04/15/2009 05:17 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB36 | |
| SB48 | |
| SB148 | |
| HB181 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 15, 2009
5:17 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Charisse Millett
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to ballot initiative proposal applications and
to ballot initiatives."
- MOVED CSSSHB 36(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 48(JUD)
"An Act exempting municipal service area boards from the
requirements of conducting meetings open to the public when a
meeting is administrative or managerial in nature; and amending
the definition of 'meeting' as it relates to public governmental
meetings."
- MOVED CSSB 48(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 148(JUD)
"An Act relating to limitation of state liability on certain
federal highway programs; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 148(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 181
"An Act relating to the use of headlights when operating a motor
vehicle."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 96(FIN)
"An Act relating to nonpayment of child support, to the
definition of the term "state" for the purposes of the Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act, to certain judicial and
administrative orders for medical support of a child, to
periodic review and adjustment of child support orders, to
relief from administrative child support orders, to child
support arrearages, and to medical support of a child and the
Alaska Native family assistance program; amending Rule 90.3,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED; HCS CSSB 96(JUD) WAS REPORTED FROM
COMMITTEE ON 4/13/09
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 36
SHORT TITLE: INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/ PROCEDURES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JOHANSEN, MILLETT, WILSON
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) STA, JUD
03/25/09 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/25/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/09 (H) JUD, FIN
04/06/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
04/06/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/13/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
04/13/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/13/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 48
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC MEETINGS/MUNI SERVICE AREA BDS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) THERRIAULT
01/21/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/09 (S) CRA, TRA, JUD
01/21/09 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
02/10/09 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/10/09 (S) Moved CSSB 48(CRA) Out of Committee
02/10/09 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/11/09 (S) CRA RPT CS 4DP 1NR NEW TITLE
02/11/09 (S) DP: OLSON, THOMAS, KOOKESH, MENARD
02/11/09 (S) NR: FRENCH
03/10/09 (S) TRA AT 1:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/09 (S) Moved CSSB 48(CRA) Out of Committee
03/10/09 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
03/11/09 (S) TRA RPT CS(CRA) 5DP
03/11/09 (S) DP: KOOKESH, MENARD, DAVIS, MEYER,
PASKVAN
03/30/09 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/30/09 (S) Heard & Held
03/30/09 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/10/09 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/10/09 (S) Moved CSSB 48(JUD) Out of Committee
04/10/09 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/09 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 3NR NEW TITLE
04/11/09 (S) NR: FRENCH, WIELECHOWSKI, MCGUIRE
04/11/09 (S) DP: THERRIAULT
04/14/09 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/14/09 (S) VERSION: CSSB 48(JUD)
04/15/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 148
SHORT TITLE: LIABILITY FOR TRIBAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION
SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION BY REQUEST
03/13/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/09 (S) TRA, JUD
03/24/09 (S) TRA AT 1:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/24/09 (S) Moved SB 148 Out of Committee
03/24/09 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
03/25/09 (S) TRA RPT 4DP 1NR
03/25/09 (S) DP: KOOKESH, MENARD, DAVIS, MEYER
03/25/09 (S) NR: PASKVAN
03/30/09 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/30/09 (S) Heard & Held
03/30/09 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/09 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/06/09 (S) Moved CSSB 148(JUD) Out of Committee
04/06/09 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/09 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, WIELECHOWSKI, MCGUIRE
04/07/09 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 3NR SAME TITLE
04/07/09 (S) DP: FRENCH
04/09/09 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/09/09 (S) VERSION: CSSB 148(JUD)
04/10/09 (H) TRA, JUD
04/10/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/14/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/14/09 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 148(TRA) Out of
Committee
04/14/09 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/15/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 181
SHORT TITLE: USE OF HEADLIGHTS REQUIRED
SPONSOR(S): KAWASAKI
03/12/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/12/09 (H) TRA, JUD
03/24/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/24/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/24/09 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/26/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/26/09 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/26/09 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/27/09 (H) TRA RPT 2DP 1DNP 3NR
03/27/09 (H) DP: DOOGAN, GRUENBERG
03/27/09 (H) DNP: JOHANSEN
03/27/09 (H) NR: MUNOZ, JOHNSON, WILSON
03/27/09 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
04/15/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JASON HOOLEY, Deputy Chief of Staff
Juneau Office
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
SSHB 36.
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SSHB 36, spoke as one
of the joint prime sponsors.
MICHAEL BARNHILL, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
SSHB 36.
ERNEST PRAX, Staff
Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 48 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Therriault.
A. RENE BROKER, Attorney
Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a comment during discussion of
SB 48.
DOROTHY SHOCKLEY, Staff
Senator Albert Kookesh
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 148 on behalf of the sponsor
by request, the Senate Transportation Standing Committee, which
is chaired by Senator Kookesh.
PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
SB 148, and relayed that the DOT&PF supports the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 181.
TABITHA WILLIAMS, Intern
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a comment during discussion of
HB 181.
KURTIS SMITH, P.E., State Traffic & Safety Engineer
Traffic and Safety
Design & Construction Standards Section
Division of Statewide Design & Engineering Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 181.
ACTION NARRATIVE
5:17:20 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 5:17 p.m. Representatives Ramras, Lynn,
Gruenberg, and Coghill were present at the call to order.
Representatives Holmes and Dahlstrom arrived as the meeting was
in progress. Representative Millett was also in attendance.
SSHB 36 - INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/PROCEDURES
5:17:33 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 36, "An Act relating to
ballot initiative proposal applications and to ballot
initiatives." [SSHB 36 had been amended on 4/13/09; left
pending from 4/13/09 were the motions to adopt Amendment 3, and
to amend Amendment 3.]
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL withdrew Amendment 3, labeled 26-
LS0197\E.5, Bullard, 4/10/09, which read:
Page 7, lines 9 - 10:
Delete "the sponsors shall hold public hearings
concerning the proposed bill in at least 30 house
districts"
Insert "the lieutenant governor or a designee of
the lieutenant governor shall hold at least two public
hearings concerning the proposed bill in each judicial
district of the state. Public hearings under this
section shall be conducted in a manner that allows the
initiative's sponsors, other affected and interested
parties supporting or opposing the initiative, and
citizens an opportunity to be heard"
Page 7, line 11:
Delete "sponsors"
Insert "lieutenant governor or a designee of the
lieutenant governor"
Page 7, line 13:
Delete "sponsors"
Insert "lieutenant governor or a designee of the
lieutenant governor"
Page 7, line 15, through page 8, line 12:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
5:18:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 4,
labeled 26-LS0197\E.8, Bullard, 4/14/09, which read:
Page 7, lines 7 - 10:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 15.45.195. Public hearings. (a) At least 30
days before the election at which an initiative is to
appear on the ballot, the lieutenant governor or a
designee of the lieutenant governor shall hold two or
more public hearings concerning the initiative in each
judicial district of the state. Each public hearing
under this section shall include the testimony of one
supporter and one opponent of the initiative."
Page 7, line 11:
Delete "sponsors"
Insert "lieutenant governor"
Page 7, line 13:
Delete "sponsors"
Insert "lieutenant governor"
Page 7, line 15, through page 8, line 12:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
He questioned what language would be best to use in order to
address members' concerns [regarding when the public hearings
would be held].
5:19:56 PM
JASON HOOLEY, Deputy Chief of Staff, Juneau Office, Office of
the Lieutenant Governor, said that if the desire is to have the
public hearings after the signature-gathering phase, then the
proper language would be "after the petition has been properly
filed".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated a preference for amending
Amendment 4 to that effect.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that the language
currently in Amendment 4 - "At least 30 days before the
election" - allows discretion with regard to when the public-
hearing phase could begin.
5:21:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of the joint prime sponsors of SSHB 36, offered his
understanding that the lieutenant governor would like to have a
specific timeframe in which to hold the public hearings, and
that the language currently in Amendment 4 provides that
timeframe.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested amending Amendment 4 such
that it would say in part, "No earlier than the date the
petition has been properly filed and at least 30 days before the
election at which an initiative is to appear on the ballot,
...".
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN surmised that everyone has the same
intention.
MR. HOOLEY offered his understanding that the language in
Amendment 4 that says, "an initiative is to appear on the
ballot" implies that the lieutenant governor's office has found
that petition to be properly filed, since if it had not been, it
would not be appearing on the ballot, but acknowledged that the
suggested change to Amendment 4 would make it more explicit.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is merely attempting to insert
a start date, that being the date that a petition has been
properly filed, with the end date being 30 days before the
election. He indicated that that would be his conceptual
amendment to Amendment 4.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that this would leave some latitude to the
lieutenant governor.
MR. HOOLEY concurred.
5:26:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN concurred with Mr. Hooley that the
current language of Amendment 4 is clear that the start date
would be after the lieutenant governor has certified an
initiative for placement on the ballot, with the end date being
30 days prior to the election, and opined that it would be
proper for the lieutenant governor to be provided some latitude
so that his/her resources and time could be properly managed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that no amendment to
Amendment 4 is necessary to address that point.
MR. HOOLEY, in response to a question, opined that the current
language is clear enough for all future lieutenant governors to
understand that the public hearings need to occur after the
signature-gathering phase but at least 30 days before an
election.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that Amendment 4 says in part, "Each
public hearing under this section shall include the testimony of
one supporter and one opponent of the initiative". She
questioned whether this language would require people other than
those in the lieutenant governor's office to get themselves to
each one of the eight meetings.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said the intent is to give the public
the opportunity to discuss, from both sides, what is in the
ballot initiative, regardless of how they participate, either in
person or via teleconference. "You could probably find one
person in each meeting, for each of the judicial districts, to
present the idea to the public," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed concern that the word, "shall"
might invalidate the whole meeting if all who come to it only
speak to one side of the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said that's not the intent, and
indicated that he might be amenable to having the word, "shall"
changed to the word, "may".
5:31:59 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his belief that written testimony could
suffice to meet the proposed requirement.
MR. HOOLEY relayed that for every initiative that goes on the
ballot, the Division of Elections gathers statements in support
and statements in opposition for the purpose of including a
support statement and an opposition statement in the election
pamphlet, and surmised that that existing process would simply
be used as a starting point for the proposed public hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES pondered whether it might be better for
the language to instead say something along the lines of, "Each
public hearing under this section shall allow opportunity for
the testimony of at least one supporter and one opponent of the
initiative" - something to make it clear that the meeting won't
be invalidated simply because only those on one side of the
issue came to the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he doesn't have any problem with
having the language be passive, adding, "If they don't show up,
that's ... really their own problem."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would have a problem with such a
change because he believes that they should provide as much
direction [to the lieutenant governor] as possible. In this
case, making the lieutenant governor work to find someone with
an opposing view would be more beneficial than giving the
lieutenant governor so much latitude that a court case results
due to a perception that he/she favored one side of an issue
over the other.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed a preference, then, for changing
the language to read in part, "shall include the testimony of at
least one supporter and one opponent ...". She questioned
whether such a change would be acceptable to the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said it is his understanding that
supporting and opposing views are compiled into one supporting
statement and one opposing statement for purposes of including
in the election pamphlet. He said his preference would be for
the information about the initiative to flow impartially from
the lieutenant governor's office, rather than having an eight-
hour meeting, for example, at which 500 people talk about what
they think is included in the initiative. He then expressed a
preference for the language currently in Amendment 4.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed concern that Amendment 4 says that two
"or more" public hearings would be held, questioning what result
including the words "or more" would have should someone wish to
contest the process, and whether including those words meets the
intent.
MR. HOOLEY said it would be the lieutenant governor's intention
to hold two meetings per judicial district so as to absorb the
costs of those meetings in his/her current budget.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN indicated that he would be amenable to
having the language specify just two meetings.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that he would be offering an amendment to
delete the words, "or more".
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out, though, that in the Fourth
Judicial District, because of its tremendous size, [the
committee] may want to allow for more than just two meetings.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned, however, whether including the words
"or more" but then not holding more than two meetings could
invite the argument that the lieutenant governor had not
fulfilled his/her obligation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN characterized the comment regarding
judicial district size as a valid point, and expressed a
preference for giving the lieutenant governor's office the
latitude to have more than two meetings.
5:41:25 PM
MICHAEL BARNHILL, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Labor and
State Affairs Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of
Law (DOL), in response to a question, offered his belief that
the phrase, "two or more" is synonymous with the phrase, "at
least two", and that holding only two meetings would satisfy the
proposed requirement.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that they would therefore be leaving the
words, "or more" in Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES again expressed concern that the phrase,
"shall include the testimony of one supporter and one opponent"
might invalidate the whole meeting if only those on one side of
the issue come to the meeting. She asked what would be the
consequences of not complying with the requirements of
Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN indicated that he didn't think the
language regarding testimony would create a problem, and opined
that it would be an unwise political decision for the lieutenant
governor to choose not to comply with the proposed public
hearing requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, to clarify, questioned what effect
noncompliance with Amendment 4 would have on the initiative,
adding that she doesn't want an initiative to be thrown out
simply because of a loophole that someone takes advantage of.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said is not his intention for
[noncompliance with Amendment 4] to have any effect on an
initiative.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether they ought to insert the words,
"written or public" into Amendment 4, before the word,
"testimony".
5:45:43 PM
MR. BARNHILL, characterizing that as a fine concept, indicated
that such a change would clarify the type of testimony that
would be acceptable. In response to an earlier question, he
explained that the court system has a default position of
providing as much access to the ballot as possible, and so any
technical defects in the public hearing process would likely be
overlooked by the court in order to secure access by the
initiative sponsors to the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that any such change should
instead say "written or oral" instead of "written or public".
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to amend Amendment 4 to include the
words "written or oral" before the word "testimony". There
being no objection, the amendment to Amendment 4 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG sought clarification that in order to
comply with the phrase, "testimony of one supporter and one
opponent" the lieutenant governor would seek input from the
initiative's sponsors and those opposed to the initiative so
that they could have a hand in who's selected to [present their
viewpoint].
MR. HOOLEY said that would be the case, adding that the
lieutenant governor generally starts with the initiative's
sponsors.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Amendment 4 [as amended] was adopted.
5:48:52 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 5, labeled 26-
LS0197\E.9, Bullard, 4/15/09, which read:
Page 5, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 9. AS 15.45.080 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.45.080. Bases of denial of certification.
The lieutenant governor shall deny certification upon
determining in writing that
(1) the proposed bill to be initiated is
not confined to one subject or is otherwise not in the
required form;
(2) the application is not substantially in
the required form; or
(3) there is an insufficient number of
qualified sponsors."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
CHAIR RAMRAS explained that Amendment 5 would preclude an
initiative that addresses more than one subject from being
placed on the ballot, and cited the ballot initiative regarding
cruise ship taxation, regulation, and disclosure as an example
of an initiative that was not confined to a single subject.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he does not object to Amendment 5,
but offered his belief that its concept is already addressed in
Article II, Section 13, of the Alaska State Constitution.
CHAIR RAMRAS acknowledged that point, but offered his belief
that Amendment 5 would give the lieutenant governor a bit more
latitude.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 5 was adopted.
5:51:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 6,
labeled 26-LS0197\E.6, Bullard, 4/11/09, which read:
Page 9, lines 4 - 6:
Delete all material and insert:
"APPLICABILITY. This Act applies only to an
initiative, the application for which is filed with
the lieutenant governor under AS 15.45.020 on or after
the effective date of this Act."
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 6 would
clarify the applicability section.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he has no objection to Amendment 6.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 6 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she is still nescient about the
provisions of SSHB 36 that address contributions and disclosure,
and would therefore probably be voting against [moving the bill
from committee at this time].
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that although he likes some of the
bill's disclosure provisions and he thinks the amendments have
improved the bill, he has some serious problems with tinkering
with the initiative process because he thinks doing so will have
a chilling effect on the ability of folks to put forth
initiatives.
CHAIR RAMRAS said that although he is amenable to moving the
bill from committee, he does not like the bill, and questions
whether Section 1 is constitutional. He relayed that he is in
favor of limiting contributions once a proposed ballot
initiative has been certified, though that is contrary to a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling, because he is troubled that a corporation
could influence an election simply by writing a large check.
5:59:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, remarking that he would like the title
narrowed, made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 7, to
narrow the title of the bill to the subjects currently in it.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected, and suggested that a specific
amendment to that effect be drafted instead.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed, then, that if he still feels
it's necessary, he would be offering such an amendment on the
House floor, though he doesn't see a problem with adopting a
conceptual amendment now and allowing the drafter come up with
the appropriate language.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN relayed that he would be willing to work
on [the bill title] further before the bill gets to the House
floor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 7.
6:02:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report SSHB 36, as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Coghill,
Lynn, and Ramras voted in favor of reporting SSHB 36, as
amended, from committee. Representatives Gruenberg and Holmes
voted against it. Therefore, CSSSHB 36(JUD) was reported from
the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
SB 48 - PUBLIC MEETINGS/MUNI SERVICE AREA BDS
[Contains brief mention that CSSB 48(JUD) is identical to CSHB
153(JUD), and that some testimony pertaining to both bills was
provided during the hearing on HB 153.]
6:02:57 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 48(JUD), "An Act exempting municipal
service area boards from the requirements of conducting meetings
open to the public when a meeting is administrative or
managerial in nature; and amending the definition of 'meeting'
as it relates to public governmental meetings."
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that CSSB 48(JUD) is identical to CSHB
153(JUD), which was recently reported from committee.
6:04:04 PM
ERNEST PRAX, Staff, Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State
Legislature, concurred on behalf of the sponsor, Senator
Therriault, and relayed that the concept of SB 48 was brought
forth by the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) attorney, and
that the bill is intended to reduce some of the conflicts
arising in certain service areas because of a perception that
service area commissioners have been violating the
[Administrative Procedure Act]. Section 1 of SB 48 would extend
the existing statutory exemption from the [Administrative
Procedure Act] to municipal service area boards only when they
are conducting work of an administrative or managerial nature,
and Section 2 would clarify how many members of such a board
must be gathered together in order to constitute a "meeting" for
purposes of complying with the [Administrative Procedure Act].
6:08:23 PM
A. RENE BROKER, Attorney, Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB),
noted that she'd previously testified on the issues pertaining
to SB 48 when the committee heard HB 153.
6:08:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSSB 48(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSB 48(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
SB 148 - LIABILITY FOR TRIBAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION
6:09:21 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 148(JUD), "An Act relating to limitation
of state liability on certain federal highway programs; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was HCS
CSSB 148(TRA).]
6:09:40 PM
DOROTHY SHOCKLEY, Staff, Senator Albert Kookesh, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor by request, the Senate
Transportation Standing Committee, which is chaired by Senator
Kookesh, explained that SB 148 would resolve the issue of
liability to the State or employees of the State when partnering
with federal-recognized tribes under the Indian Reservation
Roads (IRR) Program. With the decline in state and federal
highway funding it's imperative that everyone collaborate and
work together, and SB 148 will assist that partnering process,
and ultimately benefit all Alaskans by leading to long-term
improvements in the state's overall transportation
infrastructure.
MS. SHOCKLEY mentioned that members' packets contain letters
from the commissioner of the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), Manley Village Council, and Ruby
Tribal Council; two handouts from the IRR Program - one listing
villages and the money being allocated to them, and the other
providing a breakdown of inventory, population, and funding; and
a synopsis by the DOT&PF of the IRR Program, the road inventory,
how the funding occurs, and what that funding can be used for.
She noted that 25 percent of each year's funding can be used for
maintenance, with the remainder being used for design and
construction and for matching other federal funds, and that
tribes could get up to [an additional] $35 million in American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funding.
6:12:44 PM
PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions,
Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), noted that both the DOT&PF and the tribes support SB 148,
and that the "plaintiffs bar" was consulted as well. He
explained that a provision was added to the bill to address the
bar's concerns regarding what standards would apply if tribes
were to perform work on State roads and then litigation ensued.
Some of the standards that would apply are defined in 25 C.F.R
170, Subpart D, Appendix B, and certainly the State, in any
agreement, would require that certain standards be met;
furthermore, the language chosen for the bill was, "all
applicable federal and state standards". However, that's not to
suggest that both federal and state standards would apply in
every case, or even that every conceivable standard must be
listed; rather, there should simply be a requirement or a
reference in the bill that applicable standards be followed when
tribes work on State roads.
MR. PUTIER, in conclusion, noted that the language on page 1,
lines 12-14, through page 2, lines 1-2, reads:
In this subsection, "independent negligence" means
negligence that is not due to the state's selection,
supervision, administration, monitoring, or
controlling of the activities of the tribe, the
tribe's agents, employees, or contractors, or the
state's approving or accepting any of the work
performed under programs listed in this subsection.
6:14:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HCS CSSB 148(TRA) out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS
CSSB 148(TRA) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 6:15 p.m. to 6:17 p.m.
HB 181 - USE OF HEADLIGHTS REQUIRED
6:17:47 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 181, "An Act relating to the use of headlights
when operating a motor vehicle."
6:17:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor, explained that HB 181 addresses a key goal of the
Alaska Highway Safety Office's (AHSO's) Strategic Highway Safety
Plan (SHSP), which recommends that State law be changed to
require all vehicles to use headlights at all times. Research
indicates that traffic accidents - particularly head-on traffic
accidents - are reduced when daytime running lights are used,
and the AHSO has determined that enforcement of a headlight law
could decrease head-on collisions by 7-15 percent. Furthermore,
the effectiveness of such a law has been demonstrated in Alaska
on the Seward Highway, where, in the mid-1990s, signs were
installed requiring the use of headlights at all times when
traveling between Anchorage and Seward. Both the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) and the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) acknowledge the effectiveness of
headlight usage in saving lives and markedly reducing the number
of crashes.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that similar results have been
seen in other countries with polar regions similar to Alaska's.
In Sweden, for example, studies indicate that requiring the use
of headlights at all times reduces crash rates by 20 percent in
urban areas and 17 percent in rural areas. He surmised that
even in the summertime, when the sun lingers on the horizon, it
is easier to see oncoming traffic when vehicles' lights are on.
Currently 39 out of 50 states, including Alaska, require the use
of headlights on motorcycles at all times, since that makes them
easier to see. He offered his belief that HB 181 will increase
safety on Alaska's roads by making all vehicles easer to see.
He mentioned that a national insurance group has advertisements
stressing that people should drive with their headlights on at
all times, and that some vehicle manufactures have begun adding
daytime running lights in order to increase vehicle safety.
6:22:06 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed concern that a violation of HB 181 would
be a primary offense.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, acknowledging that it would be a
primary offense, noted that the proposed new crime only applies
to motor vehicles traveling on a highway, and that there is
already a statutory definition of "highway". Driving with one's
headlights on enables others - even those who have difficulty
seeing in some circumstances - to see one's vehicle better, thus
providing more protection. He relayed that although the AARP as
a whole has not yet endorsed passage of HB 181, individual
members of the AARP have spoken in support; as one's eyes start
to fail, it sure helps to be able to see oncoming traffic.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, observing that the DOT&PF's fiscal
note indicates that passage of HB 181 would result in 39 signs
being posted, asked how that number was arrived at.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI offered his understanding that the
DOT&PF used some sort of formula, with 39 being the bare minimum
number of signs it would be comfortable posting, and surmised
that those signs would be posted at highway entry points, ferry
terminals, and airports. He noted that the legislature could
stipulate that either more or fewer signs be posted.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that under the bill, drivers of
cars that don't have headlights that turn on automatically would
be obligated to turn their headlights on manually.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI concurred, added that he does so as a
matter of course when driving, and predicted that having to turn
on one's headlights while driving would be an easy concept for
folks to understand should HB 181 be adopted.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether language has been drafted that would
make a violation a secondary offense.
6:28:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he doesn't understand the concern about
a violation being a primary offense, adding that probable cause
would not be an issue because it would be obvious when someone
is driving without his/her headlights on.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, mentioning that he drives with his
headlights on but has occasionally drained the battery in his
older cars when he forgets to turn the headlights off, expressed
favor with the concept of driving with headlights on at all
times, but questioned whether offering incentives for such
behavior, compared to the bill's current punitive approach, had
been considered.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI offered his belief that education is
always the best, cheapest, and first route to take towards
compliance, adding that signage also helps with compliance, as
does seeing others driving with their headlights on. He noted
that his dad always drove with the headlights on and his mom
began doing so after she was involved in a vehicle accident.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that his wife's newer vehicle has
automatic headlights but not his older cars, and that when
changing cars, sometimes he just forgets to turn the headlights
on in his older cars. He surmised that under the bill as
currently written, law enforcement would be able to stop him
when he again forgets to turn on his headlights, since it would
be a primary offense, and that if he were to be so stopped and
given a ticket, it would provide him with an incentive to get a
device that would automatically turn his headlights on and off
when his car is turned on and off. He indicated, though, that
the nuisance of having to remember to turn on his headlights
does not outweigh the benefit that driving with headlights on
provides.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that there are already a number
of ads promoting seatbelt use [and discouraging drinking and
driving] and highlighting the dangers of distracted driving,
posited that perhaps the DPS could be encouraged, via an
appropriation or legislation, to engage in a comprehensive
advertizing campaign regarding safe driving behavior, including
the use of headlights at all times.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed that the public is being
endangered by the use of very, very bright headlights, the use
of misaligned headlights, and the use of what he characterized
as "blinding" blue headlights, and opined that in terms of
public safety, these dangers far outweigh the danger of not
driving with headlights on at all times. He mentioned that he
would be drafting amendments to address those issues.
CHAIR RAMRAS again expressed a preference for having a violation
of the bill be only a secondary offense.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG predicted that it would be difficult to
make a violation a secondary offense.
6:35:07 PM
TABITHA WILLIAMS, Intern, Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alaska
State Legislature, in response to comments, said she personally
would prefer a violation to be a secondary offense.
6:36:04 PM
KURTIS SMITH, P.E., State Traffic & Safety Engineer, Traffic and
Safety, Design & Construction Standards Section, Division of
Statewide Design & Engineering Services, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), relayed that the
DOT&PF strongly supports HB 181, believing that making vehicles
more conspicuous would be a cost effective way of saving lives,
and estimating that it could reduce head-on collisions and other
accidents and save a minimum of one life per year as well as
eliminate many non-fatal crashes. Signage would be necessary at
major points of entry into the state - airports, borders, marine
terminals, et cetera - in order to notify drivers that Alaska
law requires them to drive with their headlights on at all
times. He clarified that the DOT&PF estimates that about 40
signs would be needed, at a cost of about $135,000, and that it
has already identified about $40,000 in AHSO funding for such
signage. Should HB 181 be adopted, before it takes effect, the
DOT&PF would fund a public education campaign to notify drivers
of the new law.
6:37:36 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that the committee would be holding HB 181
over.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed favor with the concept of the
bill, noting that as a youngster, she used to drive back and
forth on the Seward highway a lot, and back then, there were no
passing lanes so drivers would have to pull out into the
oncoming traffic lane in order to pass slower-moving vehicles,
and many times when she did so - thinking that the other lane
was clear - she just didn't see an oncoming car, especially when
it was gray and the day was overcast. House Bill 181, she
surmised, addresses some real safety concerns regardless that
the issue of primary offense versus secondary offense still
needs to be addressed, adding that she agrees with
Representative Coghill that super bright headlights can be
potentially dangerous.
CHAIR RAMRAS ventured that the bill discriminates against people
who don't have new cars, making such drivers more of a target
for law enforcement, and more prone to having dead batteries and
in turn more likely to become stranded. He indicated that he is
questioning whether the funding currently being proposed for
headlight signage couldn't be spent more effectively elsewhere.
[HB 181 was held over.]
6:42:44 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|