward Street, Room 209
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3650
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 4.
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on HB 219.
ERIC KNEFFNER, Attorney
Faulkner Banfield P C
302 Gold Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2210
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 219.
DICK THWAITES
604 West 2nd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-1595
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 219.
TERRY BANNISTER, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 219.
RICH HOMPESCH
119 North Cushman Street, Suite 690
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-1700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 219.
SHARALYN SUE WRIGHT
Address not provided
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 219.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-61, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:38 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg and James.
Representatives Kerttula, Croft and Murkowski arrived at 1:39 p.m.,
1:40 p.m. and 2:36 p.m., respectively.
CSSB 4(FIN) - OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is CS FOR
SENATE BILL NO. 4(FIN), "An Act relating to victims' rights;
relating to establishing an office of victims' rights; relating to
compensation of victims of violent crimes; relating to eligibility
for a permanent fund dividend for persons convicted of and
incarcerated for certain offenses; relating to notice of
appropriations concerning victims' rights; and amending Rule 16,
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency
Rules, and Rule 501, Alaska Rules of Evidence; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0068
BRETT HUBER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Rick Halford, Alaska
State Legislature, came before the committee to present the sponsor
statement. He stated that CSSB 4(FIN) passed the Senate with
unanimous bipartisan support and 13 co-sponsors. He noted that
similar legislation was before this committee last year in the form
of SB 219. The thrust of the legislation is to provide a mechanism
for the practical application of the Victims' Rights Amendment to
the constitution ratified by popular vote on November 8, 1994. The
bill establishes the office of victims' rights in the Department of
Public Safety and tasks the advocate with assisting crime victims
in obtaining rights that they are guaranteed under the constitution
and laws of the state in regards to contact with state justice
agencies. Crime victims are all too often left to deal with the
justice system that's heavily weighted to the benefit of the
criminal and filled with legalize and technicalities. The passage
of the bill would provide victims of crimes with an advocate who
understands and is experienced with criminal law and is familiar
with the justice process. It would not preclude the responsibility
of the prosecutor's office to fulfill its statutory obligations.
It would not preclude the need for organizations, such as Victims
For Justice. In fact, their effectiveness would be bolstered by
the office of victims' rights.
Number 0229
MR. HUBER presented the following sectional analysis:
Section 1 provides the short title;
Section 2 allows the victims' advocate to make statements
at the time of sentencing in-lieu-of the victim, if
requested;
Section 3 amends AS 12.61 by adding new sections, which
creates the office in the Department of Public Safety
[Mr. Huber noted that the original version of the bill
would have placed the office within the legislative
branch and would be modeled after the ombudsman office];
Sec. 12.61.200 (a) creates the office, provides for
the appointment of the advocate by the
commissioner, and allows employment for an
assistant advocate and clerical staff;
Sec. 12.61.200 (b) sets up the tasks of the office;
Sec. 12.61.200 (c) requires the cooperation of state
agencies;
Sec. 12.61.200 (d) provides the office the authority to
administer grants to nonprofit organizations;
Sec. 12.61.200 (e) establishes the qualifications for the
advocate;
Sec. 12.61.210 (a) requires the advocate to adopt
regulations;
Sec. 12.61.210 (b) disallows the office to charge fees
for its services;
Sec. 12.61.220 (a) establishes the advocate's
jurisdiction;
Sec. 12.61.220 (b) directs the advocate to exercise
reasonable care, to not interfere with ongoing cases, and
to not make extra judicial statements;
Sec. 12.61.220 (c) restricts the advocate from advising
a victim against cooperating with an investigation,
providing information, or testifying;
Sec. 12.61.230 sets out the authority to advocate on
behalf of crime victims and to access records;
Sec. 12.61.240 lists how and when the advocate may
conduct investigations, provides subpoena power, requires
consultations with the justice agencies prior to the
release of a report, lines out the advocate's duties upon
completion of an investigation, and permits the advocate
to report public opinions and recommendations;
Sec. 12.61.250 requires the advocate to publish an annual
report;
Sec. 12.61.260 limits the judicial challenge of the
advocate's actions;
Sec. 12.61.270 provides immunity for the advocate;
Sec. 12.61.280 provides evidentiary privilege against
being compelled to testify;
Sec. 12.61.290 sets out a criminal penalty for
obstruction of the advocate's duties;
Sec. 12.61.300 provides definitions ["justice agency" and
"victim"];
Section 4 increases the compensation available for
victims of crime under AS 18.67 as decided by the Violent
Crimes Compensation Board;
Section 5 allows the board to increase the compensation
levels by regulation in order to account for inflation;
Section 6 brings the advocate under the partially exempt
status;
Section 7 provides for Permanent Fund Dividend
ineligibility for a misdemeanant who is incarcerated for
all or part of a qualifying year and who has either one
prior felony or two prior misdemeanor convictions;
Section 8 provides that the proceeds of the dividend may
be used to fund the office;
Sections 9 and 10 provide for a court rule change notice;
Section 11 allows the office space to be obtained,
equipped and staffed in the FY [fiscal year] 00 budget
for a July 2001 start;
Sections 12 and 13 are the effective date clauses.
Number 0523
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Huber to share with the committee the
discussion from the Senate on those who have committed a
misdemeanor with prior convictions and their loss of their
permanent fund dividend.
Number 0545
MR. HUBER replied the current law says that anybody who is
incarcerated for all or part of a qualifying year and has two prior
convictions are ineligible for the dividend. This bill changes the
two prior convictions to one prior felony or two prior
misdemeanors.
Number 0598
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Huber to explain the other changes
that the Senate Finance Standing Committee made.
MR. HUBER replied the main change was the transfer of the office
from the legislature to the Department of Public Safety. The
committee also added the word "reasonable" [page 2, line 2] in
response to testimony. Language was also added to allow the
legislature the right to grant money to non-profit victims' rights
organization from the same pool of dividend ineligible money. The
committee also included the bifurcated effective date that allows
for the beginning of the supplies, staffing, and procurement of
office space, but it doesn't allow for the operation of the office
until the FY 01 budget. In addition, the committee adopted a
letter-of-intent that speaks to entities currently allowed to
receive funding from the ineligible dividend pool of money.
Number 0722
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the letter-of-intent attached to the
Department of Public Safety's fiscal note looks like $73,000 for
this year with a steady state of $450,000, which the department
expects to receive from the ineligible dividend funding mechanism.
MR. HUBER pointed out that the fiscal note does not reflect the
money coming into the department; it just speaks to the cost of the
office. The $73,000 is the anticipated cost of getting the office
ready. The $450,000 is the ongoing funding requirement for the
office. He referred to a spreadsheet illustrating the revenue
stream from the ineligible dividend mechanism. It shows $391,000
in the first fiscal year. It also shows that amount increasing
each year, which speaks to the ability to look back to the
out-years for prior crimes. The spreadsheet was calculated at last
year's dividend.
Number 0840
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated it was brought to his attention that
the PFD [Permanent Fund Dividend] would be available for the Child
Support Enforcement Division [Department of Revenue] or to directly
compensate victims.
MR. HUBER stated that was a policy call made at the time of the
initial PFD ineligible pool of money. The bill doesn't really
speak to the use of that money as a policy call; it merely expands
the pool of funds.
Number 0929
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Huber what would happen if the
office was set up and there wasn't enough money. Would the
legislature have to use general fund money?
MR. HUBER replied the bill creates a possible pool of funds that
are, of course, subject to the governor's recommended usage and the
appropriation of the legislature. It would be an annual policy
call as to the appropriation of the funds. It was the sponsor's
intent to create a funding mechanism that more than pay for the
program, especially as the growth of the pool increases in the
out-years.
Number 1025
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, came
before the committee to testify. The placement of the office in
the Department of Public Safety is of concern to him and the
commissioner. They are concerned about bringing in close to
$500,000 - no matter the source - in the event there might not be
sufficient funding thereby impacting the department's ability to
fund its primary mission - state troopers, fire prevention, fish
and wildlife protection, and several other programs. They are also
concerned about the administrative impact of the office. It
potentially pits departments against each other. The bill was
originally designed by the sponsor so that the office was in the
legislative branch similar to the Office of the Ombudsman with some
distance between it and the line-departments. In addition, the
department might be the actual agency a victim is complaining
about, given that it deals with victims.
Number 1164
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Smith what he thinks about the
office being within the Department of Administration.
MR. SMITH replied it's certainly an option.
Number 1230
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, came before
the committee to testify. The department has reservations about
the bill because it tries to deliver paralegal services that are
guaranteed by the Victims' Rights Amendment which have not
increased since before that time. The department deals with about
40,000 to 50,000 contacts with victims every year - notifying them
of hearings, schedule changes, and last minute hearings - which is
required in statute. The department also tries to deliver services
that are guaranteed under the amendment even in circumstances that
are not specifically required by the prosecuting attorney. The
most common complaint from victims is a lack of notification of
schedule changes, which she can understand. But it cannot be done
for all cases given the number of paralegals involved. Ms.
Carpeneti further stated that putting the office in the Department
of Public Safety is even more problematical. It delivers some of
the services, therefore, it would be investigating itself. It
would also be investigating the Department of Law which is a
client.
Number 1391
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Carpeneti whether her concerns were aired
in the Senate.
MS. CARPENETI replied yes her concerns were aired in the Senate
Judiciary and Senate Finance Standing Committees.
Number 1407
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Carpeneti whether the department's
chores would be simplified by simply notifying the advocate.
MS. CARPENETI replied, according to her understanding, the advocate
would not be delivering services directly but helping victims who
feel that they have not been provided their constitutional rights
after the fact.
Number 1482
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Carpeneti whether her concerns were
considered in the Senate; the bill passed the Senate
overwhelmingly.
MS. CARPENETI replied the committee substitute, that moved the
office to the Department of Public Safety, was introduced in the
Senate Finance Standing Committee where she testified that it would
cause problems between departments. No questions were asked.
Number 1534
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Carpeneti whether there is a way to
address victims' rights that wouldn't cause such a high fiscal
note.
MS. CARPENETI replied the Department of Law thinks it could provide
better services to victims if it had more paralegals to deliver
them, which would have a more direct impact on how they feel about
the criminal justice system than somebody investigating a mistake
after the fact.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Carpeneti whether the Department of
Law conducts an internal audit that reviews its procedures.
MS. CARPENETI replied the complaints that the department gets are
from those victims who have not been notified of a hearing.
Number 1662
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Carpeneti whether the office could
assume some of the notification duties of the Department of Law,
given the duties of the office listed in the bill.
MS. CARPENETI replied if those duties were made a lot clearer it
would possible. House Bill 172 actually says that the office can
deliver services listed in AS 12.61.015. She further noted that if
the office was in the Department of Law, it would have to be in a
separate office because it's charged with investigating.
Number 1721
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested a hotline for a listing of the
hearings. That way a victim would be able to call to determine the
status of a hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to the language - "(c) The
victims' advocate may not advise, counsel, or advocate on behalf
of a victim in a way that would, (1) prevent or discourage a victim
from cooperating with law enforcement authorities in a criminal
investigation; (2) encourage a victim to withhold evidence from law
enforcement authorities in a criminal investigation" - and asked
Ms. Carpeneti whether it should also include defense attorneys,
especially in regards to withholding evidence.
MS. CARPENETI replied they probably should be specified since they
aren't included in law enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said conceivably an equal protection
argument could be made because a victim could indicate in a trial
that he/she was advised not to talk to the defense attorney.
Number 1880
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Carpeneti whether she has any
indication of the types of things that the paralegals are doing for
notifying victims in relation to other things.
MS. CARPENETI replied the paralegals spend most of their time on
victim services. She also noted that the district attorneys also
assist victims.
Number 1929
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Carpeneti whether she knows what
kind of numbers the Department of Law is looking at for additional
paralegals.
MS. CARPENETI replied no. But she would find out and provide the
committee with that information.
Number 1987
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Carpeneti whether she has a feel of
what it would cost for more paralegals to help with notification
and to handhold the victims.
MS. CARPENETI replied no. She would get that information and bring
it back to the committee later. She doesn't write the fiscal
notes. But she does know that paralegals are a lot less expensive
than lawyers.
Number 2049
KAREN CAMPBELL testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
stressed that this is not an issue of adding paralegals. She is
the mother of Bonnie Craig, who was murdered on September 28, 1994.
She is here today because she doesn't want other victims to go
through the same hell and pain that she went through and will
continue to go through. The pain of childbirth and kidney stones
do not even come close to the pain of one's child having been
murder. She noted that Bonnie was abducted on her way to UAA
[University of Alaska, Anchorage]. She was brutally raped and
murdered. Her autopsy indicated that she was repeatedly hit over
the head again and again. Her body was found floating in McHugh
Creek. Her murderer is still free. Ms. Campbell stated that
Bonnie was an angel and described the activities she was involved
in before her death. She said, "In Bonnie's honor I'm asking you
to work effectively and be responsible by enacting and passing SB
4."
MS. CAMPBELL further stated that the idea of putting the office
into the Department of Public Safety is wrong. It won't work that
way. The department can't be policing itself. She suggested
putting it back in the legislative branch.
MS. CAMPBELL further explained the pain of being a victim. She
cited a story of a mother whose child had been murdered who was not
informed of the hearing because the paralegal was off that
particular day. The judge went ahead and read the verdict without
her being present. She said, "I can't describe to you the amount
of pain that would cause a mother of a murdered child. To be so
disrespectful to read a verdict and not bother ... This is in
comprehensive to me. And who can she go to? The judge should
never have read the verdict without inquiring where the mother was.
And this goes on again and again, and it's not going to be a
paralegal that can fix that situation. We need to have an attorney
that will actually be able to put some teeth into the
constitutional amendment giving victims rights." She also resents
the idea that no money should come from the general fund when so
much of it goes to protecting rights of criminals. The system
needs to start looking at the rights of victims and affording them
the same amount of rights that are afforded to criminals.
Number 2296
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed her sympathy to Ms. Campbell, and
noted that the bill seems to protect a victim after the fact when
it seems that it's important for a notice to be given in the first
place.
MS. CAMPBELL stated, right now, when something goes wrong and a
victim's rights are not afforded nothing is done. Maybe the judge
and paralegal said that they were sorry, but sorry's don't cut it.
There needs to be some kind of peace so that those types of things
don't continue.
Number 2362
CHARLOTTE PHELPS, Advocate, Victims For Justice, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She is a victim also. Her son was
murdered by a drunk driver about three years ago. She asked the
committee members to pass the bill from the committee with a
favorable vote today. She suggested moving the office back to the
jurisdiction of the legislature rather than the Department of Law
or Department of Public Safety to ensure the greatest degree of
impartiality. If it was under either one of those department, it
would create a conflict of interest for the advocate and make it
more difficult for that advocate to investigate reports of
violations. Victims For Justice also does not feel that this is a
paralegal issue as Ms. Campbell has indicated. In closing, she
stated the comment earlier made by Representative Green in regards
to hand-holding is very offense to victims. It implies that they
are children, when they are fighting very much to become survivors
and are demanding respect. They demand the same respect and
protection that the constitution gives criminals. The office of
victims' rights would ensure that respect and right.
Number 2449
MS. CAMPBELL noted that if a victim's rights have been violated any
lawyer will say, "Well, you can't sue the government for being
incompetent..."
TAPE 99-61, SIDE B
Number 0001
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault, testified in Juneau. In terms of helping victims
of domestic violence and sexual assault exercise their rights, she
noted that there is a legal advocacy project funded through the
federal violence against women Act (S.T.O.P.), which trains
designated legal advocates. She cited there are 22 legal advocates
across the state. They help victims access the civil justice
system through protective orders, custody, and divorce proceedings.
They also help victims through the criminal justice system during
a trial. There is also a funding mechanism with grants to
encourage arrests. The Department of Law receives some funding to
establish volunteer programs to assist paralegals in providing
notices to victims. That program is in its second year and the
department has received funding for the next fiscal year to try and
solidify these programs. Hopefully, they will help relieve the
pressures on the paralegals. She further mentioned that HB 67
requires the court to inquire whether or not a victim has been
notified in sexual assault cases. She also mentioned the VINE
[Victim Information and Notification Everyday] system in the
Department of Corrections, a system whereby victims can call an
automated phone line to ascertain the status of an inmate. She
further mentioned that the Alaska Court System, through S.T.O.P.
will be starting a pilot project this coming year for a person to
be onsite and available in the Anchorage court facility. She
further mentioned that the Alaska Judicial Council distributes
brochures on victims' rights in English, Spanish and other
languages supplementing the pamphlets that the Department of Law
provides.
Number 0188
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he has the utmost empathy for
somebody who is a victim of a violent crime. He asked Ms. Hugonin
what else can the state do, given there are agencies, brochures,
and groups that are available to talk to victims.
Number 0229
MS. HUGONIN replied, personally, she thinks it's important to do as
much as possible in the beginning of the process to ensure that
victims know their rights and to inform them of the availability of
assistance in exercising those rights. It's also important to
ensure that there are protocols in place both at the prosecutorial
level in the court system and advocacy groups to ensure that it
happens. There may need to be a mechanism at the end of the
process, but that should be further down the list. She noted that
SB 4 is very helpful in terms of restitution for victims, which is
necessary in some situations because, right now, there is a low
upper limit of what victims can receive.
Number 0318
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated it seems that the most important thing
for a victim is to have the proper notification, otherwise that
victim is being "damaged" again. She is, therefore, struggling
with the bill because it puts those efforts in the wrong place.
MS. HUGONIN stated the best place for a notice is in the beginning
because it's the best time to arrange for help, so that they can be
involved in every step of the process. She understands that
sometimes the hearings are postponed or accelerated in a quick
period of time and it's very difficult to reach all the necessary
parties, but HB 67 will make some allowances for that problem.
Number 0443
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated a hearing won't go forward if the
criminal has not been notified, so it seems that nothing should
happen until the victim has been notified. But this bill does not
do that. She suggested looking at extending the process in HB 67
to other victims, not just to victims of sexual assault and
domestic violence.
Number 0509
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to AS 12.61.250 and asked Mr. Huber who the
public is that the office would be submitting a report to.
MR. HUBER replied the report submitted to the public would include
the governor, attorney general, legislature, a grand jury, the
public, or any of those. He imaged that it would be published like
any other agency's report and be made available to the executive
branch, legislature, and general public.
Number 0542
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated a change was made in statute whereby the
annual reports of the various agencies and departments "shall be
made available" to the legislature. The bill says, "shall submit."
MR. HUBER replied he does not know how that interacts with the
recent change on making reports available versus providing actual
hard copies.
CHAIRMAN KOTT reiterated he is just wondering who the public is in
this case.
Number 0577
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to page 4 of the bill and asked whether a
person can be less than 21 years of age and be licensed to practice
law in the state; and, if a person is less than 21 years of age,
does that person have significant experience in criminal law? He's
not sure of the interaction between the qualifications for the
advocate.
MR. HUBER stated the criteria were based on what it would take to
be appointed to the bench. It was also built around the office
being in the legislature and similar to the Office of the
Ombudsman. He agrees that it would be hard to find a factual
circumstance where somebody meets all of the rest of the criteria
and is not 21 years of age.
Number 0641
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES confirmed as to whether a person cannot engage
in another occupation and get paid for it.
MR. HUBER replied that is correct.
Number 0653
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Huber whether the sponsor had discussed the
issue of moving the office to the Department of Public Safety prior
to the change.
MR. HUBER replied no. It came about through a committee substitute
in the Senate Finance Standing Committee. The sponsor had not seen
the committee substitute until he arrived at the committee hearing.
Number 0703
MR. HUBER stated, as closing remarks, that the concept of victims'
rights are relatively new - the constitutional amendment just
passed in 1994. Those who work in this area and those who have
been victims agree that the issues need to be flushed out and that
there needs to be an understanding of what these rights mean and
how they balance with the constitutional rights of the accused and
the rights and responsibilities of the state. It's not just a
matter of notice, according to the stories and information that the
sponsor has received. It's dealing with people who are facing a
traumatic time and who are thrust into a system where the
prosecutors seek justice for the state, and the defense attorneys
make sure that the rights of the accused are cared for at all steps
of the process. The victims feel that there is nobody representing
them. The issue of notice was only a portion of the constitutional
amendment on victims' rights. There was also the ability to confer
with the prosecution, to confer with the investigation, and to be
treated with dignity and respect. The idea of the office is to
give victims a place to go that just has their interests in mind
and is looking out for them.
MR. HUBER further stated the Department of Corrections' fiscal note
adds an administrative clerk to do the PFD ineligibility
calculation, which has been asked for and denied through the budget
process three to four years in a row. He's not sure whether that
position is specific to the changes in the bill, or more of a wish
of the department. The Violent Crimes Compensation Board's fiscal
note is a reflection of the additional increase in caps and the
ability to adjust for inflation.
MR. HUBER further stated that a lot of the bill is based on the
Office of the Ombudsman, which looks at other ways to deliver
services without additional money. Maybe those who are delivering
services need to be more aware of the issues that are important to
the public. It's the intent of the sponsor to flush those types of
things out to make the system in general more responsive to
victims.
Number 0892
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Huber what he envisions happening if
a victim is not notified.
MR. HUBER replied he envisions the victim going to the advocate and
inquiring why something happened. The advocate would then issue a
report indicating the findings of what happened. The advocate
would not be able to turn back the clock, but may be able to
provide a better mechanism to deal with similar situations in the
future. He further noted that a victim has the right to look at a
civil remediation. But the office is not set up to look at that.
Number 0994
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Huber whether the advocate would be
present in court with a victim. If she was a victim sitting in a
courtroom observing the process, it would be nice to have someone
to ask whether or not her rights are being protected. She further
stated that the $450,000 fiscal note seems like a pittance of what
it would take to really give victims the protection that they need.
MR. HUBER replied there is no guarantee that everybody would feel
- with or without this office - that their rights have been
protected to the degree that they would like them to be. The
staffing level envisioned in the current fiscal note includes the
advocate, three assistants, two paralegals, and clerical staff. An
office would be in Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks where the bulk
of the court cases are dealt with. Is that enough to do
everything? he asked. He doesn't think so, but if a level of
awareness has been increased and those participating in the system
know that somebody is watching them and that reports and
recommendations are coming forward to make the system work better,
the amount of effort by this office might diminish over time.
Number 1234
CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she is struggling with putting the office
in the Department of Public Safety in terms of that being a
conflict of interest. She doesn't necessarily want to put in the
legislature either.
Number 1256
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted, the figure of 40,000 to 50,000 contacts
per year, equates to about 200 a day. The legislature has a role
to play in this, but he doesn't want to be the one responsible for
missing one of those 200 phone calls a day. In the House version
- HB 172 - the office is in the Department of Law only because that
is where a lot of the notices are generated. The statute says,
"the attorney general shall notify" and putting it anyplace else
might bring up the question of responsibility.
Number 1369
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented she is still visualizing that there
aren't enough paralegals in the Department of Law to notify
victims, and that there ought to be a connection between them and
the advocate; however, they really do have different missions.
Number 1473
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated, for all of the reasons that the
Department of Law and Public Safety have testified about, she is
concerned about having the office in either one. She thinks that
the Department of Administration might be the best place because
the Public Defender Agency and the Office of Public Advocacy are
both there and it isn't a law enforcement agency. She thinks that
even the victims would feel better represented if it wasn't in one
of those two departments.
Number 1504
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that victims and victims' rights groups
that he has talked to indicated that they didn't want the office to
be under the Public Defender Agency or the Office of Public
Advocacy. But it might make sense to have it in the Department of
Administration working collaterally.
Number 1548
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred the bill to a subcommittee consisting of
Representatives Green, Murkowski and Kerttula. He charged the
subcommittee with addressing the following concerns:
- The issue of the placement of the office;
- The issue of the qualifications of the advocate;
- The issue of the advocate being able to counsel; and
- The issue of the report being submitted to the public.
HB 172 - OFFICE OF VICTIMS' ADVOCACY
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL
NO. 172, "An Act establishing the office of victims' advocacy in
the Department of Law; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency Rules, and Rule 501,
Alaska Rules of Evidence."
Number 1697
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated, as sponsor of the bill, he directed
the bill drafter to model HB 172 exactly after Senator Halford's
bill with the exception of putting the office back into the
executive branch and removing the permanent fund dividend
allocation. In relation to the dividend allocation, he was
concerned about other agencies, such as the Child Support
Enforcement Division [Department of Revenue], in terms of their
ability to recover fines. He referred to page 2, lines 17-18, of
the bill, and noted that AS 12.61.015 is one of the advantages of
including the office in the Department of Law. AS 12.61.015 lists
what the department has to do in regards to victims, and the bill
says that the office can do that as well, when directed. It
creates some efficiencies having the office close by. It also
coordinates well with other activities within the department.
Number 1904
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Representative Croft whether he feels
that having the office in the Department of Law or Public Safety
would influence it.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that's a legitimate concern because at
various time the office would be questioning the actions of the
Department of Public Safety, Department of Law, Department of
Corrections, and possibly the Public Defender Agency and the Office
of Public Advocacy. It seems that the function of the office is
most often performed by the Department of Law and most analogous to
it. He suggested, as another approach, putting more sideboards on
the appointment and firing of the advocate in terms of insulating
that person within the Department of Law as is done with
appointments and confirmations.
Number 2068
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated the Public Defender Agency and the
Office of Public Advocacy are not necessarily always on the same
side of an issue. Therefore, it seems that having the office
within the Department of Administration wouldn't have the same
conflict as it would have within the Department of Law.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the Department of Administration is
often a place where offices are put that need autonomy and that
don't fit anyplace else.
Number 2121
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated the bill does not list the qualifications for
the advocate.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied the list of qualifications in SB 4 is
relatively new. He's not opposed to that list other than it seems
rather long. He offered to the committee members to provide an
analysis of the differences between the two bills.
Number 2235
CHAIRMAN KOTT assigned the bill to a subcommittee consisting of
Representatives Croft, as chairman, Kerttula and Murkowski. He
charged the subcommittee with brining back the differences between
the two bills.
TAPE 99-62, SIDE A
Number 0001
HB 219 - RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL
NO. 219, "An Act relating to the rule against perpetuities,
nonvested property interests, and powers of appointment; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0079
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete
Kott, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee and
presented the following sponsor statement:
This legislation corrects a technical problem created by
the Alaska Trust Act. The Alaska Trust Act effectively
repealed the rule against perpetuities. As a practical
matter, this old common rule prevented the continuation
of trusts for longer than 90 to 110 years. The Alaska
Trust Act changed the common law rule to allow a trust to
continue in perpetuity if the income of principle of the
trust could be distributed in the discretion of the
trustee to a person who was living when the trust was
created.
The problem with the Alaska Trust Act is that it does not
allow a person to create a perpetual charitable lead
trust. A typical perpetual charitable lead would pay all
income to a charity for a term of 20 years (not to a
person who was living when the trust was created) and
then would continue in perpetuity for the benefit of the
descendants of the person creating the trust. Since the
passage of the Alaska Trust Act, many persons have
contacted trust companies and attorneys in Alaska and
have expressed a desire to create perpetual charitable
lead trusts. This new legislation would completely
repeal the rule against perpetuities and would permit the
creating of perpetual charitable lead trusts.
Number 0241
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Section 2 of the bill and noted
that it doesn't eliminate perpetuities, but that it gives a 90-year
optional savings clause.
MR. WINCHELL stated under the language in the bill a person would
not be able to create a trust so that a person's descendants would
receive money from it. However, a trust could be created as a
charitable lead so that a person's descendants could take advantage
of it.
Number 0360
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Winchell what the reason is for
the April 2, 1997 date in the bill [Section 7].
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that is the date of the Alaska Trust
Act.
Number 0400
ERIC KNEFFNER, Attorney, Faulkner Banfield P C, testified in
Juneau. The real reason for the bill is to allow charitable lead
trusts for a state to take a charitable deduction thereby "getting
money to charities that might not otherwise get there." In
contrast, a charitable remainder trust is one in which the benefits
go to human beings first and the remainder goes to charities.
Number 0483
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said in either case a trust has to satisfy the
old rule against perpetuities, or vest or terminate within 90
years.
MR. KNEFFNER said that's right. That's his understanding. The
existing rule required "life" for the first period rather than a
charity or institution.
Number 0580
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Kneffner whether there was a
point - prior to enacting the Alaska Trust Act - when the state did
not have a rule against perpetuities.
MR. KNEFFNER replied a modification was made at the same time of
the Alaska Trust Act.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said then, prior to April 2, 1997 the
state has always had a rule against perpetuities.
MR. KNEFFNER replied that's his recollection.
Number 0623
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to the language - "A nonvested
property interest is invalid unless the interest is created on or
after January 1, 1996, and before the effective date of this Act
and" [Section 2] - and asked Mr. Kneffner why there is a window.
MR. KNEFFNER replied that's when the rule against perpetuities was
modified. The period between January 1, 1996 and April [2], 1997
is the section that needs to be applied.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said: "Don't you want to change it so that
they can always be done? Why would you want it only for that
window of time?"
MR. KNEFFNER replied prior to that time the rule against
perpetuities was in effect...
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA interjected and said: "Right. During this
time only the other Act is in effect and then there's some interim
Act in effect and then the final Act comes into effect."
MR. KNEFFNER said what is being done with the bill would be in
effect since April [2], 1997. It can't go back beyond January [1],
1996 because that's when the rule was modified the first time
around.
Number 0718
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Kneffner what the modification
was in 1996.
MR. KNEFFNER replied, according to his recollection, it was
modified to vest or terminate in 90 years.
Number 0771
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Kneffner why the bill is being
limited to before the effective date of the Act in Sections 2, 4
and 5; they create a window. She is concerned about creating a
window upon which it drops out again.
MR. KNEFFNER replied that's not the intention. The sections talk
about three different kinds of powers or trusts, which is why the
language has to be repeated for each section. He further noted
that after the date of the Act the common law is superseded.
Therefore, in going forward it is not needed anymore.
Number 0914
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he thinks there was a pure rule
against perpetuities until January 1, 1996 and then there were
modifications made to the Alaska Trust Act - the 90 years. The
statute refers to SLA 1994, which went into effect on January 1,
1996.
Number 0990
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said, given this particular topic, she is
concerned about inadvertently dropping the whole thing, especially
since Section 6 talks about the extent provided under AS 34.27.050
- 34.27.090.
MR. KNEFFNER noted that Section 6 is key because it supersedes the
rule of the common law. The other four sections deal with the
interim period. After that interim period, it is completely
repealed, which is why there are Sections 3, 4 and 5 - to deal with
the period from January 1, 1996 to April 2, 1997.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted the language appears to be circular.
Number 1067
DICK THWAITES testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
explained that the pure version of the Act was amended in 1994 to
provide clarification in limiting the rule against perpetuities to
90 years. When the Alaska Trust Act was adopted in 1997, the
concept of charitable lead trusts were overwhelming; therefore,
they were left out. The bill attempts to bring forward that period
because there are charitable lead trusts that have been created in
other jurisdictions that have mobility language: language that
allows them to be transferred to one of the Alaska trust
institutions, if they can get around the rule of a 1996 effective
date of the state's 90-year rule against perpetuities.
Number 1213
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Thwaites to explain - in real
terms - what the adoption of HB 219 would mean for the state. In
other words, would it increase business for the state?
MR. THWAITES replied he believes that it would bring increased
business to the state. A charitable lead trust is a device used in
the estate planning world that allows for someone with a fair
amount of wealth to give money to a charity, to receive an income
tax deduction (the difference in value between what goes to charity
and what goes to the rest of the family), and to set up a perpetual
benefit to the family and successive generations - the intent of
the Alaska Trust Act. He further noted that many of the
practitioners around the country have indicated that the Alaska
Trust Act is flawed in that regard. He reiterated the intent of
the bill is to bring charitable lead trusts into Alaska in order to
be administered by one of the Alaska trust institutions.
Number 1310
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Thwaites what the flaw was. The
biggest change in the bill is to AS 34.27.050, which is only the
deletion of an "or" provision.
MR. THWAITES deferred the question to the bill drafter [Terry
Bannister, Legislative Affairs Agency].
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Bannister to explain the effective
dates - January 1, 1996 and April 2, 1997.
Number 1354
TERRY BANNISTER, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, replied
January 1, 1996 is the date that the current modification of the
rule against perpetuities went into effect - the 90 years.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Bannister why there needs to be a
window for that modification.
MS. BANNISTER replied the abolition in the bill starts
prospectively, except for a few things in AS 34.27.042. The other
property interests that have been created before the effective date
are to be covered as they are currently being covered.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Bannister what happens after the
effective date of the Act.
MS. BANNISTER replied the bill creates a window for both interests.
She doesn't know the reason for it, however.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that Section 2 would invalidate the
interest created by the window. He asked Ms. Bannister what would
be the state of the law after the effective date of the Act in
regards to Section 2.
MS. BANNISTER replied the property interests created and subjected
to the current statute would still be covered under AS 34.27 -
Sections 2-6 in the bill. The property interests created
afterwards in AS 34.27.042 would be handled by the new prospective
law.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Bannister where the new prospective
law is referred to in the bill.
MS. BANNISTER replied in Section 1. There are two sections within
Section 1 - AS 34.27.040 and 34.27.042. The limited coverage of
current interests are covered in 34.27.042.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said: "So, there's no 90-day [year] limit
either. I mean, we've gotten rid of the 90-day [year]. So,
getting through all that Mr. Chairman, why is it a good idea to get
through the 90-day [year] and just abolish ... We've in effect
created a complicated rule or 90-day [year] and then we're just
saying forget the whole thing and just do what you want. Why
wouldn't it be appropriate to keep some sort of outer clear limit
like the 90-day [year] we have?"
MR. KNEFFNER replied that's a policy question for the legislature
to decide. The reason for the bill is to create a fair amount of
flexibility for charitable lead trusts. The existence of the
Alaska Trust Act contemplates perpetual trusts; and, under that
scheme, it's already assumed that the legislature has decided - in
some circumstances - that perpetual trusts are a good idea.
Number 1585
MS. BANNISTER said that the application-back erases contract
impairment issues. However, it's not a great idea to change
contracts that have already been entered into before putting in a
new bill.
Number 1629
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, as he recalls, the rule against
perpetuities was put on because there were tax consequences to
vesting back in the time of Henry VIII. He asked Mr. Thwaites how
true is that now; have the tax consequences changed so that's not
as significant?
MR. THWAITES replied yes there is the generation skipping transfer
tax now. The purpose of the rule then was because of an
inexhaustible supply of land, and the idea of commerce was to keep
the land revolving in "the commerce." Now, with conservation
easements, for example, land is perpetually protected from
development. It's a change of policy from the 1600s to now. He
further noted that the actual provision, under the rule against
perpetuities, is found in AS 34.27.050 (3), which states that the
interest is in a trust and all or part of the income or principle
of the trust may be distributed, at the discretion of the trustee,
to a person who is living when the trust is created. He noted, of
course, a charity is not a person; therefore, repealing the Act in
this sense would allow Alaska to have perpetual trusts for
charitable lead trusts.
Number 1764
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said: "Why would you want to get rid of
subsection (3) then? Do we get ourselves in any bind by--I mean
why wouldn't you want to just say what we say in Sections 1 and 2.
Create this window for the current law and then know that you could
write these--these ones that start with the designation of a
charity only after the effective date."
MR. THWAITES said the discussion following the passage of the
Alaska Trust Act was to create a more aggressive environment in the
estate planning area, which is what the bill does. He noted that
the state of Delaware, within 16 weeks after the Alaska Trust Act
was effectuated, included the language - "this is an act to keep
Delaware the preeminent trust jurisdiction like the Alaska
statute." The state of Delaware also repealed the rule against
perpetuities entirely because there doesn't seem to be a lot of
reason for continuing exceptions because of the way society has
developed.
Number 1853
RICH HOMPESCH testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. Section
1 - AS 34.27.040 - abolishes the rule as to nonvested property
interest, a general power of appointment not presently exercisable.
He noted, because the existing law took effect January 1, 1996,
Sections 2, 3 and 5 have to be carried in the bill. But from then
on, the rule against perpetuities would be abolished.
Number 1899
MR. KNEFFNER stated, at the time the rule against perpetuities was
created, there weren't things like charitable trusts or
foundations. Those kinds of charitable enterprises are already
allowed to be perpetual under Alaska law. He said, "If your
looking for a reason to evolve into allowing to have perpetual
trusts, that's perhaps one reason. I'm not saying that's the
defining one, but it's certainly something to consider."
Number 1941
SHARALYN SUE WRIGHT testified in Juneau as the beneficiary of a
trust. She is concerned that the bill would benefit a few
attorneys, when it isn't necessarily true that the money would stay
in the state. She mentioned that the committee hasn't heard from
any bankers yet that would benefit from this. Furthermore, if this
bill perpetuates trusts, it would also perpetuate trust violations
and the bad things that go on with trustees. However, she is
mostly concerned that the bill is being rushed, given its magnitude
and given that very educated and concerned people don't fully
understand it.
Number 2031
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that the bill would be held over for
further consideration; there wasn't a quorum to conduct business.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2040
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:48 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|