Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/28/2001 04:50 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 28, 2001
4:50 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 178
"An Act relating to the detention of delinquent minors and to
temporary detention hearings; amending Rule 12, Alaska
Delinquency Rules; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 178 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 166
"An Act relating to the time of filling by appointment a vacancy
in the office of United States senator."
- MOVED SB 166 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 184
"An Act relating to the business of insurance, including changes
to the insurance code to implement federal financial services
reforms for the business of insurance and to authorize the
director of insurance to review criminal backgrounds for
individuals applying to engage in the business of insurance;
amending Rule 402, Alaska Rules of Evidence; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 184(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 178
SHORT TITLE:DETENTION OF DELINQUENT MINORS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) THERRIAULT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/06/01 0978 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/06/01 0978 (S) HES, JUD
04/20/01 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/20/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(HES)
04/23/01 1213 (S) HES RPT 4DP
04/23/01 1213 (S) DP: LEMAN, WILKEN, WARD,
DAVIS
04/23/01 1213 (S) FN1: ZERO(HSS)
04/23/01 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/23/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
04/23/01 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/24/01 1236 (S) JUD RPT 3DP 1NR
04/24/01 1236 (S) DP: TAYLOR, ELLIS,
THERRIAULT;
04/24/01 1236 (S) NR: COWDERY
04/24/01 1237 (S) FN1: ZERO(HSS)
04/24/01 1236 (S) FN2: ZERO(CRT)
04/25/01 1260 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/25/01
04/25/01 1262 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/25/01 1262 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/25/01 1262 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 178
04/25/01 1263 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
04/25/01 1263 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/25/01 1263 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/25/01 1266 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/25/01 1266 (S) VERSION: SB 178
04/25/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
04/25/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/26/01 1225 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/26/01 1225 (H) JUD
04/28/01 (H) JUD AT 12:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 166
SHORT TITLE:APPOINTMENT OF US SENATORS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/28/01 0839 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/28/01 0839 (S) JUD
04/04/01 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/04/01 (S) -- Meeting Postponed to
4/5/01--
04/05/01 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/05/01 (S) <Bill Held Over to 4/6/01> --
Meeting Canceled --
04/06/01 (S) JUD AT 3:00 PM BELTZ 211
04/06/01 (S) <Bill Held Over to 4/9/01> --
Meeting Canceled --
04/09/01 (S) JUD AT 4:35 PM BELTZ 211
04/09/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee -
MINUTE(JUD)
04/10/01 1045 (S) JUD RPT 3DP
04/10/01 1045 (S) DP: TAYLOR, DONLEY,
THERRIAULT
04/10/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/10/01 (S) <Pending Referral> -- Meeting
Canceled --
04/17/01 1114 (S) FN1: ZERO(GOV)
04/17/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
04/18/01 1162 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1OR 4/18/01
04/18/01 1164 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/18/01 1164 (S) ADVANCED TO 3RD FAILED Y13 N6
E1
04/18/01 1165 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
4/19 CALENDAR
04/18/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
04/18/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/19/01 1179 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 166
04/19/01 1179 (S) PASSED Y14 N5 E1
04/19/01 1179 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
04/20/01 1197 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/20/01 1198 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/20/01 1198 (S) VERSION: SB 166
04/23/01 1131 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/23/01 1131 (H) JUD
04/25/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/25/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/28/01 (H) JUD AT 12:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 184
SHORT TITLE:INSURANCE CODE AMENDMENTS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/14/01 0588 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/14/01 0588 (H) L&C, JUD
03/14/01 0589 (H) FN1: ZERO(CED)
03/14/01 0589 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/04/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/04/01 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/01 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/20/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/20/01 (H) Heard & Held
04/20/01 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/25/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/25/01 (H) Moved CSHB 184(L&C) Out of
Committee
04/25/01 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/25/01 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/26/01 1232 (H) L&C RPT FORTHCOMING CS(L&C)
2DP 4NR 1AM
04/26/01 1233 (H) DP: HAYES, MURKOWSKI; NR:
HALCRO,
04/26/01 1233 (H) KOTT, MEYER, ROKEBERG; AM:
CRAWFORD
04/26/01 1233 (H) FN1: ZERO(CED)
04/27/01 1286 (H) RECEIVED CS(L&C) NT
04/27/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/27/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(JUD)
04/28/01 (H) JUD AT 12:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
HOLLY MORRIS, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 121
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 178 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Therriault.
DEBORAH DAVIDSON, Staff
to Senator Dave Donley
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 506
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 166 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Donley.
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
House Judiciary Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 184, provided
information regarding proposed Conceptual Amendment 4.
BOB LOHR, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED)
3601 C Street, Suite 1324
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5948
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 184 and proposed
amendments, answered questions on behalf of the administration.
KATIE CAMPBELL, Life and Health Actuary
Division of Insurance
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED)
PO Box 110805
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 184 and proposed
amendments, answered questions on behalf of the administration.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 184 and proposed
amendments, responded to a question.
JOHN L. GEORGE, Lobbyist
for American Council of Life Insurance (ACLI),
National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII), and
American Family Life Assurance Company (AFLAC)
3328 Fritz Cove Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 184 and proposed
amendments, responded to questions.
SHELDON E. WINTERS, Attorney at Law
Lessmeier & Winters
Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company
431 North Franklin Street, Suite 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 184 and proposed
amendments, responded to questions.
CHARLIE MILLER, Lobbyist
for Alaska National Insurance Company (ANIC)
PO Box 102286
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 184 and proposed
amendments, responded to questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-78, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 4:50 p.m. Representatives
Rokeberg, James, Coghill, Meyer, and Berkowitz were present at
the call to order. Representative Ogan arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
SB 178 - DETENTION OF DELINQUENT MINORS
Number 0080
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 178, "An Act relating to the detention of
delinquent minors and to temporary detention hearings; amending
Rule 12, Alaska Delinquency Rules; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0094
HOLLY MORRIS, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, explained on behalf of Senator Therriault
that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974
provided federal formula grant funding to implement four
mandates that were established in that Act. Those mandates
included deinstitutionalization of status offenders; addressing
disproportionate minority confinement; sight and sound
separation of juveniles from adult offenders; and removing
juveniles from adult jail and lockup facilities. To meet these
mandates, a variety of community-based delinquency response
services have been established with federal grant funding,
including electronic monitoring (EM) programs, youth courts, and
mentoring and community accountability courts. Senate Bill 178
brings Alaska statute into compliance with federal regulation by
requiring an arraignment within 24 hours if a juvenile cannot be
safely transported to a youth facility. This federal regulation
also allows the state to extend those time limits due of adverse
weather, limited transportation options, and other conditions
without being out of compliance with the federal mandate.
MS. MORRIS said current Alaska statute allows a juvenile to be
held in an adult lockup facility for a maximum of 24 hours while
awaiting transport to one of the six regional youth facilities.
Senate Bill 178 does not extend the time limit that a juvenile
may be held in an adult lockup facility, nor does it change the
48-hour arraignment rule for juveniles that are already in a
youth facility. Basically, she said, SB 178 will apply to the
regions of the state that don't have a juvenile facility nearby,
and in which the juvenile is taken to an adult lockup facility
until he/she can safely be transported to a juvenile facility.
This legislation gives Alaska the ability to claim certain
exemptions to the federal mandates, and preserves the state's
eligibility for 100 percent of the federal formula grant
allocation, but it would not allow juveniles to be held in adult
facilities any longer than is absolutely necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said that SB 178 is a good bill, and noted
that without it, Alaska will lose federal funds.
Number 0363
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report SB 178 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
notes. There being no objection, SB 178 was reported out of the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
SB 166 - APPOINTMENT OF US SENATORS
Number 0430
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 166, "An Act relating to the time of filling
by appointment a vacancy in the office of United States
senator."
Number 0442
DEBORAH DAVIDSON, Staff to Senator Dave Donley, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, explained on behalf of Senator Donley that
SB 166 amends current law to provide a five-day waiting period
before the governor "names an appointment" in the event a
vacancy occurs in one of Alaska's U.S. Senate seats. The
governor must wait at least five days after the date of the
vacancy but must still - per current statute - make the
appointment within 30 days of the date of the vacancy.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether there is something
inadequate with the current method.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that she would not term the current system
inadequate, rather that SB 166 simply gives residents of Alaska
a longer opportunity to voice their opinion to the governor
regarding who should be appointed.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether the sponsor's objective
is to encourage public participation in the [political] process.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether under current statute the appointee
has to be of the same political party as the person vacating the
seat.
MS. DAVIDSON said that the nominee must be a member of the same
political party that the predecessor to the office was, at the
time [he/she] took office.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that this current requirement is a
result of an amendment made in [1968] - "the 'dead Ted'
amendment." At the time, Senator Stevens - a republican - was
appointed to "fill the shoes of a democrat," and people did not
want that to occur again, he added.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that for a vacancy occurring in the Alaska
State Legislature, the party nominates three candidates and the
governor selects one of them.
MS. DAVIDSON added that at the congressional level, no
nomination by the political party occurs; the statute simply
says that the person must be a member of the same political
party. In response to Representative Berkowitz's question
regarding the sponsor's intent, said that it was just to give
the public more time for input.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether the sponsor is "on record
as saying that the more the public weighs in, the better."
MS. DAVIDSON said yes.
Number 0778
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 4
[taken up first], which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 1, following "filling":
Delete "by appointment"
Page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 3:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. AS 15.40.010 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.40.010. Condition [CONDITIONS] and time of
calling special election [FILLING VACANCY BY
APPOINTMENT]. When a vacancy occurs in the office of
United States senator, the governor [, WITHIN 30 DAYS,
shall, by proclamation and subject to AS 15.40.050,
call a special election to be held on a date not less
than 60 nor more than 90 days after the date the
vacancy occurs [APPOINT A QUALIFIED PERSON TO FILL THE
VACANCY]. However, if the [REMAINDER OF THE TERM OF
THE PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE WILL EXPIRE OR IF THE]
vacancy occurs on a date that is less than 180 but
more than 60 days before the date of the primary
election for the office [WILL BE FILLED BY A SPECIAL
ELECTION BEFORE THE SENATE WILL NEXT MEET, CONVENE, OR
RECONVENE], the governor may not call a special
election [FILL THE VACANCY].
* Sec. 2. AS 15.40.050 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.40.050. Date of special election. The special
election to fill the vacancy shall be held on the date
of the first [GENERAL] election, whether primary or
general, [WHICH IS HELD MORE THAN THREE FULL CALENDAR
MONTHS] after the vacancy occurs if the vacancy occurs
on a date that is less than 180 but more than 60 days
before
(1) a primary election, other than the primary
election for the office; or
(2) a genera1 election.
* Sec. 3. AS 15.40.060 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.40.060. Proclamation of special election. The
governor shall issue the proclamation calling the
special election at least 50 [80] days before the
election.
* Sec. 4. AS 15.40 is amended by adding a new section
to read:
Sec. 15.40.075. Date of nominations. Candidates for
the special election shall be nominated by petition
transmitted to the director before the 21st day after
the vacancy occurs by
(1) the actual physical delivery of the petition in
person;
(2) mail postmarked not later than midnight of that
date; or
(3) telegram of a copy in substance of the statements
made in the petition.
* Sec. 5. AS 15.40.030, 15.40.040, 15.40.080, and
15.40.090 are repealed.
* Sec. 6. This Act takes effect immediately under AS
01.10.070(c)."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that Amendment 4 basically
provides that:
If we're believing in public participation, then we
should allow the people to vote to fill the spot.
Now, that's not such a radical concept because that's
what we do if [a seat in] the [U.S.] House of
Representatives falls open. So I think that what's
good for the [U.S.] House of Representatives ought to
be good for the [U.S.] Senate. We should have a
special election because if we believe the public has
the right to weigh in - rather than [having] a
governor make an appointment - then let the people
vote.
Number 0842
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether Amendment 4 would result in a
vacancy for a particular period of time.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said yes; it would be same as if there
were a vacancy in the [U.S. House of Representatives] - no
vacancy would be more than 90 days. With regards to SB 166,
Representative Berkowitz posited that the whole point of SB 166
is to prevent Governor Knowles from appointing Senator Frank
Murkowski's successor. He said that if the legislature has an
opportunity to do something that's based on good public policy
rather than expedient politics, then the legislature should
pursue good public policy; he added that Amendment 4 is
preferable public policy - just let the people vote.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that if Representative Berkowitz
"was on the other side of this issue, he would be doing the same
thing."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "That's not true." And when
asked how someone would know that it wasn't true, he responded
by saying, "Essentially what I'm doing is ... trading the right
of a democratic governor to make an appointment [in favor of
throwing] the whole thing open to a public vote. I'm conceding
some form of partisan power. So that's how you know."
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that having a vacancy in the [U.S. Senate]
for up to 90 days is not advisable, adding that he is
considering changing the process for any vacancies which may
occur in the [U.S. House of Representatives] as well.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked why Amendment 4 is being offered.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "Because I think that when we
have a vacancy we should have a special election; that's what we
do for [the U.S. House of Representatives], we should do it for
Senate."
Number 1044
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz voted for
Amendment 4. Representatives Coghill, Meyer, James, and
Rokeberg voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a
vote of 1-4.
Number 1076
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 3
[taken up second], which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, lines 9-13,
Delete all materials
He explained that, "Amendment 3 says, 'If your going to have
this waiting period, then we should go back to the way it was
before we had the "dead Ted bill,"' which is [to] allow the
sitting governor to appoint ... a person based on their
qualifications rather than on their party affiliation."
Number 1095
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that Amendment 3 is not in the "public
interest," and is unfair to the incumbent.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised then that partisanship would
be the defining trait for an appointee.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked, "They're only filling a vacancy."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that a vacancy could last
two years, which is "as long as we sit in un-vacant seats."
Number 1150
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz voted for
Amendment 3. Representatives Coghill, Meyer, James, and
Rokeberg voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a
vote of 1-4.
Number 1170
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, after noting that he would not be
offering Amendment 2, made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [taken
up last], which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, preceding line 4, insert:
"* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
FINDINGS AND INTENT: The legislature finds that, in
order to ensure the people of Alaska receive the best
possible representation in the United States Congress
and Alaska's executive branch:
(a) Members of Congress and elected executives should
seek election to other offices after completing their
current terms.
(b) In the event that Members of Congress and elected
executives choose to pursue other offices during their
term in office, they should resign their current post
to allow a successor to vigorously pursue Alaska's
interests."
Renumber following sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said Amendment 1 is a statement of
intent:
Because I know, Mr. Chair, that you just said how
important it was to make sure that people are paying
full attention to their duties when they're either in
Congress or filling statewide office in the state, and
I think it should be clearly expressed that they
oughtn't run for other offices at the same time
because it would distract them from their ability to
do their duty. We couldn't have a major issue in
Congress if, for example, a U.S. Senator were running
for governor and distracted by that campaign.
Number 1194
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected. She noted that when a
congressional issue it serious, members of Congress are focused
on that issue and not on their campaigns.
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that, "It's part of our American political
tradition to be able to have what's called the 'free pass' for
people to move up in office throughout our systems."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned that Amendment 1 might cure
any problems that the governor has with SB 166.
Number 1278
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz voted for
Amendment 1. Representatives Meyer, James, Coghill, and
Rokeberg voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by
vote of 1-4.
Number 1310
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report SB 166 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
Number 1314
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He said:
When we tailor a law in order to suit an individual
circumstance, we're doing the public process a
disservice. And that's what's happening here. We can
pretend that there's efforts to notify the public, but
that not really what's going on; what's going on is
the expectation that Frank Murkowski will run for
governor, win the governorship, and then have the
ability to appoint his own successor. ... I don't
think we ought to change the rules just so that can
happen. I think it looks like we're creating special
legislation in order to benefit one person and one
party. ... That doesn't withstand the test of time
and it doesn't do us credit. And if I'm wrong,
someone look me in eye and tell me that this is not
done for that purpose.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said, "You may be right, I don't know."
Number 1392
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives James, Coghill,
Meyer, and Rokeberg voted to report SB 166 from committee.
Representatives Berkowitz voted against it. Therefore, SB 166
was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a
vote of 4-1.
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 5:14 p.m. to 5:18 p.m.
HB 184 - INSURANCE CODE AMENDMENTS
Number 1431
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the last order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 184, "An Act relating to the business of
insurance, including changes to the insurance code to implement
federal financial services reforms for the business of insurance
and to authorize the director of insurance to review criminal
backgrounds for individuals applying to engage in the business
of insurance; amending Rule 402, Alaska Rules of Evidence; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 184(L&C), as amended on 4/27/01.]
Number 1442
CHAIR ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
*Sec. _. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
CERTIFICATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATIONS.
The lieutenant governor shall certify to the revisor
of statutes the effective date of the regulations
initially adopted by the Director of the Division of
Insurance under AS 21.21.420, to implement the
provisions of sections _, _, and _ regarding
investments by insurers.
*Sec. _. Sections _, _, and _ take effect 30
days after the revisor of statutes receives notice
from the lieutenant governor under sec. _ of this Act.
Number 1450
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg,
House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that when Amendment 2 was adopted [on 4/27/01],
several statutes were repealed since they were going to be
replaced by regulations. Conceptual Amendment 4 simply ensures
that those statutes remain in effect until the regulations are
in place.
Number 1483
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether there were any objections to
Conceptual Amendment 4. There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 4 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL spoke next on Amendment 5, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 43, line 15, after "personal information."
Insert: "(a)"
Page 43, line __, after "March 2, 2001"
Delete: "."
Insert: ";"
Page 43, line __
Insert:
(b) unless required by federal or state law or federal
regulation, disclosure of a person's personal
financial or personal health information under (a) of
this section must be authorized in writing by the
individual whose personal information is sought to be
disclosed;
(c) the person receiving disclosed information agrees
in writing not to disclose or use the information
other than to carry out the purposes for which the
person disclosed the information.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that Amendment 1 - adopted on
4/27/01 - requires that regulations be created that are no less
restrictive than the National Conference of Insurance
Legislators (NCOIL) Financial Information Privacy Protection
Model Act. He said that after reading what this Act entailed,
he is not very comfortable with it. He said he would like the
committee to either rescind the motion to adopt Amendment 1 or
consider adopting Amendment 5 because he wants to ensure that
any of the customer's information that is shared and sold
between businesses is protected. Although he wants to see
businesses flourish, he added, he does not want it to be at the
expense of the customer's privacy. He said he has concerns that
when companies send out information telling customers that they
can "opt out" of sharing information at any time, it will be
written in such fine print that customers won't really
understand what is going on. He opined that "the floor is too
low" in the NCOIL model Act, it allows the industry to share a
lot of information, and he has concerns that sensitive
information will be traded around inappropriately between
companies.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said he and other members of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee share the concern that information
might be inappropriately disclosed. He remarked, however, that
the NCOIL model is "opt in" with regard to health information.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "They are an 'opt out' provision,
Mr. Chairman."
Number 1687
BOB LOHR, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Community & Economic Development (DCED), testified via
teleconference and clarified that the NCOIL model, as well as
the NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners) model
both use "opt in" for health information. He added that
Amendment 1 stipulates that in promulgating regulations, the
Division of Insurance can go no lower than an "opt in" standard
for health information and if it wanted to, the division could
go higher than that standard with regard to protecting the
privacy of health information.
Number 1857
KATIE CAMPBELL, Life and Health Actuary, Division of Insurance,
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED), added
that Chapter 5 of the NCOIL model pertains to health
information, and that the General Rule reads: "A licensee shall
obtain an authorization to disclose, prior to making such
disclosure, any personally identifiable health information if
the purpose of the disclosure is for the marketing of services
or goods for personal, family, or household purposes." This is
the "opt in" language for health information, she said. She
explained, however, that the NCOIL model has an "opt out"
standard for financial information, which, according to her
understanding, is fairly consistent with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act (GLBA), and which is what national banks and other financial
institutions are subject to.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he still struggles with the concept
of an "opt out" standard for financial information. He said he
considers it to be a significantly lower standard [of privacy]
because he has to specifically tell the company that it may not
share his financial information.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that before GLBA "there [were] no
requirements one way or the other." With enactment of the
federal GLBA, the "opt out" provisions start taking effect
federally. He said that the question before them now is how
Alaska will handle its domestic banks and insurers.
We have to be very careful what we do here; it not
only affects our nine domestic insurers that are
domiciled in Alaska, it affects all the insurance
companies, nationally, that do business in this state.
We have to be careful ... that we don't create special
barriers by adopting some unusual regulation and/or
statute that hinders the flow of business and
commerce.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that Alaska is a relatively compact
society and information sharing is a sensitive issue. He added
that he is not too sure that the GLBA standard is the one he
supports. He said that according to his understanding, "we have
an 'opt in' provision in most places."
MR. LOHR clarified that currently there is no standard
protecting personal insurance information. He added that he
believes that the banking industry does have an "opt in"
standard.
CHAIR ROKEBERG countered that an "opt in" standard for the
banking industry may be part of corporate policy but it is not
in statute.
Number 2053
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, pointed out that according to the Division of
Insurance, banks and financial institutions have had an "opt in"
standard for 30 years.
MR. LOHR, in response to questions, explained that based on HB
184 and the amendments adopted to date, the division would be
permitted to promulgate regulations using the NCOIL model or
even the NAIC model (which is less restrictive with regard to
privacy) as a standard. Whatever the starting point turns out
to be, and conceivably it could be based on both models, he
noted, they both have a similar approach towards financial
information, which is to allow "opt out." If there is no
legislation this year, then the federal regulations adopted
under GLBA will kick in and they will use an "opt out" standard
for financial information. He explained that "opt in," which
will apply to health information, means that without the
customer signing and sending something in that says information
may be shared, it won't be; "opt out," which will apply to
financial information, means that without the customer signing
and sending something in that says information can not be
shared, it may be. He noted, however, that even if someone
decides to "opt out" of having his/her financial information
shared, it could still be shared with affiliates.
MR. LOHR also explained that whether the standard becomes "opt
out" or "opt in," will depend on public testimony received
during the public hearing process for the regulations. He added
that months and months of public hearings and written comment
[periods] have helped develop the regulations for the national
models. He opined that the public hearing process is necessary
in order to make a good decision regarding the regulation
standards.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if his personal information could
be sold on the market if he does not "opt out."
CHAIR ROKEBERG said it could, but added that he would be given
the choice.
MS. CAMPBELL noted that there are extensive notice requirements:
You're given a notice of what kind of information they
collect, and how they would handle it, and who they
would disclose it to. And you're given that at the
time that you initially ... purchase a product; ...
then you're given annual notices, so that if you don't
read your initial notice, you'll get another one that
says, "Look, this is what we have," and there will be
a reply form that you can send back [to] say, "I don't
want my information shared."
MR. LOHR pointed out that "the regulations will establish
standards for the size of the type and the readability; we're
not going to have this fine print where you can't read it."
Number 2220
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether there were any provision
is either HB 184 or the GLBA that would prohibit the sale of
information, or exchange of information for any kind of
remuneration.
MR. LOHR said he does not believe that there is any outright
prohibition of such in the GLBA.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether such a prohibition would
pose an undue hardship on the industry.
MR. LOHR said that it could.
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that there is usually a mandate that a
choice be given to the customer. Thus a person could "opt out"
of having his/her name sold to a mailing list.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said:
Show me that there is a business need to exchange
information in order to carry on with that business.
It would seem that any use of the information beyond
that business need is violative of an individual's
privacy. ... But if you prohibited the sale of that
information, you would in essence, through the market
place, protect privacy.
CHAIR ROKEBERG countered that it would also have a deleterious
effect on commerce because the sharing of certain marketing
information between companies is typical. "This is where you
get into the issue of balancing ... privacy rights with commerce
rights," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that in essence, as an individual
who has released proprietary information to a business, he could
argue that that business has stolen that information and sold it
to another business and thus profited on information he gave in
confidence.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that is correct. He opined that that is why
GLBA was enacted - to address some of these issues.
Number 2329
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he would concede that the exchange
of information pursuant to legitimate business is valid, but if
[the exchange of information] generates an extra source of
income for the business, "if they're selling my information to
make a buck," that seems to be an improper use of the
information.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that even the "opt in" standard of the GBLA
allows businesses to share information with affiliates.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked for an explanation of exactly
what kind of information they were discussing, and what the
transactional life of that information is such as where is it
assembled, where does it go, what happens to it, and what is the
value of it.
Number 2421
JOHN L. GEORGE, Lobbyist for American Council of Life Insurance
(ACLI), National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII), and
American Family Life Assurance Company (AFLAC), said:
When you borrow money from a bank, they ask you a lot
of financial questions; they want to make sure that
you have a job, ... that you've been employed so long,
that you have money in the bank, and [other questions
regarding] all your assets. That's serious financial
information. But ... when you applied for your
automobile insurance, they didn't ask you if you had a
bank account; ... they may know if you have a car and
a house because they'd like to tie those together and
give you a discount. So that's the kind of financial
information an insurance company has. Now, a life
insurance company or a health insurance company --.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ interjected and asked, "How do they get
it?"
MR. GEORGE responded:
On the application, primarily. ... Now, they may
accumulate some other data - say your claims history
or something like that - [and] they will probably, if
you're buying a homeowner's policy, know how much your
house is worth and maybe how much your personal
property is worth, so that is financial information.
But they define financial information [as almost]
everything that isn't health information. So your
name, address, phone number, ... how many cars you
have --.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL interjected and asked whether that
included a social security number.
MR. GEORGE responded:
Good question. I don't know that they ask that on the
application for auto insurance, they may well for life
insurance to be sure they identify who that person is.
I can't answer that. I know that that's a touchy
subject ....
TAPE 01-78, SIDE B
Number 2475
MR. GEORGE surmised that people who buy Money magazine probably
have investments and are better off than people who don't buy
Money magazine; therefore, he asked, should Money magazine be
restricted from selling its mailing list. "No," he answered and
noted that such a company can target a market; "chances are they
aren't targeting a market of people [who] aren't going to be
interested in a product." The closer information can be
tailored to the market that might be interested in a particular
product, the lower the marketing costs are. He opined that
fewer mail-outs would be received if a person only got mail-outs
from companies that have products that he/she is interested in;
thus having targeted markets might be advantageous to both the
consumer and the company.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said: "So, I've signed up for
automobile insurance, and Money magazine comes by to my
insurance company and says, 'Can I buy your customer list?' Is
that how it works?"
MR. GEORGE said:
Well, I suppose. I don't think that's the primary
reason that [an] insurance company wants to be able to
share this information; I think it'd be more likely to
want to share it with an affiliate company where a
group has a life insurance company and a property
casualty insurance company, or where they may have an
affiliation with ... another financial service.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "So I buy car insurance and they
give it to their life insurance company, who then solicits me."
MR. GEORGE said:
They might, or if you go to apply for life insurance
and you say, "I have auto insurance," [the company
responds:] "Oh, you get a discount and we already
have your name, address, phone number ... so you don't
have to fill out the expensive questionnaire, you have
to do the simple questionnaire." I think ... that we
really don't know all the things that are potentially
uses for this, and you think about [how] in the last
ten years we've been able to come up with direct
deposit. Could your insurance company directly
deposit your check into the bank for you? Yeah, they
can. Could you pay your insurance with a MasterCard
by calling them on the phone? Yes, you can. Could
you pay your insurance premium directly out of your
checking account without actually writing a check?
Yes. These are things that have developed; they
haven't been here all that long, but the financial
services industry is working real hard to make things
simple, get business, and it makes our lives simpler.
And some of that requires an exchange of information.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that Money magazine doesn't
require a person to fill out confidential information in order
to subscribe to its publication.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is looking for a barrier to
sensitive financial information. "I want to know where ... you
stop? Where is that line [when] you as an industry are going to
say, 'we're not going to sell that information'? Or do you in
fact make it available now for sale?"
MR. GEORGE said he could not answer that question directly; "I
am not an insurance company and I would be guessing rather than
giving you factual information if I answered it."
Number 2312
SHELDON E. WINTERS, Attorney at Law, Lessmeier & Winters,
Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company ("State Farm"),
explained that State Farm does not sell any customer lists or
any information, nor do they share any information outside of
the State Farm companies. But, he added, State Farm wants to be
able to do what Representative Berkowitz intimated, which is, if
someone fills out an automobile insurance application and there
is certain information on that application, they want to share
that with the life insurance company and say, "This person may
be someone [who] may be interested in some life insurance, or
maybe we can give them a discount." He noted that with the
integration of insurance companies and banking, it may be that
some information on a life insurance application can be used
with "State Farm Bank," and they can say, "You might be
interested in an annuity."
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that sharing such information among
affiliates is typical. He posited that the question then
becomes whether to expand that option.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned that whenever she has the
opportunity to choose, she chooses not to let her information be
[sold or shared].
MR. GEORGE pointed out that the sunset clause will ensure that
the legislature revisits this issue in a couple of years to see
how the regulations are working. And at that point (or sooner),
if things aren't working out, possible changes can be discussed.
He opined that there are advantages to "doing it as the rest of
the nation is doing it; let it work out and see if people are
offended, and if they are, fix it."
CHAIR ROKEBERG said his concern is that if they don't pass
legislation this session, there won't be "opt in" for health
information on July 1, 2001. He noted that although he is not
in favor of giving regulatory authority to bureaucrats,
something has to be done in order to allow their constituents
some choices.
Number 2123
MR. GEORGE said that because the federal government would like
to regulate insurance, the GLBA requirements could be considered
a test in order to see whether individual states can regulate
insurance in a uniform manner.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said his concern is that the industry
will get "an easy ride" regarding the disclosure of information
when the burden is really going to fall on the individual
consumer to "opt out."
CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that he has just received a
questionnaire from American Express, which he noted is very
clear about "opt in/opt out." He asked whether State Farm has
put its questionnaire together yet.
MR. WINTERS said that State Farm is in the process of sending
out the notices. He added that this notice is a little
different in that it simply says at the outset, "We're not going
to share your information. We want to share it between State
Farm Auto and State Farm Life, and if you don't like it, here is
an 800 number, call us and we'll stop."
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that that is an example of "opt in." He
added that "opt in" will be the default regarding health
information, and "opt out" will be the default regarding
financial information.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what assurance there is that
people are making these decisions knowingly and intelligently.
He said he is thinking of his grandmother, for example, being
confronted with some of these "opt in" or "opt out" choices.
MR. GEORGE remarked that currently, people don't have any
choice; no one has any idea what is happening with his/her
information. Once either HB 184 and its accompanying
regulations or the national default standards take effect, then
people will have a choice. He reiterated the differences
between the "opt in" and "opt out" defaults as they pertain to
health information and financial information. He mentioned that
Alaska is a member of NCOIL, and that Senator Donley, who is not
necessarily friendly to insurance issues, is on the executive
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked, "Why wouldn't you have 'opt in'
for financial information? What is it that is so hard to do
there?"
Number 1898
MR. GEORGE said that [insurance] companies can't do business
without either functioning under "opt out" or listing numerous
exemptions to "opt in"; to adjust claims, or to reinsure, or to
simply perform daily transactions, they need to be able to share
information. It is efficient for insurance companies to share
information with affiliates. He noted if it were possible for
one company to sell both life insurance and property casualty
insurance, then information would not need to be shared between
different companies, but that is not possible; by law, they have
to be separate companies, and so instead they are separate
affiliated companies. He mentioned that there are some states
that have tried the total "opt in" approach, which essentially
shut down insurance businesses until "they could unwind it."
MS. CAMPBELL, in response to a question, said that there are at
least 1,000 insurance companies registered to do business in
Alaska.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that setting an "opt in" default for
financial information "would put a screeching halt" on all those
companies because they are all gearing up for GLBA standards,
which are "opt out" for financial information. He also noted
that Alaska is receiving $35 million a year in premium fees from
these companies. "We don't want to be running these [companies]
off by being too [different]," he added.
MR. GEORGE said that is correct; "it's very difficult to get new
companies to write in Alaska. We just don't have the volume.
There are a lot of companies that are able to write here that
don't write here."
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that having more competition in Alaska
would drive down costs and give customers more choices.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether this should come at the
expense of the customer's privacy.
MR. GEORGE opined that if the goal is to encourage competition,
the state would have to give adequate rates and not create rules
which are prohibitive to companies attempting to do business in
Alaska.
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that if too much concern is placed on
privacy, the industry might be over regulated.
Number 1705
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked whether there has been a motion to
adopt Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that Amendment 5 [text provided
earlier] has not yet been offered; the committee has merely been
discussing his privacy concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that although HB 184 may not be
perfect, it will be an improvement over the current privacy
standards, of which there are none.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, on a separate topic, said that
conceptually, he thinks that there should be a private right of
action provision included in HB 184.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said he does not agree. He added that in certain
circumstances a private right of action is appropriate but in
Alaska, the Division of Insurance has a director who will
resolve such issues.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he thinks that individuals who are
injured should have the right to pursue a remedy in court.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that a change in statute last year gave the
director of the Division of Insurance more authority.
MR. LOHR explained that the consumer protection provisions for
insurance (AS 21.36) generally do not contain a private right of
action. The division has ample resources to handle consumer
complaints, and works informally with consumers and with
companies to resolve most problems that come up. If there are
any problems that the division is not capable of resolving and
which involve misbehavior by a company, the division now has
authority to act on the basis of a single bad act; a pattern of
practice no longer needs to be established before the division
can take action.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that's all well and good when the
division has a benevolent director like Mr. Lohr. But, he
added, that might not always be the case.
Number 1528
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 6, which read [original punctuation provided]:
'SEC. ENFORCEMENT.
'(a) STATE ENFORCEMENT- This title shall be enforced
by the Division of Insurance and the State Attorney
General with respect to financial institutions and
other persons subject to their jurisdiction under
applicable law, and shall make compliance with this
title a part of their company examinations.
'(b) STATE ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS-
'(1) STATE AUTHORITY -In addition to such other
remedies as are provided under State law, If the
Director or the Attorney General has reason to believe
that any person has violated or is violating this
title, the state--
'(A) may bring an action to enjoin such violation in
any court of competent jurisdiction; and
'(B) may bring an action on behalf of the residents of
the State to enforce compliance with such rule, to
obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation on
behalf of residents of such State, or to obtain such
further and other relief as the court may deem
appropriate.
'(2) INVESTIGATORY POWERS- For purposes of bringing
any action under this subsection, no provision of this
subsection shall be construed as preventing the
Director or the State Attorney General from exercising
the powers conferred such officials by the laws of
this State to conduct investigations or to administer
oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance of
witnesses or the production of documentary and other
evidence.
'(c) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION-
(I) Civil Remedies. When an insurance institution
fails to comply with any provision of this title, in
such a way as to have an adverse effect on an
individual, the individual may bring a civil action
against the insurance institution in any court of
competent jurisdiction.
(2) In any suit brought under the provisions of
subsection (c)(1) of this section, the court may order
the financial institution to take such action as is
necessary to remedy violations of this Act, including
but, not limited to:
(A) Amending the individual's record in accordance
with his request or in such other way as the court may
direct;
(B) Enjoining the insurance institution from
withholding the complainants records and order the
production to the complainant of any financial
institution records improperly withheld from him. In
such a case the Court may examine the contents of any
financial
institution records in camera to determine whether the
records or any portion thereof may be withheld and,
(C) Enjoining the insurance institution from
transferring to any affiliate or nonaffiliated third
party financial information.
(3) In any suit brought under the provisions of
subsection (c)(l) of this section in which the court
determines that the financial institution violated
this Title, the insurance institution shall be liable
to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of -
(A) actual damages sustained by the individual as a
result of the refusal or failure, but in no case shall
a person entitled to recovery receive less than the
sum of 10,000; and
(B) The court may assess against the insurance
institution reasonable attorney fees and other
litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under
this paragraph related to those claims on which the
complainant has substantially prevailed.
(5) An action to enforce any liability created under
this section may be brought in any court of competent
jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in
controversy, within two years from the date on which
the cause of action arises, except that where a
financial institution has materially and willfully
misrepresented any information required under this
section to be disclosed to an individual and the
information so misrepresented is material to
establishment of the liability of the financial
institution to the individual under this section, the
action may be brought at any time within two years
after discovery by the individual of the
misrepresentation.
(6) Rights of Legal Guardians. - For the purposes of
this section, the parent of any minor, or the legal
guardian of any individual who has been declared to be
incompetent due to physical or mental incapacity or
age by a court of competent jurisdiction, may act on
behalf of the individual.
'(e) DEFINITIONS- The terms used in subsection (a)
that are not defined in this subtitle or otherwise
defined in section 3(s) of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act shall have the meaning given to them in
section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978.
'SEC. 4. EFFECT ON FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT.
'Nothing in this title shall be construed to modify,
limit, or supersede the operation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, and no inference shall be drawn on the
basis of the provisions of this title regarding
whether information is transaction or experience
information under section 603 of such Act.
'SEC. 5. RELATION TO OTHER STATE LAWS.
'This title shall not be construed as superseding,
altering, or affecting the statutes, regulations,
orders, or interpretations in effect in this State,
except to the extent that such statutes, regulations,
orders, or interpretations are inconsistent with the
provisions of this subtitle, and then only to the
extent of the inconsistency.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he thinks individuals ought
to have the right to seek redress in the courts when they feel
they've been injured, and that since there are privacy issues at
stake, he did not see why that remedy would be precluded.
Number 1509
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.
Number 1488
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill and
Berkowitz voted for Conceptual Amendment 6. Representatives
James, Ogan, Meyer, and Rokeberg voted against it. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 6 failed by a vote of 2-4.
Number 1393
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt only the last
portion of Amendment 5, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
(c) the person receiving disclosed information agrees
in writing not to disclose or use the information
other than to carry out the purposes for which the
person disclosed the information.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that this language would now be
considered Amendment 5. He added that although similar language
may become part of the regulations, he wants to see it in
statute as well.
CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised that the language in Amendment 5 means
that the person receiving the information has to put in writing
that he/she will not disclose the information. He added that
the industry would bear the burden of producing the appropriate
forms to accommodate such a requirement. He opined that
Amendment 5 is "tighter than 'opt in'" and will shut business
down.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES opined that rates to the consumers would be
raised if Amendment 5 were adopted.
Number 1258
CHARLIE MILLER, Lobbyist for Alaska National Insurance Company
(ANIC), with regard to Amendment 5, said that in the course of
trying to solve claims and pay claims in worker's compensation
cases, when ANIC sets up rehabilitation programs for people who
have permanent partial disabilities and have to be retrained in
a different craft, it will become increasingly difficult to meet
claimants' needs if every step of the way ANIC has to fill out a
new form per Amendment 5. He opined that the process of
promulgating regulations is the most appropriate way for
determining solutions and minimizing potential problems.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested that Mr. Miller's concerns
regarding Amendment 5 could be alleviated if the committee
rescinds its action in adopting Amendment 1 [which was adopted
on 4/27/01].
Number 1079
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL withdrew Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned that when the Division of
Insurance sends out its notice regarding the promulgation of
regulations, if Representative Coghill still has concerns he
could follow the regulation process.
Number 1012
MR. LOHR, with regard to Conceptual Amendment 3 [which was
adopted on 4/27/01], suggested that the effective date of the
regulations should be the trigger for the start of the sunset
clause rather than the date when the regulations are
promulgated.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "So moved, conceptually."
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that Ms. Nobrega would ensure that this
suggestion is incorporated during drafting.
Number 0988
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSHB 184(HL&C), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
184(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee would meet on 4/30/01 to hear SB 183.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0953
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|