01/21/2004 01:02 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 21, 2004
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session.
- MOVED CSHJR 4(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 285
"An Act adopting the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act;
repealing certain statutes relating to electronic records and
electronic signatures; amending Rule 402, Alaska Rules of
Evidence; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 285(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 4
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
REPRESENTATIVE(s): SAMUELS, ROKEBERG, Stoltze, Dahlstrom, Croft,
Holm, Anderson, Meyer, McGuire, Kohring
01/21/03 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/03 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/18/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/18/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/24/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/29/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/30/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/30/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 05/02/03>
05/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/01/03 (H) Moved CSHJR 4(STA) Out of Committee
05/01/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/02/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/02/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/05/03 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 4DP 1DNP 2NR
05/05/03 (H) DP: HOLM, LYNN, DAHLSTROM, WEYHRAUCH;
05/05/03 (H) DNP: BERKOWITZ; NR: SEATON, GRUENBERG
05/05/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/05/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/06/03 (H) JUD AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/06/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
05/07/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/07/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/08/03 (H) JUD AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/08/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/09/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/09/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/12/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/12/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/13/03 (H) JUD AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/13/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
05/14/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/14/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/15/03 (H) JUD AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 120
05/15/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
10/29/03 (H) JUD AT 5:00 PM Anch LIO Conf Rm
10/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
10/29/03 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
10/29/03 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
10/29/03 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/21/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 285
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS & SIGNATURES
REPRESENTATIVE(s): MCGUIRE
04/25/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/25/03 (H) L&C, JUD
05/07/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/07/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/09/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/09/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/12/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/12/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
05/12/03 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
05/13/03 (H) L&C RPT 2DP 4NR
05/13/03 (H) DP: LYNN, ANDERSON; NR: GATTO,
05/13/03 (H) CRAWFORD, GUTTENBERG, DAHLSTROM
01/21/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
VANESSA TONDINI, Staff
to Representative Lesil McGuire
House Judiciary Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding Version D of
HB 285.
ARTHUR H. PETERSON, Commissioner
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
(NCCUSL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 285
and responded to questions.
DAVID JONES, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 285
and responded to questions.
VICKY BACKUS, State Recorder
State Recorder's Office
Division of Support Services
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
285 and said her office is very much in support of the bill.
PAULA KELSEY, Recorder Manager
State Recorder's Office
Division of Support Services
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a comment during discussion of HB
285.
SCOTT CLARK, Notary Clerk
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 285, relayed that
the lieutenant governor supports the bill, provided comments,
and responded to questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-1, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives
McGuire, Anderson, Holm, Ogg, and Samuels were present at the
call to order. Representatives Gara and Gruenberg arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HJR 4 - CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Number 0052
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the duration of
a regular session. [Before the committee was CSHJR 4(STA).]
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the committee took public testimony on
HJR 4 during the interim, at a meeting held in Anchorage. After
determining that no one else wished to provide testimony, she
closed public testimony on HJR 4.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, speaking as the sponsor, remarked that
whether one agrees or disagrees with the concept embodied in HJR
4, having debate on the issues it raises is healthy. He
mentioned that he appreciates the committee's willingness to
move HJR 4 out of committee so that the process can continue.
Number 0206
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report CSHJR 4(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations [and the accompanying
fiscal notes]. There being no objection, CSHJR 4(STA) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 285 - ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS & SIGNATURES
Number 0267
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 285, "An Act adopting the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act; repealing certain statutes relating to
electronic records and electronic signatures; amending Rule 402,
Alaska Rules of Evidence; and providing for an effective date."
[In members packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS) for
HB 285, Version 23-LS0829\D, Bannister, 10/6/03.]
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act
(UETA) was created by the National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and has been in the works for
many years. She mentioned that uniform Acts attempt to make
state laws uniform, and that the UETA is a reflection of current
times. Much more commerce and other interactions occur via
electronic means nowadays, and the UETA is a uniform law
intended to provide a framework for any forthcoming laws
promulgated by states to govern the electronic-commerce era.
The objective of the UETA is to establish the legal equivalence
of electronic records and signatures with paper writings and
manually-signed signatures, removing barriers to electronic
commerce so that it can be conducted legally, more quickly, and
in a way that all will understand.
CHAIR McGUIRE added:
There's a very limited but important objective: that
an electronic record of a transaction is the
equivalent, in fact, of a paper record, and that an
electronic signature will be given the same legal
effect - whatever that may be - as a manual signature.
... [The] UETA is not an attempt to create a whole new
system of legal rules for the electronic marketplace;
it doesn't change any of the substantive rules of law
that currently apply - i.e. contract law or agency law
- but it's an effort at conforming electronic means to
those already-positioned sets of laws. Many states -
45, in fact, to date - have already adopted [the]
UETA, so we're a little bit behind the power curve ...
due to the legislature being very busy and focusing on
other things. ... Alaska should join the rest of the
nation in adopting [the] UETA as we enter the 21st
century ....
CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to a question, indicated a preference
for adopting the proposed CS as a work draft before continuing
the discussion.
Number 0594
VANESSA TONDINI, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, House
Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that the only difference between the original bill and
Version D is that Version D corrects a drafting oversight by
inserting AS 45.02 - the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) chapter
pertaining to sales - within the proposed Sec. 09.80.010(b)(2),
which is located on page 1, lines 13-14. By including AS 45.02
in the "Scope" section of the UETA, it ensures that UCC sales
and lease transactions may be accomplished via electronic
transactions.
Number 0649
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB
285, Version 23-LS0829\D, Bannister, 10/6/03, as the work draft.
There being no objection, Version D was before the committee.
Number 0665
ARTHUR H. PETERSON, Commissioner, National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), assisted with the
presentation of HB 285. He said that 45 states have enacted the
UETA, which is a product of the [NCCUSL]. He provided the
committee with written information about the NCCUSL, which is
now in its 113th year, and the UETA, which was promulgated by
the NCCUSL in 1999. He went on to say:
Every single product of the [NCCUSL] takes at least
two years; it has to have two floor readings in
separate years. Between the annual meetings of the
[NCCUSL], drafting committees are working, and at
those committee meetings, there will usually be the
advice from various people in the field, whether it's
the banking industry or the poverty law people or the
technological people for electronic transactions. We
get advice across the board, and we have members on
the committees from across the board. The [NCCUSL] is
made up of attorneys in private practice and public
practice; many, many legislators ...; many, many
judges - both state and federal ...; and a good number
of law professors.
So the product you have before you is the culmination
of a great deal of research; extensive experience; and
a lot of analysis, debate, drafting, and redrafting.
[The] UETA is the first comprehensive state law for
the electronic-commerce era. It establishes default
rules ... [but] it is not a whole new body of law - it
simply makes clear that the rules that apply to paper
transactions and paper signatures and manual
signatures apply in this electronics era. And it
doesn't compel the use of electronic transactions, it
simply provides that since people are now using them
as a major, major means of conducting business, we
have to deal with it in the law; we can't just let it
drift. So, that's what this bill does.
Number 0864
MR. PETERSON
If the state doesn't adopt it, federal law will
govern. There's the federal Electronic Signatures in
Global and National Commerce Act, which is
affectionately called "E-Sign," and there is a
specific provision in that Act that says that ...
Congress likes what the [NCCUSL] did in [the] UETA,
and states, "you ought to enact that in its entirety,
and if you don't, this federal law is going to apply."
So already 45 states have enacted it; it's pending in
Alaska, and I was told on the phone yesterday from the
Chicago staff headquarters office that it is about to
be introduced in two more states ....
... Proposed AS 09.80.040 is the heart of the bill,
and that's on page 3 [lines 19-26]; four simple,
little one-sentence provisions: a record or signature
may not be denied legal effect or enforceability
solely because it is in electronic form - and some
corollaries to that provision. All of the other
provisions in the Act develop those four basic rules
that you see in that section.
MR. PETERSON offered to pass any of the committee's unanswered
questions on to Patricia Brumfield Fry, the Chair of the UETA
drafting committee, adding that the committee packets contain
[articles] written by Ms. Fry explaining the UETA and the need
for it. He reiterated that "the feds" want states to adopt the
UETA in its entirety, or the result will be that electronic
transactions will be governed by the federal law - E-Sign. He
offered that he knows of no issues lurking in the UETA that
might cause difficulties later.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether any courts have found
problems with the UETA.
MR. PETERSON said he was not aware of any such, and offered to
pass that question on to Ms. Fry. In response to further
questions, he said that he is not sure why the states that have
not adopted the UETA have not yet done so, but predicted that
all those states would introduce a UETA bill this year and
perhaps even enact it.
Number 1212
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Ms. Fry's article titled
"Federal Preemption and Electronic Commerce," and noted that it
says that any state law enacted after E-Sign has been enacted
must refer specifically to that federal legislation. He asked
whether HB 285 does so.
MR. PETERSON said it does, adding that HB 285 satisfies the
federal law.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that that is one of the benefits of
states enacting uniform laws regarding certain topics; it
enables states to maintain state law as opposed to becoming
subject to federal law.
MR. PETERSON concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked that the NCCUSL often deals with
complex issues and sometimes ends up picking a particular
approach as its final product as opposed to any of the other
approaches discussed during its deliberative process. He asked
whether any other approaches were proffered during the NCCUSL's
deliberations regarding the UETA.
MR. PETERSON said that although there was a lot of discussion,
he did not recall that there were any hotly debated issues
during the formation of the UETA, such as there were during the
formation of the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act
(UCITA), which the NCCUSL's Alaska delegation voted against. To
clarify, he said that the Alaska delegation of the NCCUSL voted
in favor of the UETA. He offered to check with Ms. Fry
regarding whether any alternative approaches were discussed
during the formation of the UETA and, if so, what those were.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that his major concern is that
personal coding could be stolen if it is not required that [that
coding] be crafted carefully enough. He said he could not
determine whether language in the bill stipulates how detailed
personal coding must be. "How much can you assure us that we're
not passing something that will result in the ability for people
to commit fraud against people who sign up?" he asked.
Number 1444
MR. PETERSON relayed that he has a lot of faith, both in the
people who developed the UETA and in the level of debate and
discussion that occurred, that Representative Gara's concern has
been addressed. He added:
That type of question is one that indeed was
considered: the type of protections that would be in
... [the UETA]. Certainly the [NCCUSL] would not want
to do anything that would [leave] people open to fraud
or encourage them or induce them into a fraudulent
situation. And the fact that Congress has also
enacted - in E-Sign - the provision that says,
"States, you ought to adopt [the] UETA," gives me some
comfort. ... It's certainly a point that would have
been considered, analyzed, and addressed by a number
of very technologically sophisticated people.
MR. PETERSON offered to question Ms. Fry on that issue as well.
CHAIR McGUIRE referred to page 5, line 2, and noted that
proposed AS 09.80.070 speaks to the effect of a change or an
error in the record itself. So although that language is not a
complete answer to the question raised by Representative Gara,
it does speak to the types of errors in transmission that could
occur. In terms of identity theft, she noted, one of the
advantages of the UETA is that it does not take the place of any
current state laws pertaining to identity theft and fraud. She
referred to page 10, proposed AS 09.80.150, and noted that it
speaks to acceptance and distribution of electronic records by a
governmental agency. She then pointed out that [paragraph] (3),
lines 25-27 on page 10, provides that governmental agencies
[may] set out "control processes and procedures as appropriate
to ensure adequate preservation, disposition, integrity,
security, confidentiality, and auditability of electronic
records".
CHAIR McGUIRE surmised that the UETA is a little bit different
than some other uniform laws - such as those dealing with policy
matters - in that it does not involve highly contested issues
which result in compromise legislation. The UETA merely sets up
a framework that will allow electronic signatures to be legal;
individual agencies and businesses that use electronic
signatures will still be allowed to establish their own
parameters regarding confidentiality. She echoed Representative
Gara's request for more information regarding any controversies
that arose during the formation of the UETA.
Number 1642
MR. PETERSON detailed some of the controversies involved in the
formation of the UCITA, and assured the committee that no such
controversies are inherent in the UETA.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that the issue of whether or
not faxed documents will be accepted by the courts raises
practical problems for him as a practicing lawyer. He offered
his belief that there doesn't appear to be any reason that faxed
documents shouldn't be accepted by the courts. He asked whether
HB 285 will require courts to accept faxed documents.
MR. PETERSON said that there is no such express provision in the
bill, and suggested that other testifiers might be better able
to address that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned past committee discussions
regarding electronic warrants.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG referred to proposed AS 09.80.150(a) on page
10 [lines 9-13], and noted that it says [in part]: "each
government agency of this state shall determine whether, and the
extent to which, the agency will send and accept electronic
records and electronic signatures". He offered his belief that
under that language, the court would have the option of
accepting faxed documents.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked Mr. Peterson if he knew why the
states that have not yet adopted the UETA haven't done so.
MR. PETERSON reiterated that he did not know why the UETA has
not yet been adopted in those states. He offered to ask Ms. Fry
for more information on that issue.
Number 1809
DAVID JONES, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor, Labor and State Affairs Section, Civil
Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), emphasized that
the UETA is simply a framework that gives legal effect to
electronic signatures and records; it provides a means to go to
court and obtain relief, if necessary, for transactions that
were conducted electronically. It doesn't require anyone to
accept electronic records or signatures, but provides a means of
enforcement if both parties to a transaction have voluntarily
conducted it electronically. The level of security, means of
giving notice, and all details that guide the transaction are
chosen by those parties.
MR. JONES agreed that the bill wouldn't directly address the
concerns raised by Representative Gruenberg about faxing
documents to court. Saying he shares the frustration about the
courts' reluctance to accept faxed documents, which would be so
much faster, Mr. Jones added that there seems to be no rational
basis, now that fax machines work as well as they do, for not
accepting [such documents]. He specified that this bill would
give individual government agencies the discretion to decide
whether to participate in electronic transactions and accept
electronic records.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that the courts have left this
to each judicial district, at the very least, if not to each
judge; sometimes it varies from case to case whether faxed
documents will be accepted. This Act, national in scope, leaves
it up to each state and each governmental agency within each
state. Since [HB 285] would leave it up to each governmental
agency, he said there won't be any uniformity, which as a
"consumer" of the court system he finds frustrating. If the
point has been reached with electronic commerce that these
should be accepted unless there is a good reason not to,
Representative Gruenberg suggested that an agency should accept
such documents unless it shows good cause for opting out. He
requested feedback on this idea.
MR. JONES replied that he shares the frustration of trying to
determine whether a particular judge or court will accept faxed
filings. However, that's not a concern this bill is designed to
address, since governmental agencies are just one category of
entities affected by it. Rather, the bill is designed to lay
the legal foundation for electronic transactions so that those
who choose to engage in such transactions will have a means of
enforcement if something goes wrong. He suggested that
Representative Gruenberg's specific concern would have to be
dealt with separately.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that he wasn't saying the
bill shouldn't be adopted, but was looking at one provision
pointed out by Representative Ogg. Representative Gruenberg,
too, pointed out that language on page 10, lines 9-13, provides
that each governmental agency shall determine whether and the
extent to which it will send and accept electronic records and
so forth; he questioned the wisdom of that, but said he didn't
know enough about it to offer an amendment. He reiterated his
preference, at least for the agency he deals with, to require
[acceptance of electronic transactions] unless there is a good
reason to the contrary.
Number 2079
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he shares Representative Gruenberg's
concern. He asked whether Mr. Jones was saying the legislation
opens the door for any type of electronic signature and that if
the legislature desires to restrict it as a matter of state
policy, it would then require all state agencies - in another
piece of legislation - to accept certain forms of electronic
communication.
MR. JONES answered in the affirmative and said it's a difficult
policy question to address. In further response, he specified
that he believes it is good policy to let individual agencies
choose. They have different operations, needs, and conditions
under which they operate. He cited examples of different types
of documents: permanent fund dividend (PFD) applications,
warrants issued through the court system, court filings by the
Department of Law, and timesheets and leave slips used by
governmental agencies. Emphasizing the wide variety of
operations conducted by state agencies, he said it's difficult
to come up with a rule that applies to all of them concerning
the use of electronic records and signatures.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked to Representative Holm:
It may be that your ideas and Representative
Gruenberg's are just before their time. It might be
that ... we get [the] UETA into effect in the
framework and governmental agencies can begin that
process of considering how they would accept
electronic information and the types of structure that
would be in place, and that, at some point, there does
need to be a policy push on the part of the
legislature and so on. But I would suspect it would
come with fiscal notes ... and that agencies would
certainly want a little help from us ... to change
over some of the equipment that they have in place. I
don't know, but I think so.
Number 2197
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM explained that his concern related to
documents in commerce, rather than in the legal sense. He said
he'd like to rely upon a certain type of electronic
communication for copies of checks, proof of purchase, or proof
of receipt, for example, so that there was less concern about
losing something or having to get it certified. "In this case,
we could choose, as contractors between each other, to contract
that we would accept or not accept different types of
communication," he surmised, noting that there wouldn't be
uniformity.
CHAIR McGUIRE agreed it sets up a framework, rather than
micromanaging the details. She said that's one challenge when
trying to put together a uniform law that affects so many states
and entities.
MR. PETERSON explained that as a general policy, the NCCUSL
tries not to get into the details of any particular state's
administrative [workings]. This Act, as mentioned, tries to set
up the framework and set out certain basic rules. He added:
While it, in effect, is requiring the courts to accept
electronic evidence, that's essentially just stating a
legal consequence of the fact that the people involved
in this transaction have used electronic means. And
so, it's simply establishing the rule that when you do
so, that is to be accepted just as though you had the
old, traditional paper means of the transaction.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that this isn't insignificant. There
could be a voluntary transaction between two individuals who sit
down and decide by what means to do it, and yet there would be
no force of law.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA counseled against amendments to the bill on
the subject raised by Representative Gruenberg. For example,
courts may have determined that they don't have adequate staff
to receive 5,000 pages of documents in a given timeframe. He
suggested that that is the purpose of leaving it to the agencies
to decide how, when, and under what circumstances this will be
done.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, who chairs the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee, noted that this bill had been heard in that
committee, and opined that it's a good bill. Reporting that
Representative Guttenberg and others had talked about making
sure there is no potential for fraud, Representative Anderson
offered his belief that the bill covers that. He recalled that
when he was a legislative aide in the 19th legislature, then-
Representative Terry Martin had sponsored a bill with regard to
electronic transmittal of absentee ballots; thus he said there
is a precedent that is illustrative of how this really works.
He indicated that he too has felt frustration with the courts
because they won't accept faxed documents.
TAPE 04-1, SIDE B
Number 2358
VICKY BACKUS, State Recorder, State Recorder's Office, Division
of Support Services, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
remarked that her office sees HB 285 as just laying the
groundwork for the acceptance of electronic transactions in the
future. If HB 285 were to pass, she explained, her office would
not jump right into doing electronic recordings; instead, they
would wait and see what standards are developed on a national
level. In order for the State Recorder's Office to accept
electronic transactions from other states, it will require that
there be a great deal of uniformity in the standards. In
conclusion, she relayed that although her office is very much in
favor of HB 285, even if it is approved they would not start
doing electronic recordings right away.
Number 2303
PAULA KELSEY, Recorder Manager, State Recorder's Office,
Division of Support Services, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), noted simply that the "UCC Central File adopted Revised
Article 9," which allows electronic admission of documents, and
has experienced no problems to date.
Number 2275
SCOTT CLARK, Notary Clerk, Office of the Lieutenant Governor,
relayed that the lieutenant governor wants to express his
support of HB 285. He explained that the lieutenant governor
has a role pertaining to certifying authorities, those who issue
digital certificates for digital signatures. Currently, the
electronic signature law is technology specific to a complex
mechanism, which has proven to be unwieldy. He offered that HB
285 will simplify matters for the lieutenant governor's office.
He too noted that the UETA provides a framework, adding that it
will simplify the process and broaden the concept of a signature
to include [those used by the Permanent Fund Dividend Division].
He predicted that many governmental agencies will be amenable to
the changes brought about by the adoption of the UETA. He said
that current law defines electronic signatures in a very
specific technical manner that is [not compatible with how many
entities conduct business].
MR. CLARK noted that Utah, which he described as a leader with
regard to digital notarizations, has found that its current
system is not very practical. So although there is nothing
inherently wrong with the concept of digital signatures, he
opined, the technology has not yet evolved to the point where
its use will be easy. Backing away from current statute and
moving in the direction allowed by the UETA, he concluded, will
simplify the process because entities will be able to define for
themselves what an electronic signature will be; they won't be
limited to a specific technology.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Section 2 is repealing
the current technology statutes. He then remarked that Mr.
Peterson is [nodding his head].
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked whether adoption of HB 285 will effect
absentee ballots.
MR. CLARK offered that he can only speak to the bill as it
relates to notary issues. On the issue of absentee ballots,
however, he added his understanding that those ballots can be
witnessed by another person and so would not necessarily have to
be notarized; notarization is just one of two options. In
response to another question, he said he has not been involved
with the issue of electronic voting.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after determining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 285. In response to
questions, she expressed a preference for having the bill moved
along, surmising that answers to the committee's questions will
arrive before the bill is calendared for the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he had no objection to
moving the bill out.
Number 2037
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report the proposed CS for HB
285, Version 23-LS0829\D, Bannister, 10/6/03, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, CSHB 285(JUD) was reported from
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2025
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|