Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/12/1999 03:23 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 12, 1999
3:23 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative John Harris
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 87(L&C)
"An Act requiring a license to sell rental car insurance."
- MOVED CSSB 87(L&C)
HOUSE BILL NO. 136
"An Act relating to tourism and tourism marketing; eliminating the
Alaska Tourism Marketing Council; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 136(L&C)
* HOUSE BILL NO. 146
"An Act relating to civil liability for commercial recreational
activities; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 146(L&C)
HOUSE BILL NO. 158
"An Act relating to the annual report of the director of the
division of insurance and to notice of cancellation of personal
insurance."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 87
SHORT TITLE: RENTAL CAR INSURANCE
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/23/99 341 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/23/99 341 (S) L&C, JUD
3/18/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/18/99 (S) MEETING CANCELLED
3/23/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/23/99 (S) MOVED CS OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/23/99 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
3/24/99 661 (S) L&C RPT CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE
3/24/99 661 (S) DP: MACKIE, LEMAN, TIM KELLY, DONLEY;
3/24/99 661 (S) NR: HOFFMAN
3/24/99 661 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
3/29/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
3/29/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/29/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/30/99 (S) RLS AT 11:50 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/30/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/30/99 735 (S) JUD RPT 1DP 3NR (L&C) CS
3/30/99 735 (S) DP: TAYLOR; NR: TORGERSON, DONLEY,
3/30/99 735 (S) ELLIS
3/30/99 735 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED)
3/31/99 750 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/31/99
3/31/99 754 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/31/99 754 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/31/99 755 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
3/31/99 755 (S) CONSENT
3/31/99 755 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 87(L&C)
3/31/99 755 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
3/31/99 757 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/07/99 667 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/07/99 667 (H) L&C
4/12/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 136
SHORT TITLE: ABOLISH TOURISM MARKETING COUNCIL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) THERRIAULT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/12/99 438 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/12/99 438 (H) EDT, L&C, FIN
3/29/99 (H) EDT AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/29/99 (H) MINUTE(EDT)
3/29/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD SUBCMTE APPOINTED
4/06/99 (H) EDT AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 408
4/06/99 (H) <SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING>
4/09/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/09/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/09/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/09/99 712 (H) EDT REFERRAL WAIVED
4/09/99 712 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
4/12/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 146
SHORT TITLE: LIABILITY FOR COMMERCIAL REC ACTIVITIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOTT, Dyson
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/19/99 515 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/19/99 515 (H) L&C, JUD
3/31/99 642 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
4/12/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE BALASH, Legislative Secretary
to Representative Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 511
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4797
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding HB 136 fiscal
note.
GINNY FAY, Legislative Liaison
and Acting Director of the Division of Tourism
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110800
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0800
Telephone: (907) 465-2503
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on proposed amendments to Version K
committee substitute for HB 136, provided fiscal note information
for HB 136.
TINA LINDGREN, Executive Director
Alaska Visitors Association
2525 "C" Street, Number 400
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 561-5733
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on proposed amendments to Version K
committee substitute for HB 136; testified in support of HB 146.
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 430
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4766
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 136.
CHARLIE MILLER, Lobbyist
for AutoNation, Incorporated
P.O. Box 102286
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-2286
Telephone: (907) 563-2686
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented and testified in support of CSSB
87(L&C).
HOWARD CONCKLIN, Director of Government Relations
AutoNation, Incorporated
110 SE Sixth Street, 20th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: (954) 769-3173
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 87(L&C).
RICHARD McEVILY, Deputy General Counsel
The Hertz Corporation
225 Brae Boulevard
Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656
Telephone: (201) 307-2492
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 87(L&C).
JOHN FERENCE, Deputy Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110805
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805
Telephone: (907) 465-2560
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 87(L&C).
KELLY SULLIVAN, Legislative Secretary
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 146 on behalf of the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 146.
MIKE WINDRED, Vice President, Marketing and Sales
Alaska Travel Adventures
9085 Glacier Highway, Suite 301
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-0052
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 146.
STEVE BEHNKE, Executive Director
Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association
P.O. Box 22827
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-3038
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 146.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-37, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:23 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Sanders,
Harris, Brice and Cissna. Representatives Halcro and Murkowski
arrived at 3:24 p.m. and 4:16 p.m., respectively.
HB 136 - ABOLISH TOURISM MARKETING COUNCIL
Number 0087
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business
is HB 136, "An Act relating to tourism and tourism marketing;
eliminating the Alaska Tourism Marketing Council; and providing for
an effective date." Reopening the public hearing on HB 136, the
chairman questioned whether Dave Carp via teleconference in
Anchorage or Steve Behnke in Juneau wished to testify. Both
gentlemen indicated they preferred to listen only. There being no
one else interested in testifying, the public hearing on HB 136 was
closed. Chairman Rokeberg commented some amendments new to the
chairman have been circulated, as well as the new fiscal note.
Number 0259
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 3:26 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 3:27 p.m.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG welcomed Representative Beth Kerttula to the
committee and also recognized the presence of Joe Balash, staff to
the bill sponsor, Representative Therriault.
Number 0287
JOE BALASH, Legislative Secretary to Representative Therriault,
Alaska State Legislature, identified himself to the committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Representative Cissna would like the
chairman to mark the amendments for discussion. The chairman
proceeded to mark the amendments as follows: 1-LS0616\K.1, Cook,
4/12/99 as Amendment 1; 1-LS0616\K.2, Cook, 4/12/99 as Amendment 2;
1-LS0616\K.3, Cook, 4/12/99 as Amendment 3.
Number 0342
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled
1-LS0616\K.1, Cook, 4/12/99, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 23, following "Purposes":
Insert "; report"
Page 3, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 44.33.119 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) The Department of Commerce and Economic
Development shall conduct an evaluation of the
performance of each contract entered into under AS
44.33.125(a) and determine the extent to which the
marketing campaign accomplished the purposes set
out in (a) of this section and the extent to which
the marketing campaign benefited the economy of the
state as a whole. On or before March 1 of each
fiscal year, the department shall submit to the
legislature and the governor a copy of its
evaluation, together with a recommendation
regarding the amount of state funding that should
be provided for a contract under AS 44.33.125(a)
for the next fiscal year."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 7, line 21:
Delete "Sections 1 - 7, 9, and 10"
Insert "Sections 1 - 8, 10, and 11"
Page 7. line 22:
Delete "Section 8"
Insert "Section 9"
[punctuation per provided amendment copy]
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated Amendment 1 would insert a new bill
section that would amend AS 44.33.119 by adding a new subsection.
She pointed out that the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development (DCED) would be required to evaluate the performance
under the issues discussed in Section 8, AS 44.33.125(a), on page
7 of the proposed Version K committee substitute (CS). This
addresses a number of issues that need to be covered, including
that the campaign may promote distinct segments of tourism and all
the various types of tourism the amendment should cover. While
discussing Amendment 1, Representative Cissna recognized a problem
and asked to amend the amendment. In response to the chairman's
request for explanation, Representative Cissna clarified, "What
we're talking about here is the -- determining the extent to which
the marketing campaign accomplishes the purposes set out in (a) of
this section and the extent to which the marketing campaign
benefitted the economy of the state as a whole. Thinking in terms
of the fact that ... there needs to be a benefit to the entire
industry and since it -- as testimony has been brought up, there
are many, many factions in the tourism industry and we need to ...
arrive at a balance so that the people of the state and the
communities of the state are truly served ... in this venture."
Representative Cissna identified the word "campaign" as the
amendment's problem, referring to Amendment 1's language,
"determine the extent to which the marketing campaign
accomplished". She indicated "campaign" is a non-word in statutory
language and should be replaced with "contract" which does have
statutory definitions. In response to the chairman's comment,
Representative Cissna made a motion to adopt an amendment to
Amendment 1 to replace "campaign" with "contract" in all instances
"campaign" appears in subsection (b) of Amendment 1.
Number 0620
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected. He pointed out that the legal
department had thoroughly gone through this. The House Special
Committee on Economic Development and Tourism (EDT) subcommittee
had examined this because of the consistency issue. Representative
Halcro indicated the language had been discussed with Tamara Cook,
Director, Division of Legal and Research Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency. Representative Halcro thought Ms. Cook would have
brought forth concerns if there was a problem. He understood that
all the inconsistencies had been addressed.
Number 0686
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 3:33 p.m. at
Representative Cissna's request. The committee came back to order
at 3:35 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA withdrew the amendment to Amendment 1. She
pointed out that this is the state's money and, as such, it is
inappropriate for the money to be allocated without an evaluation
mechanism. Amendment 1 spoke to that.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Fay and Ms. Lindgren both
speak to this issue.
Number 0737
GINNY FAY, Legislative Liaison and Acting Director of the Division
of Tourism, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came
forward. Ms. Fay thought she understood the intent of Amendment 1,
but indicated she felt the department's request for funds through
the budget process each year provided some mechanism. She
indicated the department would basically only ask for something it
thinks is being used well. Ms. Fay pointed out that Amendment 1
would require a report of what has happened in a fiscal year (FY)
before that fiscal year is complete. She was unsure as to whether
this would be necessary to ensure that evaluation is occurring.
Ms. Fay stated, "We get grilled by OMB [Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor] and by you all [the Alaska State
Legislature] every single year, and then we'll be grilling them
[the qualified trade association?], so ... I think this process
will be ongoing without this, and I am just concerned about the
time frames - whether or not we could effectively accomplish what
you're doing with this additional step."
Number 0836
TINA LINDGREN, Executive Director, Alaska Visitors Association
(AVA), came forward. While appreciating the intent of the
amendment, she believes the issue is already covered under the
language on page 3, line 30 [Section 5, subsection (b)(7)], "(b)
The Alaska division of tourism shall ... (7) administer and
evaluate the tourism marketing contract program under AS
44.33.125;". Ms. Lindgren also agreed with Ms. Fay that this is
being done before the fiscal year and through the budget process.
In Ms. Lindgren's opinion, more funds could always be used.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to withdraw Amendment 1.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Amendment 1 had been removed.
Number 0968
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled
1-LS0616\K.2, Cook, 4/12/99, which read as follows:
Page 4, line 18, following "department.":
Insert "The department may approve the marketing
campaign plan only if it determines that the campaign
fulfills each of the purposes listed in AS 44.33.119."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA explained the purpose of Amendment 2 is that
the guiding principle of the contract promotes tourism in Alaska.
This would avoid ambiguity with regard to the intent of the bill.
Number 1039
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated this is a good piece of legislation.
Under AS 44.33.119 there are seven clear goals that the QTA
[qualified trade association] will have. He questioned what would
happen if tourism decreased through no fault of the QTA.
Representative Halcro felt Amendment 2 was unnecessary.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Fay and Ms. Lindgren comment
on Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated that Amendment 2 might be redundant
to the statute in general. If the purposes of the contract are
under AS 44.33.119, and with AS 44.33.125(a), which states that
before the contract is executed the plan must be approved by the
department, it seems that the department may only approve the
marketing plan if it determines the campaign fulfills each of AS
44.33.119's listed purposes. Amendment 2 would seem to restate
what is already stated.
Number 1179
MS. FAY believes that AS 44.33.119 states the purpose of the
Division of Tourism. That does not explicitly pertain to purposes
of the contract. Ms. Fay indicated that Amendment 2 would assert
that the department cannot approve the developed plan unless the
plan fulfills the purposes section. Ms. Fay expressed concern with
the language, "each of the purposes", on line 2 of Amendment 2
because there could be situations in which the contract could not
fulfill all the purposes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented it was clear to him that Amendment 2
would require each purpose of the specifying purposes clause to be
met, therefore obligating the entire contract. The chairman noted,
"If it didn't meet all those purposes and if you have restricted
money, you couldn't even do it." He asked if Representative Cissna
wished to speak to the objections.
Number 1282
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA emphasized one of the problems is having
bills moved through the committee process in a hurried manner. She
believes that it would be an appropriate amendment to Amendment 2
if the language was changed to "fulfills purposes listed in AS
44.33.119".
MS. LINDGREN noted that the DCED has a broader goal than the
marketing contract. The broader goal of the department will
decide, in part, what goals the marketing council will fulfill.
Additionally, the department does planning, advocacy, and has other
roles. These purposes are for the Division of Tourism; Ms.
Lindgren believes it ties the division's hands if the marketing
part is required to fulfill the identical goals. Ms. Lindgren
thinks the department can better identify which goals should be
fulfilled and which will be done by advocacy and planning.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was further discussion of
Amendment 2.
Number 1370
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated there is concern that a private
organization will operate very differently than the state, and does
not have the same requirement to serve all the people of the state.
She further indicated this duty of the state to serve all Alaskans
and the use of state money are the reasons for the department's
involvement. As long as state money is being utilized, the
department has the special role of ensuring there is uniformity to
the degree possible in terms of serving the people - the tourism
industries of the state. Representative Cissna agreed that there
would be some marketing programs which would want to head towards
one market because it is very diverse. She indicated, however, the
importance that this is an entirely new program with a group not
yet in existence. Representative Cissna noted that this is an
effort to clarify the new entity as much as possible. In response
to the chairman's comment regarding procedure, Representative
Cissna moved that Amendment 2 be amended by deleting "each of the".
Amendment 2 as amended would read as follows:
Page 4, line 18, following "department.":
Insert "The department may approve the marketing
campaign plan only if it determines that the campaign
fulfills purposes listed in AS 44.33.119."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected to the amendment to Amendment 2.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rokeberg, Sanders,
Harris, Brice and Cissna voted in favor of the amendment to
Amendment 2. Representative Halcro voted against it.
Representative Murkowski was not present. Therefore, the amendment
to Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-1.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified that Amendment 2 as amended was now
before the committee.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Cissna voted in favor
of Amendment 2 as amended. Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Sanders, Harris and Brice voted against it. Representative
Murkowski was not present. Therefore, Amendment 2 as amended
failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-5.
Number 1567
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 3,
1-LS0616\K.3, Cook, 4/12/99 which read as follows:
Page 4, line 6:
Delete "campaign"
Insert "contract"
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected to the motion to adopt Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated the change is necessary because
"campaign" is more ambiguous than "contract" in that sentence.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he wished to hear from Ms. Fay of the
department and Ms. Lindgren.
MS. FAY responded that the department could not support Amendment
3 since this is a critical component of the DCED's agreement with
the AVA.
MS. LINDGREN agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO suggested that the language not be changed,
indicating it had been a point of contention which was resolved by
the acceptance of "campaign".
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Cissna voted in favor
of adopting Amendment 3. Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Sanders, Harris and Brice voted against it. Representative
Murkowski was not present. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed to be
adopted by a vote of 1-5.
Number 1684
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 3:53 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 3:54 p.m.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Ms. Fay had been speaking about the fiscal
note.
Number 1689
MS. FAY explained that the fiscal note eliminates the three ATMC
[Alaska Tourism Marketing Council] positions and transfers the
personal services and travel to the contractual line. What is now
program receipts of the ATMC is moved off-budget because they will
no longer be collecting the industry match.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG inquired as to how the $20,000 was placed in FY
2000.
MS. FAY clarified that the $20,000 is the feasibility study
required by the Division of Personnel, Department of
Administration. There would be a net loss of six positions: three
in the Division of Tourism's Tourism Inquiries Section and three in
the ATMC. Ms. Fay indicated this work would be contracted out.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the deletions are in the budget.
MS. FAY explained that the deletions would be a result of HB 136.
Article 13 of the "GGU Agreement" requires an analysis before a
state position can be contracted out. This cost would be covered
by the $20,000 and the analysis would be done in the year 2000
prior to the effective date.
Number 1755
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there are no other decrements because
those have been deleted in the budget document itself and are not
part of this fiscal note. The chairman indicated it was his
understanding from the bill sponsor, Representative Therriault
[Co-Chairman, House Finance Standing Committee], that money was
being added back into the fiscal note for this program.
MR. BALASH clarified the fiscal note does not reflect that aspect
of the budget process.
MS. FAY pointed out that a fiscal note is prepared according to the
specifications of the bill without accounting for what is occurring
in another area.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed the committee had an understanding of
this. He indicated he had had communication from the bill sponsor,
and referred to Mr. Balash.
MR. BALASH stated that both the division and the ATMC would be
funded through the fiscal note. Their entire budget would be
reflected in a later fiscal note.
Number 1812
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, a
handwritten amendment, which read as follows:
page 3, Line 30
(7) administer and evaluate the tourism marketing
contract program under AS 44.33.125, and forward the
evaluation to the legislature;
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA explained the amendment would add the
language ", and forward the evaluation to the legislature" to
subsection (7) on page 3, line 30. The purpose would be to further
expand the evaluation process.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked why the legislature would want this
evaluation outside of the purview in the budget and this committee.
Many items are contracted out in Alaska, and Representative Brice
does not think the evaluation of those contracts are sent to the
legislature.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the legislature had passed a bill a few
years ago which restricted the number of reports issued to the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated the legislature chooses which reports
it wants to receive. His question is: Why would the legislature
want to justify having this evaluation sent to it?
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated that bringing a private entity into
a state program is unusual and it is reasonable to provide as much
oversight as possible initially. This will obviously grow away
from the state and the state's management. Representative Cissna
mentioned the legislative audit process ["budget and audit report"]
and indicated she believes it is reasonable to require the
evaluation to be forwarded to the legislature, at least
temporarily.
Number 1944
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA informed the committee that the EDT
subcommittee did not have much of an opportunity to work on HB 136.
She emphasized that reporting the evaluation to the legislature is
one of the smallest things that could be required. There will be
a new contract, without any contract provisions in legislation.
She indicated the need to see an evaluation, at least after the
first couple of years.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said this seems redundant because if the
Division of Tourism is already going to evaluate the program, the
legislature has access to that information. He believes that if
there is a concern someone would notify the legislature or the
legislature would make the effort to find out itself.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he appreciates and understands the
intent of the amendment. However, DCED will still be very involved
with requesting money from the legislature each year and justifying
how that money is spent. Representative Halcro expressed full
confidence that Ms. Fay would bring forth any problems with the
QTA. He noted this is an agreement that was worked out between the
department and the industry. Additionally, if there is a small
segment of the tourism market which is not being addressed,
Representative Halcro thinks this will be brought to attention of
specific legislators, the department or the QTA. He indicated he
feels Amendment 4 is unnecessary because there are ample checks and
balances, including the yearly request for funding.
Number 2038
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated the state is facing serious
economic problems and emphasized that tourism is Alaska's second
largest employer. She acknowledged Representative Halcro's
significant work on the legislation but she noted the legislation
never came back to the House Special Committee on Economic
Development and Tourism. Representative Cissna commented the
current committee had a short amount of time on Friday [April 9,
1999] to review the legislation; the fiscal note has just been
received. Representative Cissna recognized that the legislature
could review the reports at any time but she indicated problems
might be missed. She commented this is a reasonable request with
such a large project.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna voted in favor
of the adoption of Amendment 4. Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Sanders, Harris and Brice voted against the adoption of Amendment
4. Representative Murkowski was not present. Therefore, Amendment
4 failed by a vote of 1-5.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no further amendments or
discussion on HB 136.
Number 2145
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move CSHB 136, Version K,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note dated 4/12/99.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rokeberg, Brice,
Sanders, Harris and Halcro voted in favor of moving CSHB 136.
Representative Cissna voted against moving CSHB 136.
Representative Murkowski was not present. Therefore, CSHB 136(L&C)
moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee by a
vote of 5-1.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out he had received no calls over the
weekend from anyone regarding HB 136. He noted he had been happy
to hold the legislation at Representative Kerttula's request. The
chairman indicated he appreciated the work on the legislation.
Number 2226
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA thanked the chairman for his comment. She
recalled the committee had met until about 6:30 p.m. on Friday,
after Legislative Legal Services had left for the weekend.
Amendments were in to Legislative Legal Services by 8:00 a.m. this
morning.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted she has received contacts in
opposition to HB 136 that she will forward to the House Finance
Standing Committee.
[CSHB 136(L&C) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE]
Number 2255
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease 4:07 p.m. The committee came
back to order at 4:09 p.m. [MANUAL TAPE CHANGE TO SIDE B DURING
AT-EASE]
TAPE 99-37, SIDE B
CSSB 87(L&C) - RENTAL CAR INSURANCE
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is CSSB 87(L&C), "An Act requiring a license to sell rental car
insurance."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO declared a potential conflict of interest.
He stated his company does not have a position on this legislation,
nor did it have anything to do with the bill's introduction. He
had not even known of the legislation's existence until Mr. Miller
informed him it would be introduced.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned whether Representative Halcro wished
to be excused.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO answered he would allow the committee to
decide.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee would not excuse
Representative Halcro but appreciated the conflicts being stated
for the record.
Number 0044
CHARLIE MILLER, Lobbyist for AutoNation, Incorporated, came forward
to testify in support of the legislation. The company he
represents, along with The Hertz Corporation, has been negotiating
with the Division of Insurance on this language and requested the
legislation's introduction by the Senate Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee. Senate Bill 87 provides for a limited
licensure for rental car insurance transactions. The transactions
are incidental to the auto rental, the product is not sold on the
open market; it is not normal insurance in that sense and fits very
well into the limited licensure statute. The industry was prompted
by regulatory action and litigation in other markets to approach
Alaska's Division of Insurance to discuss a solution for a
potential problem. This was done over the past interim, and this
language is the result of those discussions. The Division of
Insurance opted for this type of fix; some states exempt from
licensure, and Mr. Miller believes there are other options as well.
He indicated CSSB 87(L&C) adds a new subsection, subsection (7), to
AS 21.27.150, limited licenses; subsection (7) provides the
restrictions regarding the sale of these rental car insurance
products. Mr. Miller understands the Division of Insurance is in
favor of the legislation, and he is unaware of anyone in
opposition.
Number 0149
HOWARD CONCKLIN, Director of Government Relations, AutoNation,
Incorporated, testified next off-network via teleconference from
Florida. He noted AutoNation, Incorporated owns Alamo Rent A Car
[Alamo Rent-A-Car, Incorporated] and National Car Rental [National
Car Rental System, Incorporated], and that the company name had
recently changed from Republic Industries, Incorporated. Mr.
Concklin commented this legislation is typical of their efforts
around the country to clarify general insurance laws to either
provide an exemption or limited license. Agreeing with Mr.
Miller's summarization, Mr. Concklin related that one of these
products has been sold for 10 years, the others up to 20 years,
throughout the country.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned that AutoNation is involved in the
national marketing of used automobiles.
MR. CONCKLIN answered in the affirmative. They have AutoNation USA
used car megastores and they are the largest operator of new car
dealers in the world with approximately 300 dealers nationwide.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if this is insurance offered to a
consumer at a rental car counter.
MR. CONCKLIN agreed; it is only offered incidental to a car rental,
it could not be purchased as a stand-alone product. The insurance
is typically bought for the period of the car rental. Mr. Concklin
indicated the products are purely optional and some, especially the
liability insurance, may be sought by consumers who aren't covered
by their own personal policies. Mr. Concklin noted foreign
visitors are normally the higher incidence takers of these
products.
Number 0248
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned that there was nothing inconsistent in
the legislation with a person having his/her own coverage,
particularly coverage for uninsured or underinsured motorists.
MR. CONCKLIN agreed; there is nothing to prevent it, and nothing
requiring a person to take the rental car coverage. He possibly
indicated a person's own policy might not cover a rental situation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "There's a number of credit card
companies, particularly the premium cards, that indicate that they
will cover the differential, and that [it is] therefore not
necessary to purchase any insurance coverage from a rental car
agency. Is there anything..."
MR. CONCKLIN answered that might be related to what the industry
terms collision damage waiver or loss damage waiver, which is for
property damage to the vehicle alone. Basically, courts around the
country have declared that product is not insurance. This
legislation would not cover collision or loss damage waiver -
damage to the car. Mr. Concklin confirmed credit card companies do
offer this coverage.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he is somewhat curious about that
because he always refuses it.
MR. CONCKLIN stated he knows of no credit card that offers
liability insurance to third parties in a rental situation.
Number 0333
RICHARD McEVILY, Deputy General Counsel, The Hertz Corporation,
testified next off-network via teleconference from New York in
support of the legislation. They believe the bill will clarify
some situations that have occurred in other states.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned the necessity of this legislation in
Alaska.
MR. McEVILY indicated each state's insurance department has been
asked whether a license is believed to be necessary, and if so, the
question of limited licensure or exemption law has been posed.
This occurred after a situation arose in Texas. Mr. McEvily
understands Alaska's Division of Insurance has opted for the
limited license language as opposed to exemption.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the fee the companies might pay.
MR. McEVILY confirmed they are assuming it would be a modest fee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. McEvily to comment on what the credit
card companies advise their clients, and, as a result, what Hertz
advises its clients.
MR. McEVILY echoed Mr. Concklin's comments: he is not aware of
credit card companies providing third party liability insurance.
What most of the credit card companies do is, as he understands,
provide secondary coverage for loss damage waiver, although it
might be primary in some situations. In essence, if a person does
not have his/her own insurance that applies to physical damage to
a rental car, the credit card company will step in. The
legislation does not address that; it addresses liability and some
other products.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed from Mr. McEvily there is nothing in
the legislation affecting that particular claim.
MR. McEVILY agreed, reiterating that courts around the country have
determined loss damage waiver is not insurance.
Number 0474
JOHN FERENCE, Deputy Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development, came forward to testify in
support of the legislation. The Division of Insurance feels this
measure represents a reasonable compromise between the need to
protect the public from unqualified or deceptive insurance sales
and the operational realities of rental car companies.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to subsection (7)(C)(vi), "(vi) other
insurance as may be authorized by regulation by the director;". He
questioned the broadness of the language on this limited licensure
legislation, although noting he doubted dental coverage would be
offered with the collision and liability.
MR. FERENCE referred to the types of insurance sales allowed by the
bill [(7)(C)(i)-(v)], commenting that comprehensive and collision
insurance was not included at the request of Mr. Miller's clients.
The Division of Insurance felt it was important to provide a
facility for doing so in the future without the need to seek new
legislation. In addition, it allows the facility if the state
moves toward a no-fault option or similar in the near future. Mr.
Ference stated, "It allows us to amend the scope of what the
license authorizes without having to seek new legislation."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE surmised rental car agents have been renting
vehicles and selling this insurance for a number of years; he
questioned the current concern about the inappropriate selling or
offering of that insurance.
MR. FERENCE answered it is the division's opinion that rental car
agents and personnel who have been selling insurance associated
with rental cars have always been required to be licensed.
However, Mr. Ference indicated it has come to the division's
attention its existing standard license process, based on an
insurance agent or broker selling a broad range of coverages with
a high degree of occupational stability, does not fit the rental
car environment.
Number 0630
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented on the marketing possibilities of
Representative Brice's idea. Representative Halcro asked Mr.
Ference about subsection (D), "(D) notifies the director in
writing, within 30 days of employment, of the name, date of birth,
social security number, location of employment, and home address of
an employee authorized by the licensee to transact insurance on the
licensee's behalf; and". He assumes this applies to rental agents
and managers who are selling the coverage at the counter.
MR. FERENCE answered the reporting is intended to respond to
employees, and, as the rental car companies put new counter people
on staff, the division's standard agency licensing requires that
these employees be licensed before engaging in any sales activity.
This change would allow the employees to begin selling the products
before the reporting is made to the division.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned that a licensing fee would not be
required as the reporting occurred, or that individual licenses
would not be necessary.
MR. FERENCE confirmed individual licenses would not be required;
however, the legislation contains provisions that would allow the
division to stop them from continuing if it turns out there is
something wrong.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned the division's plans to notify the
several small operators if this legislation becomes law.
MR. FERENCE indicated the division has anticipated this would be
necessary. The division would accomplish this through a mailer.
Number 0717
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about notification in subsection (D) if an
employee leaves employment. The chairman questioned if the
division would have a never-ending list.
MR. FERENCE answered the division would have an ever-growing list,
but, given that the employee "has not failed" when he/she was
hired, there is no downside to non-removal. Mr. Ference commented
the person would "just fade from the system."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated, then, there would be no electronic
file storage problem and this avoids the need for two
notifications.
MR. FERENCE answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what the division's role is under this
legislation if an employee is selling car rental insurance
inappropriately.
MR. FERENCE indicated the division would be able to revoke the
employee's authority to sell the products. The division would also
be able to take sanctions against the license holder.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the fee schedule and questioned
whether the division has the authority in this legislation or this
section to write the necessary regulations.
Number 0802
MR. FERENCE replied the division's existing regulatory authority
allows it to establish a fee schedule for licenses. The division
currently anticipates a fee schedule where the fees would be
generically similar to those for existing licenses. Mr. Ference
indicated this is in the context of one license issued per rental
car agency. In response to the chairman's question about the fee
amount, Mr. Ference responded he believes the standard new license
fee is $125. He confirmed that would be for an ordinary agent's
license.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented the division would be checking with
other states before it sets the fee schedule.
MR. FERENCE noted the division has existing fee schedules for
agents and it was not contemplating creating a special fee schedule
for rental car agencies.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned that there had been testimony
collision insurance would not be available.
MR. FERENCE replied the industry testified it views the collision
damage waiver as something other than insurance. The industry
requested that, in granting the scope of this license, their
employees not be permitted to sell collision insurance. Mr.
Ference noted the reason is because they are already selling, or
intend to sell, collision damage waiver.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG sought clarification.
Number 0933
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented the industry is currently selling
collision damage waiver or, as it is called now, liability damage
waiver. It is not classified as insurance; it is a waiver. For a
fee per day, a person is waiving responsibility for any and all
damages in the event of a collision or upset. If a person declines
the waiver, he/she is responsible for the damages. Representative
Halcro emphasized it is just a waiver and has nothing to do with
liability.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned, then, if he buys the waiver from
Representative Halcro's company and damages the vehicle, he does
not have to pay for it.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO confirmed that is correct. He used his
company as an example, noting it does not have comprehensive
coverage. If the chairman rents a car, accepts the liability
damage waiver for $9.95 per day, and totals the vehicle, the
company's coverage would pay for the person or object the chairman
hit, but not for the vehicle. Representative Halcro said, "If you
decline that, then you're liable, not only for mine, but yours."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, "And I would look to my own auto insurance
(indisc.) recover that ...." The chairman indicated, then, his
credit card coverage would not extend that far.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented many people are under the
assumption, when using their credit card for coverage, that their
card will pick up the bill if they are in an accident. In fact,
the person's insurance would be primary and the credit card's would
be secondary.
Number 0994
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG closed the public hearing on SB 87 after
confirming there were no other witnesses.
Number 1028
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move SB 87 to the next
committee of referral with attached fiscal notes and individual
recommendations. There being no objection, CSSB 87(L&C) moved out
of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
Number 1046
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 4:33 p.m. The committee
came back to order at 4:36 p.m.
HB 146 - LIABILITY FOR COMMERCIAL REC ACTIVITIES
Number 1050
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is HB 146, "An Act relating to civil liability for commercial
recreational activities; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1075
KELLY SULLIVAN, Legislative Secretary to Representative Pete Kott,
Alaska State Legislature, came forward to present HB 146 on behalf
of the sponsor. Ms. Sullivan noted this is pretty straightforward:
Alaska has its great outdoor experiences like big game hunting,
sportfishing, kayaking and river rafting. There are a lot
businesses in Alaska that provide these experiences to the public.
Ms. Sullivan mentioned the tourism industry. House Bill 146 would
establish the responsibilities of the commercial recreational
businesses and the responsibilities of the participants in those
activities. The legislation addresses specific guidelines
operators and participants would follow in order to minimize the
possibility of accidents. Should an accident occur, the
legislation provides which party would be held liable. Current
legal uncertainties result in high liability insurance costs that
hurt a lot of Alaskan businesses, especially smaller ones. The
intent of this legislation is the avoidance of unfair and
unreasonable claims which make it difficult [for businesses] to
provide these recreational activities. The desire is to encourage
the continued availability of these recreational businesses. Ms.
Sullivan noted there are a few witnesses to provide testimony.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Representative Kott, the bill sponsor,
had joined the committee at the table.
Number 1188
MIKE WINDRED, Vice President, Marketing and Sales, Alaska Travel
Adventures, came forward to testify in support of HB 146. He
informed the committee that his company has several operations
throughout the state. Mr. Windred thanked the sponsor for bringing
the legislation forward, noting the bill has passed the House three
times in recent years but has been held up in the Senate for
various reasons. Mr. Windred believes one of the basic ideas
behind this legislation is that participants in many of these
activities assume some inherent risk when purchasing that
recreational activity. However, he does not believe the
legislation would absolve any of the operators from negligent
actions. The bill establishes some basic performance standards the
operators must adhere to that are not currently specified by Alaska
Statute. The legislation would affect a business like Alaska
Travel Adventures by requiring it to provide good training to its
employees, maintain its equipment, and provide a good explanation
of the inherent risks to participants. This is not currently set
out and should increase the level of service within the industry.
Number 1262
MR. WINDRED thinks the primary benefit to his business would be a
reduction in the costs of what he termed "nuisance suits." Mr.
Windred described that these nuisance suits would be lawsuits for
damages specifically at the level of a company's insurance
deductible - $10,000 for a business like his - so that the
insurance company would not be involved, at least for "the first
hit." He indicated these suits result in significant costs over
the long term because it is less expensive for the business to
settle them than risk lengthy litigation. Mr. Windred thinks the
legislation gives his business some standing to respond that the
participants had some amount of responsibility in undertaking the
activity. He commented that at least the legislation would give
the businesses a level playing field to begin with and he feels
certain it would reduce the money they pay out-of-pocket each year
for these nuisance suits. Mr. Windred described the example of a
nature hiker stumbling on a rock on the beach, cutting his/her
forehead. Mr. Windred's company would provide first aid, take the
person to the hospital, make sure everything checked out okay, and
six months later might be sued by that person for $10,000 to
$20,000 because the person's vacation to Alaska had been ruined or
for some other reason. He noted, "At the point that we've done
everything in our ability to ... make that right in terms of paying
a medical bill or treating them with first aid, et cetera. That
would be a lawsuit that I would certainly think ... probably
wouldn't be very valid, but at that amount, would be very difficult
for us to fight legally."
Number 1394
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted Mr. Windred's testimony that this
legislation would not preclude lawsuits for negligence on the part
of the tour company or operator. She noted the legislation does
define some areas of responsibility for operators, but she
expressed some doubt it covered, for example, a leaky raft.
Someone put into that type of situation by an operator should be
able to sue.
MR. WINDRED agreed someone in that situation should be able to sue
and indicated he thought that would be covered in the legislation
by the operator's responsibility to maintain its equipment. He
stated, "And in reality, that's probably almost more harmful to the
operator the way this bill is written, which is a good thing in the
industry, ... it'll ensure that as an operator, I don't send a
faulty piece of equipment out on tour."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to the language, "explain to a
participant", on page 2, line 23, under "Responsibilities of
operators of commercial recreational activities.". He noted an
example of a white water rafting situation where the risks were
explained to the participants but someone was hurt and denied that
he/she had been informed. Representative Halcro said his concern
is with having some kind of a written disclosure. It does not look
like the legislation provides for that.
Number 1492
MR. WINDRED related participants in his company's river rafting
sign a sheet before the activity which basically says the
participant understands the safety precautions. These precautions
and inherent risks are gone through verbally. If the person
chooses not to sign that paper, or does not want to sign off on the
risks, at that point he/she has the opportunity to return to town
and not participate in the activity. Mr. Windred thinks if there
was no documentation, it would be more difficult for the operator
to win in that case.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO thinks some kind of written agreement would
probably be important in this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted she did not see anything in the
legislation regarding some kind of an assessment the operator might
need to perform when, for example a participant is intoxicated and
should not be allowed to engage in the activity. She questioned if
that is something that should ever be addressed in something like
this.
MR. WINDRED answered he thinks that would definitely be a gray area
and is probably a battle that would occur in court. He indicated
it would certainly behoove such an operator to inform a person the
operator feels the person is not prepared to take the inherent risk
or is a safety problem. Mr. Windred further indicated he thinks
there is some responsibility on the part of the participant to
evaluate his/her own fitness level for the activity.
Number 1677
STEVE BEHNKE, Executive Director, Alaska Wilderness Recreation and
Tourism Association (AWRTA), came forward to testify in support of
HB 146. Mr. Behnke noted his organization represents a couple
hundred of the types of companies Mr. Windred spoke about. AWRTA
members feel this kind of legislation is necessary to protect small
businesses in this arena. The organization's members depend on
providing experiences that have inherent risks. The kinds of
measures proposed by the legislation that help encourage safer
operations are major improvements over the current situation. Mr.
Behnke said it seems like a balanced approach to protect the
interests of AWRTA's members while also protecting the interests of
the participants.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out the legislation limits
recreational activity to outdoor activity. She asked if there is
any specific reason for this, commenting she has done great damage
with a bowling ball. She noted the question might be best
addressed to the sponsor.
MR. BEHNKE responded he is the wrong person to ask because his
organization's members are all [outdoor] outfitters and operators
providing activities with obvious inherent risks. He said most
operators do currently require some of the kinds of steps in the
legislation, but it would apply to a broader range of companies and
help encourage them to be safer and more responsible operators.
Number 1817
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE mentioned that indoor climbing walls are
increasing in popularity, noting there are opportunities to perform
these kinds of formerly outdoor activities inside.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented the committee seems to have a question
about the limitation on outdoor activities vis-a-vis other rather
dangerous indoor pursuits. He asked if there is a reason for the
limitation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated there was no intent to distinguish
the two, other than the fact that the visitor businesses who
primarily need this measure generally offer outdoor activities
within the category. He has no problem changing it to include
both, noting there are some climbing walls even he wouldn't attempt
to go up, given the constraints he has. Referring to bowling,
however, he noted, "If you get into establishing various types of
recreational activity and requiring each of the operator[s] to
provide some kind of documentation to be signed, then you have to
get into that whole quandary of whether or not when I go bowling
the operator there should have me sign a disclosure or some kind of
form understanding the problems and potential dangers."
Number 1989
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Representative Kott had considered
establishing a new "prudent man rule" for sports activities, noting
he is half-joking but really half-serious.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if they simply redefined recreational
activity to mean "an activity usually undertaken outdoors for the
purpose of exercise", deferring to the lawyers on the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO suggested simply the deletion of "outdoor".
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI answered if "outdoor" is deleted, this
would be "an activity for the purpose of exercise or education".
She could go to a seminar on throwing pots or grant-writing; she
does not think that is the intended direction of this definition.
Representative Murkowski thinks where the definition needs to go is
"those inherently dangerous activities", indicating there are
certain things like being on the water, ice climbing, et cetera,
that are inherently more dangerous than bowling. She indicated
that perhaps the discussion would occur in the next committee of
referral, the House Judiciary Standing Committee (Judiciary).
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG mentioned contributory negligence in the case of
fishing and being "hooked" by a fellow fisherman.
Number 2136
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO appreciates the intent of the legislation but
commented the Surgeon General's warning has been on cigarette packs
for almost 30 years and it hasn't stopped people from suing tobacco
manufacturers.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if it was Representative Kott's
intention to insert contributory negligence as a defense here.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied that it was at least some extent.
There is some inherent risk to just about any activity. Certainly,
when a person is engaging in outdoor activities in Alaska, the risk
is a little more inherent, because of Alaska's terrain, than
perhaps in some of the other states. He noted Alaska's good
tourist population, small state population, and the medium-sized
group of what he would term "mom-and-pop" commercial operators who
provide these types of environments for the state's visitors.
Representative Kott indicated he thinks these operators need some
assurance of protection from expensive lawsuits brought by people
who ignored the inherently risky nature of the activity they were
participating in.
Number 2266
TINA LINDGREN, Executive Director, Alaska Visitors Association
(AVA), came forward to testify in support of HB 146. As Mr.
Windred had said, this is legislation the AVA has supported and the
House has passed at least three times that she is aware of. It has
taken different forms because people start identifying other kinds
of recreational activities. At one time equine activities were
been included, another time skateboarding. Ms. Lindgren indicated
the number of bills on the subject is a strong case that the
legislation is needed. She emphasized a strong point of HB 146 is
that it sort of covers all of the outdoor activities. She thinks
the suggestion of including some indoor activities may be good and
perhaps this can be examined in Judiciary. Ms. Lindgren noted the
legislation is before the committee primarily at the request of
small businesses concerned about the cost of insurance and nuisance
lawsuits from people "who through their own activity have caused
some injury." She commented it is very similar to the skiing
reform bill passed several years ago. House Bill 146 has
participants agreeing to accept some level of risk and operators
agreeing that they have to provide a safe environment. Ms.
Lindgren stated AVA wholeheartedly supports the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned if this would really lower
insurance rates for the "mom-and-pops."
MS. LINDGREN replied she does not know - that is the hope. It
would be a tool companies could use. She does know that companies
currently are targeted by a lot of frivolous lawsuits from people
seeking financial gain.
Number 2471
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to subsection (1)(B) on page 2,
beginning on line 26, "(B) the skills or equipment required to
participate in the commercial recreational activity that are not
apparent to an inexperienced participant;". He stated, "'The
skills or equipment required' rather than 'the skills...'"
[TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 99-38, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE continued, "...conjunction word."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Representative Brice wished to make a
conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated he has no objection.
Number 0025
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to replace "or"
with "and". There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was
adopted. Subsection (1)(B) on page 2, beginning on line 26, as
amended by Conceptual Amendment 1, reads:
(B) the skills and equipment required to
participate in the commercial recreational activity that
are not apparent to an inexperienced participant;
Number 0050
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO offered two friendly conceptual amendments.
He moved the addition of "and condition of health" on page 2, line
13, after "act within the limits of the person' abilities".
Representative Halcro indicated he thinks a negative incident
during an activity resulting from a person's health condition would
be the responsibility of the participant, because only the
participant knows his/her condition of health. He used the example
of someone with a bad heart. Representative Halcro noted his
conceptual amendment 3 would be on page 2, line 23, after "explain
to a participant", inserting "in writing", if that is acceptable to
the sponsor. Representative Halcro said he thinks that protects
all involved, even if it is just a sign-off sheet.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee would address Amendment 2
first. The chairman expressed his approval, terming it "the fat
guy amendment." He indicated if a person is too out-of-shape to be
participating in an activity, the person should not be doing it.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted he considers it a friendly amendment and
does not object. He thinks it is contained in the bill's original
language but it is fine to add that and clarify.
Number 0166
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if there were any objections to
Conceptual Amendment 2, adding "condition of health" on page 2,
line 13. There being none, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
Subsection (2) on page 2, line 13, as amended by Conceptual
Amendment 2 reads:
(2) act within the limits of the person's abilities
and condition of health;
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved Conceptual Amendment 3, adding "in
writing" on page 2, line 23.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG objected for purposes of discussion. He asked if
the sponsor wished to comment.
Number 0201
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT answered he would defer to Ms. Lindgren since
she is probably closer to these issues. He indicated he can
potentially see some problem in a situation where a previously
unforeseen risk is being explained.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted it can be problematic.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed it could be.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he thinks it is warranted in certain
circumstances but perhaps not universally; that is his only
concern.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO withdrew Conceptual Amendment 3.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that was his only concern there. The
chairman expressed that he would actually like to see a two-tier
thing here, indicating he was referring to a differentiation
between very risky activities and those of a more sedate nature.
Number 0287
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI posed a conceptual amendment concerning
children and dogs. On page 2, subsection (4), beginning line 16,
she recommended the use of "any minors under the participant's
control" to replace "the participant's children". She noted
whenever she goes out with her children she also always has other
people's children. On page 2, subsection (4), Representative
Murkowski indicated it is also her intention to include animals
under the participant's control, like a dog, not just animals the
participant might be using, like a horse.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "Any equipment, devices, or animals the
participant is using or under the participant's control."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI spoke over, "or under the control of the
-- or animals under the control of the participant." She noted
this would include a person's dog.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to Conceptual
Amendment 4, which includes everything on page 2, lines 16 and 17.
There being none, Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted. According to
the above discussion, subsection (4) on page 2, beginning on line
16, as amended by Conceptual Amendment 4, reads:
(4) maintain control of the participant's person,
any minors under the participant's control, and any
equipment, devices, or animals the participant is using
or animals under the control of the participant;
Number 0453
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move HB 146, as amended, out
of committee with accompanying zero fiscal notes and individual
recommendations. There being no objection, CSHB 146(L&C) moved out
of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
Number 0478
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would not be hearing HB
158 that day. Work is continuing on the legislation; it will be
heard as the first item at the next committee meeting [April 14,
1999]. The chairman indicated a committee substitute would be
presented.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0536
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 5:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|