Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 17
04/25/2005 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB249 | |
| SB137 | |
| SB139 | |
| SB140 | |
| SB139 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 139 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 249 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 25, 2005
3:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Norman Rokeberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 249
"An Act relating to enhanced 911 surcharges imposed by a
municipality."
- MOVED CSHB 249(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 137
"An Act providing that an institution providing accommodations
exempt from the provisions of the Uniform Residential Landlord
and Tenant Act may evict tenants without resorting to court
proceedings under AS 09.45.060 - 09.45.160."
- HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 139(L&C)
"An Act relating to termination and oversight of boards,
commissions, and agency programs; extending the termination date
of the Board of Marital and Family Therapy; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 139(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 140(JUD)
"An Act relating to spyware and unsolicited Internet
advertising."
- MOVED CSSB 140(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 249
SHORT TITLE: ENHANCED 911 SURCHARGES & SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HAWKER
04/04/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/05 (H) CRA, L&C
04/12/05 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 3DP 2NR 1AM
04/12/05 (H) DP: CISSNA, OLSON, THOMAS;
04/12/05 (H) NR: LEDOUX, SALMON;
04/12/05 (H) AM: NEUMAN
04/12/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/12/05 (H) Moved CSHB 249(CRA) Out of Committee
04/12/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/22/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/22/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/22/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/25/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 137
SHORT TITLE: EVICTIONS FROM UNIV. STUDENT HOUSING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SEEKINS
03/08/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/05 (S) L&C, JUD
03/22/05 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/22/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/05 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/24/05 (S) L&C AT 2:00 PM BELTZ 211
03/24/05 (S) Moved SB 137 Out of Committee
03/24/05 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/29/05 (S) L&C RPT 3DP
03/29/05 (S) DP: BUNDE, DAVIS, STEVENS B
04/05/05 (S) JUD RPT 3DP 1NR
04/05/05 (S) DP: SEEKINS, THERRIAULT, HUGGINS
04/05/05 (S) NR: GUESS
04/05/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/05/05 (S) Moved SB 137 Out of Committee
04/05/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/12/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/12/05 (S) VERSION: SB 137
04/13/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/13/05 (H) L&C, JUD
04/22/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/22/05 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 4/25>
04/25/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 139
SHORT TITLE: OCCUPATIONAL BDS/AGENCIES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEG BUDGET & AUDIT
03/09/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/09/05 (S) L&C, FIN
03/31/05 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/31/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/05/05 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/05/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/05/05 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/07/05 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/07/05 (S) Moved CSSB 139(L&C) Out of Committee
04/07/05 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/08/05 (S) L&C RPT CS 5DP
SAME TITLE
04/08/05 (S) DP: BUNDE, DAVIS, ELLIS, SEEKINS,
STEVENS B
04/18/05 (S) FIN RPT CS(L&C) 4DP 1NR
04/18/05 (S) DP: GREEN, HOFFMAN, OLSON, STEDMAN
04/18/05 (S) NR: DYSON
04/18/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/18/05 (S) Moved CSSB 139(L&C) Out of Committee
04/18/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/20/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/20/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 139(L&C)
04/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/05 (H) L&C, FIN
04/25/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 140
SHORT TITLE: COMPUTERS & INTERNET
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) THERRIAULT
03/10/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/05 (S) L&C, JUD
03/22/05 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/22/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/05 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/24/05 (S) L&C AT 2:00 PM BELTZ 211
03/24/05 (S) Moved SB 140 Out of Committee
03/24/05 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/29/05 (S) L&C RPT 3DP
03/29/05 (S) DP: BUNDE, DAVIS, STEVENS B
04/07/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/08/05 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
04/08/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/13/05 (H) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/13/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/13/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/05 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 2NR
SAME TITLE
04/14/05 (S) DP: SEEKINS, HUGGINS, THERRIAULT
04/14/05 (S) NR: FRENCH, GUESS
04/14/05 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/14/05 (S) Moved CSSB 140(JUD) Out of Committee
04/14/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/19/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 140(JUD)
04/20/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/20/05 (H) L&C, JUD
04/25/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE MICHEL, Staff
to Senator Ralph Seekins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 137, on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Seekins.
MICHAEL HOSTINA, Associate General Counsel
University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information regarding the need for
SB 137.
TOM MAHER, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Legislative Budget & Audit Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 139 on behalf of the sponsor,
the Legislative Budget & Audit Committee that is chaired by
Senator Therriault.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor
Division of Legislative Audit
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of SB 139, answered
questions.
DAVID STANCLIFF, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 140 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Therriault.
BENJAMIN EDELMAN
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of SB 140, provided
information regarding spyware and similar legislation from other
states.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:45:07 PM. Representatives
Anderson, LeDoux, Lynn, Crawford, and Guttenberg were present at
the call to order.
HB 249-ENHANCED 911 SURCHARGES & SYSTEMS
3:45:52 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 249, "An Act relating to enhanced 911
surcharges imposed by a municipality."
CHAIR ANDERSON reminded the committee that he had held HB 249
upon the request of the Alaska Telephone Association. Although
there is still analysis [forthcoming], he said that he didn't
want to delay the legislation and thus wanted to move HB 249 out
of committee.
3:46:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report CSHB 249, Version 24-
LS0853\F, Cook, 4/21/05, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 249(L&C) was reported from the House Labor
and Commerce Standing Committee.
3:46:58 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON, in response to Representative Guttenberg,
explained that the committee had been waiting for the Alaska
Telephone Association's [analysis] regarding the amount of the
fee, $1.50 versus $2.00. However, he related that he has been
told that the association doesn't want to oppose [the current
fee] because it would delay the legislation. In response to
Representative Lynn, Chair Anderson said that HB 249 doesn't
have any other committee of referral. Chair Anderson indicated
that if there are any problems, the legislation could be
addressed in the House Rules Standing Committee.
SB 137-EVICTIONS FROM UNIV. STUDENT HOUSING
3:48:18 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the next order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 137, "An Act providing that an institution
providing accommodations exempt from the provisions of the
Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act may evict tenants
without resorting to court proceedings under AS 09.45.060 -
09.45.160."
JOE MICHEL, Staff to Senator Ralph Seekins, Alaska State
Legislature, informed the committee that Senator Seekins
sponsored this legislation upon the request of the University of
Alaska. The legislation stems from a few cases in which
disruptive students have used the court system to stall eviction
from a unit until a time more convenient for the student. The
infractions of these students were beyond what was allowed under
their student housing contract. Therefore, the university
needed to remove the students from the housing before their
disruptive behavior impacted other students. He explained, "The
Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ULTA) was designed
to alleviate injustices inflicted on residential renters by
unscrupulous private landlords." The State of Alaska's Act is
taken almost verbatim from the federal act. Mr. Michel
specified that the intent of SB 137 is to fix the discrepancy
between the legislative intent of the ULTA and recent lower
court decisions regarding the eviction and removal of
individuals residing in residential housing such as [dormitories
at a university].
3:50:00 PM
MR. MICHEL then highlighted AS 34.03.330, which specifies that
public service institutional entities aren't compatible with the
heightened protections designed for residential renters under
ULTA. Therefore, these larger institutions aren't in the
business of long-term residential housing and have been
exempted. For example, a hospital shouldn't be required to
obtain a court order to remove a patient who no longer needs its
services. Furthermore, a student expelled from school shouldn't
be able to insist on remaining in student housing until a court
order is obtained for his/her removal. Mr. Michel noted that he
has reviewed the university's housing policies and has
determined that it's a lengthy process of reviews and appeals
prior to eviction. The university is requesting this
legislation because going to court is costly, he related.
3:51:27 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON said that he liked the idea behind SB 137.
However, he inquired as to whether SB 137 includes sideboards so
that an individual who is treated unfairly would have an avenue
for redress.
MR. MICHEL answered that there aren't sideboards, per se.
However, the contract the individual signs contains rules and
specifications that the facility wouldn't be able to violate.
CHAIR ANDERSON surmised then that an individual could be
evicted, but if that individual feels that he/she is being
treated unfairly he/she could seek an injunctive relief or sue
the [facility] on a contract basis.
3:54:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that he liked the idea of getting
unruly students out of universities because it isn't fair for
someone to be disruptive to the point of impacting others.
However, this legislation would also include nursing homes and
thus he asked whether a [disruptive] individual with dementia
living in a nursing home could be evicted without a court order.
MR. MICHEL answered that technically, institutions [such as
nursing homes] could evict someone, but there is a contract by
which the institution must abide. Mr. Michel clarified that
this is already in statute; the problem has arisen with lower
court decisions that haven't applied it to cases involving
students living in the university dormitories.
3:55:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that he had no problem evicting a
problem student out of a university dormitory. However, he
inquired as to how those residents in a nursing home who can be
very difficult can be protected.
3:56:45 PM
MICHAEL HOSTINA, Associate General Counsel, University of Alaska
- Fairbanks (UAF), opined that there are a variety of safeguards
in place for most university students, hospital residents, and
nursing home residents. In the case of a nursing home resident,
there are specific laws as well as an ombudsman for the elderly
to help safeguard the rights of the patient. He further opined
that most nursing homes wouldn't think to resort to an eviction
process to remove a patient. The nursing home would simply
discharge the patient. However, if the patient objected, the
nursing home would have to seek injunctive relief to enforce the
contract. This proposed law wouldn't change much of that, save
that a patient wouldn't be able to claim that an eviction was
necessary. He noted that the courts could still address the
merits of any injunctive action.
MR. HOSTINA informed the committee that at UAF there have been
one or two students who have been dorm room lawyers with lots of
time on their hands. In those cases, the students have a ready
argument that the university has to [go through the eviction
process]. In a couple of cases with UAF, the courts agreed with
that argument. Mr. Hostina suspected that the university is the
major beneficiary of this legislation because the other
categories of institutions aren't likely to face the
aforementioned argument.
3:58:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to the difference between a
discharge and an eviction for a patient; either way the
individual is not residing in the facility. Representative Lynn
expressed concern that perhaps SB 137 is casting too large of a
net. Therefore, he asked if the legislation could include some
protections for the categories beyond those addressing the
university students.
3:59:12 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON urged Mr. Michel to obtain an opinion from
Legislative Legal and Research Services on Representative Lynn's
concern. However, Chair Anderson said he didn't think that
there was any need to delay the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX echoed the same discomfort with SB 137 as
did Representative Lynn. Therefore, she said she would feel
more comfortable adopting a conceptual amendment that would
eliminate the [nursing homes and hospitals] from this proposal.
4:01:01 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON related his understanding that ULTA doesn't apply
to [a private] nursing home.
4:01:35 PM
MR. HOSTINA confirmed Chair Anderson's understanding, and added
that the university, hospital, nursing homes, and prisons are
already excluded from ULTA. However, because the university
provides housing, it made for an easy argument for a student to
say that he/she must be evicted rather than merely removed from
housing. Although he reiterated that he didn't believe such an
argument would come up, he would favor addressing it with
respect to institutions beyond the university. He specified
that SB 137 is merely requesting a clarification of ULTA.
4:03:05 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON pointed out that perhaps the confusion has arisen
from the text in the sponsor statement that specifies that this
legislation would apply to nursing homes and hospitals.
Therefore, he suggested that it would be appropriate to check on
this question with Legislative Legal and Research Services.
4:03:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that ULTA doesn't apply to
[hospitals and nursing homes] under AS 34.03.330(b)(1). He
characterized the situation that SB 137 is addressing as one in
which rogue judges aren't enforcing the law.
4:04:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that this legislation is not
an amendment to ULTA, rather it's an amendment to actions
relating to real property.
MR. HOSTINA agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG further clarified that SB 137, through
its amendment to actions relating to real property, makes it
crystal clear to the courts that [the university shouldn't have
to go through an eviction process for a student].
CHAIR ANDERSON asked whether the title of the legislation is
accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "It's actually probably more
than accurate because ... they're providing the exemptions under
the Landlord/Tenant Act ... and that they can't resort to
proceedings under the real property to make the ... eviction.
They can't use a court action to recover possession."
4:06:10 PM
MR. HOSTINA, in response to Representative Rokeberg, confirmed
that [the university] used a trespass action rather than an
eviction action. He explained that the ULTA unlawful detainer
action wasn't used because those take 10-20 days to remove
someone from housing. In the case of the disruptive student,
the student had went through the university's process and the
university understood the law to mean that there was no reason
to resort to forcible entry and detainer action. Therefore, the
university understood the law to allow simple notification of a
trespass and an arrest could ensue if the student insisted on
remaining. However, the courts disagreed and insisted that the
university go through a forcible entry and detainer action.
4:06:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised then that the university wished
to remove the student sooner than under the unlawful detainer
process because the student was destructive to the population of
the dormitory.
MR. HOSTINA agreed, and added that generally these students have
been given plenty of notice regarding the need to change their
behavior. Even if the student continues to be disruptive, the
university provides yet another process such that he/she has a
right of appeal within the university if the individual believes
his/her constitutional rights have been violated. The student
can appeal to superior court. After the aforementioned, the
university doesn't want to have to go through a court process
for an eviction. Mr. Hostina agreed with Representative
Rokeberg that currently the ULTA doesn't apply in any of these
cases, this legislation merely clarifies that the forcible entry
and detainer action shouldn't be required of those institutions
for the same reasons.
4:08:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented that he is becoming more and
more confused. He expressed concern because when his father who
was living in a nursing home was diagnosed with Alzheimer, the
nursing home said that it didn't take care of Alzheimer's
patients. Therefore, Representative Crawford was told that he
would have to find another residence for his father. Upon
finding a Veterans' Administration hospital, his father had to
wait until there was an opening. Fortunately, in Louisiana his
father was protected from being evicted from the nursing home.
He asked if this legislation would provide nursing homes the
ability to evict people in the aforementioned situation if the
Alzheimer patient becomes disruptive. Representative Crawford
opined that it seems like there are two different questions. He
further opined that the committee would probably support the
legislation in relation to cases involving a disruptive
university student. However, he expressed interest in obtaining
more information on the appeals process.
CHAIR ANDERSON related his understanding that Representative
Crawford was interested in knowing who this legislation
encompasses and how it would apply in the various types of
institutions.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN suggested limiting the legislation to apply
only to student housing.
CHAIR ANDERSON related his belief that the sponsor wanted the
legislation to be more expansive than merely student housing.
4:11:03 PM
MR. MICHEL reminded the committee that SB 137 isn't changing
[Alaska's Landlord Tenant Act], the legislation merely addresses
the court decisions [that are incongruent with the Act]. He
offered to obtain information regarding the questions asked
today.
4:11:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that SB 137 changes the
civil procedures for real estate actions. He suggested that
perhaps, this legislation is too broad [as written].
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG acknowledged that the disruptive
student situations have been problematic over the years.
Therefore, Representative Guttenberg inquired as to why the
student housing contract doesn't address the ramifications of a
disruptive student in regards to his/her housing.
4:13:17 PM
MR. HOSTINA answered that it is addressed in the housing
contracts. In fact, some of the housing contracts are
terminable at will. Still, the courts have read such contracts
and the Code of Civil Procedure under Title 9 to require an
eviction to recover possession of the student housing unit.
Therefore, the university was arguably prevented from doing
anything other than going to court to recover possessions. From
that case it would seem that it doesn't matter what the
contracts include, he opined.
4:14:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested a copy of the decision in such
cases.
4:15:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD referred to the following language in
the sponsor statement, which read: "A hospital should not be
required to obtain a court order to remove a patient who no
longer needs its services." He questioned who decides when a
patient no longer needs its services. Representative Crawford
expressed the need to be sure what this legislation actually
does.
4:16:31 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that SB 137 would be held over.
SB 139-OCCUPATIONAL BDS/AGENCIES
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the next order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 139(L&C), "An Act relating to
termination and oversight of boards, commissions, and agency
programs; extending the termination date of the Board of Marital
and Family Therapy; and providing for an effective date."
TOM MAHER, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Legislative Budget
& Audit Committee, Alaska State Legislature, explained that CSSB
139(L&C) stems from recommendations contained in two reports by
the Division of Legislative Audit. Section 1 of the legislation
extends the sunset date of the Board of Marital and Family
Therapy from June 30, 2005, to June 30, 2010, as recommended by
the audit included in the committee packet. The legislation
also incorporates recommendations from the audit of the "Alaska
Sunset Process and Selected Investigative Issues". Sections 2
and 4 of this legislation clarify that for those boards that are
terminated, the transfer of authority for regulatory and
disciplinary powers to the Department of Commerce, Community, &
Economic Development (DCCED). Although DCCED has assumed the
responsibility for administering the regulated occupation after
a board has terminated, the statutes do not clearly provide the
department the authority to do so. Mr. Maher expressed the hope
that this change will address the uncertainty.
MR. MAHER continued by pointing out that Sections 3 and 5 change
the standard sunset period for occupational boards in AS
08.03.020(c) and nonoccupational boards in AS 44.66.010(c) from
"not to exceed fours years" to "not to exceed eight years".
Increasing the standard sunset period allows for better use of
audit staff, committee time, and makes the sunset process less
consuming for boards and regulatory agencies. Mr. Maher
highlighted that since Alaska's sunset process has matured, most
of the sunset reviews are less about eliminating boards and
commissions and more about operational performance. In fact, 12
states have either repealed or suspended their sunset process.
The most common standard is for an extension of 10 years,
although Alaska and three other states have maintained a four-
year extension standard. He noted that the legislature will
still be able to set whatever time limit it deems appropriate,
regardless of this statutory change.
MR. MAHER specified that to focus on operational performance,
this legislation requires specific analysis of efficiency
effectiveness and the avoidance of duplication of functions
during the sunset review. In Section 6 two criteria that must
be considered during the course of the sunset review by the
auditors is added to statute. "First, the extent to which the
board, commission, or agency has effectively attained its
objectives and the efficiency with which it has operated; and
second, the extent to which the board, commission, or agency
duplicates the activities of another governmental agency or the
private sector," he said. Therefore, expanding the criteria
assures that auditors will measure the efficiency and
effectiveness of the entities under review. He informed the
committee that the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee
approved an amendment offered by the administration, which
inserted the language "all statutory authority of the board is
transferred to the department" in Section 2. Furthermore,
Section 4, which further defines the transition of board
regulation when a board is terminated, was added. He then noted
that there is one fiscal note from the Division of Occupational
Licensing and explained: "passage of this legislation will
incur no additional cost, the outlying years of the fiscal note
merely show the cost of continuing this board at the current
level, as already included in the budget."
4:20:42 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON surmised then that the legislation maintains the
current status in which fees cover the cost. He further
surmised that the legislation extends the board to 2010 and the
amendment in the Senate merely codifies that the department
takes over if a board sunsets.
MR. MAHER agreed with the chair's understanding.
CHAIR ANDERSON noted that he liked [paragraphs] (10) and (11) on
page 3 of the legislation. Those paragraphs seem to insert
missions and measures to ensure that the board, commission, or
agency attains its objectives and does so efficiently. Chair
Anderson opined that such isn't the case for any other board or
commission renewal.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the paragraphs would
apply to all boards and commissions.
4:22:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG turned attention to page 2, lines 13-
14, which transfer statutory authority of the board to the
department. Representative Guttenberg related his understanding
that after an entity sunsets, the language establishing the
entity remains in statute. Therefore, he surmised that the only
way to prevent the department from administering a commission
that the legislature has (indisc.) is through the budget
process.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Division of Legislative
Audit, Alaska State Legislature, explained that currently if a
board is sunset, the regulations implementing the statute become
void because the board is given powers. However, the statutes
remain and thus statutes may conflict with the current
licensing. For example, statutes may specify only a licensed
professional can perform a certain occupation, but that
occupation is no longer being licensed. Therefore, there is no
effective mechanism to totally shut down an occupation. This
language was intended to place the onus on the department to
make the statutory changes that change it to a regulation under
the division or alternatively eliminating the licensing function
altogether. She highlighted that under current statute it does
happen automatically.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG posed a situation in which it's a
commission without any powers, duties, and responsibilities.
MS. DAVIDSON replied, "To the extent that there's any regulation
in place that makes the agency happen, those regulations, when
the board sunsets, are voided." Therefore, the department
couldn't necessarily do anything. In further response to
Representative Guttenberg, Ms. Davidson said that a commission
without any written regulations would continue.
4:24:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that he didn't entirely understand
Section 2 because it would seem that transferring the statutory
authority of a [sunset] board would keep its regulatory and
statutory scheme of enforcement alive.
4:25:57 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON pointed out that this is an extension to 2010 and
thus he surmised that if the extensions continue, Section 2 will
never apply.
MS. DAVIDSON clarified that Section 1 is a stand-alone provision
that extends the Board of Marital and Family Therapy. The other
sections change the licensing statutes overall. In response to
Representative Rokeberg's earlier question, Ms. Davidson agreed
that [Section 2] would allow the department to continue the
regulation of an activity. However, there is not an effective
way to shut it down because the statutes don't "go away." The
desire, she opined, is to transfer the authority of eliminating
the statutes [of entities that have sunset] and have a smoother
transition. For instance, according to statutes one can't sell
eyeglasses or contact lenses without being a physician,
optometrist, or dispensing optician. The recommendation was to
change the Board of Dispensing Opticians to a registration
process while continuing to allow people to sell eyeglasses.
However, that result doesn't occur with a sunset.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG acknowledged the administration's
position in that it dislikes boards and commissions. Therefore,
he said he wasn't sure that he agreed with the legislature
transferring legislative authority over boards and commissions
to the administration.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the result of the new
language in Section 2 would be a case in which the authority is
transferred to the department, which phases out the entity and
the division brings forth cleanup language.
4:29:35 PM
MS. DAVIDSON replied, "In general terms, yes." She explained
that the goal is to avoid statutory conflict between a sunset
board with no regulations while a licensing requirement remains.
Therefore, the agency or the department would take steps to
introduce legislation to either "shut down" licensing or change
the statutes. She noted that it could also be done by the
legislature. However, there is the need for statutory changes.
"It's just that the sunset is too blunt an instrument to
necessarily get to what that end goal is," she said.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that although it may be a
messy process, it has worked for 40 years. He highlighted that
when an entity is sunset, there is a wind-down year in which to
address the entity.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD announced that he's not in favor of the
legislation as it is now. Furthermore, he recalled that the
Board of Marital and Family Therapy is one of the six boards
that House [legislation] attempts to extend.
4:32:04 PM
MS. DAVIDSON clarified that the Board of Marital and Family
Therapy wasn't included in that legislation. She explained that
the Legislative Budget & Audit Committee usually addresses any
board extension that wasn't addressed near the end of session.
4:32:44 PM
MS. DAVIDSON informed the committee that within the audit, the
notion of combining behavioral health boards was reviewed.
However, the professional counselors were strongly opposed to
combining with marital and family therapists. Furthermore,
there had already been legislation put forth to extend the Board
of Professional Counselors as a single entity.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that in the audit report,
the recommendation was to change extensions from four to eight
years. He inquired as to why eight years was chosen.
MS. DAVIDSON said that many factors were considered when eight
years was chosen, including the standard extensions in other
states. While 10 years is the most frequent extension standard,
past practice has shown that double extensions under Alaska's
current four-year standard have passed. Ms. Davidson reminded
the committee that the eight years is the number of years that
an extension cannot exceed. However, any legislator can request
a review of any governmental operation.
CHAIR ANDERSON opined that four years is an appropriate amount
of time because it's not too extensive.
4:35:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, recalling Representative Rokeberg's
earlier comment, inquired as to why this process should be
changed after it has worked well for 20 years.
MS. DAVIDSON informed the committee that since approximately
1980, 18 entities have been terminated and 23 have been
reestablished. The "Guide Board" was probably the most
problematic and was a situation in which the department stepped
in to regulate the occupation, although it had no legal
authority to do so. Therefore, past practices were reviewed in
an attempt to determine a way to smooth the process a bit.
4:37:22 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON noted his desire to forward the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the legislature speaks
through not acting some times, which he indicated was the case
in relation to the "Guide Board". If this legislation is
adopted, then the power to regulate the profession is given to
the governor and it's taken out of the hands of the boards and
commissions and the legislature.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced then that he would hold SB 139. [SB
139 was taken up at the end of this meeting.]
SB 140-COMPUTERS & INTERNET
4:38:42 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 140(JUD), "An Act relating to spyware
and unsolicited Internet advertising."
DAVID STANCLIFF, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that Alaska is one of 10 states that is
trying to provide a better threshold for people to have recourse
when their computer has been invaded or rendered inoperable.
Therefore, the legislation before the committee had the
advantage of reviewing the models of 10 other states. Mr.
Stancliff explained that the goal of SB 140 is to begin to
unwind the serious web with spyware. Beyond the trade and
commerce aspect of this legislation, the more serious problem is
that an expensive investment, one's computer, can be rendered
useless.
4:41:29 PM
BENJAMIN EDELMAN informed the committee that he is a graduate
student working on a degree in economics at Harvard after just
completing law school. He noted that on the side he has been
testing spyware writing about what he has found. He further
noted that he has been honored by serving as the expert in some
cases trying to "put a check on spyware companies." Mr. Edelman
agreed with Mr. Stancliff that there is much software on a
typical PC, whether located in an office or a home. Some of the
spyware programs track the user's name, e-mail address, credit
card numbers, etcetera while other spyware programs focus on
advertising. Although the later would seem to be less
nefarious, it has turned out to be fairly profitable. These
pop-up programs are a large part of the spyware problem and new
legislation can address that, he opined. However, there is
legislation already in place for those individuals stealing
credit card numbers and thus there's no need to pass yet another
law on that subject.
MR. EDELMAN explained that the pop-up companies operate in what
seems to be a gray area. In fact, some courts have said that
these extra pop-ups might be legally permissible. Therefore,
scores of companies have tried to use pop-ups. This legislation
puts an end to the aforementioned and specifies that it's not
fair game. He likened a pop-up advertisement to one's cell
phone company playing an advertisement for a specific airline
when one used the phone to call another airline. Mr. Edelman
said that although some courts may have said that pop-up
advertisements are acceptable under existing law, legislatures
have the right to say otherwise.
4:46:11 PM
MR. EDELMAN turned to the differing approaches various
legislatures have followed. California passed legislation last
year that's now under consideration in at least six other
states. California's law specifies about a dozen specific
tactics that are prohibited. However, Mr. Edelman opined that
California's approach is quite ineffective because the tactics
prohibited aren't those used by the largest, prominent, and most
profitable companies but rather those tactics used by the
"little guys that we can't even find." In fact, not much has
changed for the better since the passage of California's
legislation. He noted that there a couple of pieces of
legislation in Washington, D.C., that are being put forth,
although they too seem to address infractions that only impact
tens of thousands of users not tens of millions. He informed
the committee that last year Utah passed legislation with
important similarities to SB 140. Mr. Edelman noted his
surprise with the number of companies presenting false
information regarding what Utah's legislation would do, although
there was no legitimate basis for the allegations. Therefore,
he sensed that software companies don't like governments
instructing them with regard to how they can do business. He
opined that software companies view their actions on a computer
as not having a basis for any government oversight at all.
However, he disagreed.
4:49:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there is another way to
address spyware. He asked if a computer that detects spyware
could then send a notice to the spyware companies informing them
they are being charged for installation.
MR. EDELMAN said that there's no way to send such a message to
the spyware company. "Consumers just aren't in a good position
to impose their terms on the makers of software," he
highlighted.
4:52:32 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
4:53:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report CSSB 140(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SB 139-OCCUPATIONAL BDS/AGENCIES
CHAIR ANDERSON returned the committee's attention to CS FOR
SENATE BILL NO. 139(L&C), "An Act relating to termination and
oversight of boards, commissions, and agency programs; extending
the termination date of the Board of Marital and Family Therapy;
and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR ANDERSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, as
follows:
Delete Sections 2 and 4.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected, and inquired as to the reason
for deleting Section 4.
4:54:11 PM
TOM MAHER, Staff to Representative Gene Therriault, Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee, Alaska State Legislature, explained
that Section 4 [proposes the same thing - to transfer statutory
authority of the board to the department] as the new language in
Section 2.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG removed his objection.
There being no further objections, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report CSSB 139(L&C), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB
139(L&C) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:55:06 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|