Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106

03/15/2016 08:00 AM STATE AFFAIRS

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= HB 273 VEHICLES: TRANSFER ON DEATH TITLE TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 273 (STA) Out of Committee
+= HB 229 REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= HCR 15 UNIFORM RULES: REGULATION REVIEW TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
*+ HB 162 DMV REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 162 Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                           
                         March 15, 2016                                                                                         
                           8:04 a.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair                                                                                                  
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair                                                                                           
Representative Louise Stutes                                                                                                    
Representative David Talerico                                                                                                   
Representative Liz Vazquez                                                                                                      
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins                                                                                          
Representative Ivy Spohnholz                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 273                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to the  transfer of  the title  to a  vehicle,                                                               
including certain  manufactured homes and trailers,  on the death                                                               
of the owner; and providing for an effective date."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 273 (STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 229                                                                                                              
"An  Act  relating  to  regulation   notice  and  review  by  the                                                               
legislature;  and  relating   to  the  Administrative  Regulation                                                               
Review Committee."                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 162                                                                                                              
"An  Act  relating to  administrative  revocation  of a  driver's                                                               
license; and repealing Rule 603(a)(3),  Alaska Rules of Appellate                                                               
Procedure."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HB 162 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 15                                                                                              
Proposing an amendment  to the Uniform Rules of  the Alaska State                                                               
Legislature relating to the jurisdiction of standing committees.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 273                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: VEHICLES: TRANSFER ON DEATH TITLE                                                                                  
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
01/22/16       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/22/16       (H)       STA                                                                                                    
02/04/16       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/04/16       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/04/16       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/09/16       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/09/16       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
03/15/16       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 229                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE                                                                                
SPONSOR(s): CHENAULT                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
01/19/16       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/16                                                                                
01/19/16       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/19/16       (H)       STA, FIN                                                                                               
02/04/16       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/04/16       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/04/16       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/11/16       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/11/16       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
03/15/16       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 162                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: DMV REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE                                                                                 
SPONSOR(s): WILSON                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
03/23/15       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/23/15       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
02/09/16       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/09/16       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
03/15/16       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
DENEEN TUCK, Staff                                                                                                              
Representative Bob Lynn                                                                                                         
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 273 on behalf of the House                                                                  
State   Affairs    Standing   Committee,   sponsor,    on   which                                                               
Representative Lynn serves as chair.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT                                                                                                    
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 229, as prime sponsor.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
TOM WRIGHT, Staff                                                                                                               
Representative Mike Chenault                                                                                                    
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on behalf of                                                                          
Representative Chenault, prime sponsor of HB 229.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
JIM POUND, Staff                                                                                                                
Representative Keller                                                                                                           
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 229.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SUSAN POLLARD, Chief Assistant                                                                                                  
Legislation & Regulations Section                                                                                               
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on Amendment 2 to HB                                                                  
229.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMY WILSON                                                                                                     
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 162, as prime sponsor.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
NICOLE THAM, Driver Services Manager                                                                                            
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)                                                                                                
Department of Administration (DOA)                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 162.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel                                                                                                    
Administrative Staff                                                                                                            
Office of the Administrative Director                                                                                           
Alaska Court System                                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 162.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
8:04:04 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the  House State Affairs Standing Committee                                                             
meeting  to  order  at  8:04  a.m.    Representatives  Spohnholz,                                                               
Kreiss-Tomkins, Talerico,  Stutes, Keller, and Lynn  were present                                                               
at  the call  to order.   Representative  Vazquez arrived  as the                                                               
meeting was in progress.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
            HB 273-VEHICLES: TRANSFER ON DEATH TITLE                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
8:04:56 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LYNN  announced that the  first order of business  would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  273, "An  Act relating  to the  transfer of  the                                                               
title  to a  vehicle,  including certain  manufactured homes  and                                                               
trailers,  on  the death  of  the  owner;  and providing  for  an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
8:05:08 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER  moved  to adopt  the  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  HB 273,  Version  29-LS0322\I,  Bannister,                                                               
3/10/16, as  a work draft.   There being no objection,  Version I                                                               
was before the committee.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
8:05:29 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DENEEN  TUCK,  Staff,  Representative   Bob  Lynn,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,  presented  HB 273  on  behalf  of the  House  State                                                               
Affairs Standing  Committee, on which Representative  Lynn serves                                                               
as chair.  She stated that  the Version I has conforming language                                                               
pursuant  to Alaska's  Uniform Rules  relating  to real  property                                                               
transfer  on death,  under  AS  13.48.010.   She  added that  the                                                               
language  in   the  proposed  legislation   was  changed   to  be                                                               
consistent  with all  Alaska  transfer on  death  statutes, as  a                                                               
result  of discussions  with Beth  Chapman,  a probate  attorney.                                                               
Ms. Tuck  listed the changes as  follows:  the title  was changed                                                               
to  reflect the  language of  the statute;  a new  Section 2  was                                                               
added; the old  Section 2 was renamed Section 3;  page 3, line 25                                                               
through page  4, line  10, reflects  the new  conforming language                                                               
consistent  with transfer  on death  statutes; and  lines 5-7  on                                                               
page 4 of the original  bill version, previously under subsection                                                               
(l),  are  now  lines  29-31  on  page  4  of  Version  I,  under                                                               
subsection (o).                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KELLER  advised   that   Terry  Bannister   from                                                               
Legislative  Legal and  Research Services,  and Nicole  Tham from                                                               
the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), are on line for questions.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
8:08:40 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  TUCK explained  that the  proposed  legislation would  carry                                                               
forth the  concept of transfer  on death by enabling  Alaskans to                                                               
plan their estates  without the time, difficulty,  and expense of                                                               
a probate.   She indicated that HB 273 would  add the transfer of                                                               
a  vehicle to  the other  transfer on  death provisions  in Title                                                               
XIII  -   namely,  the  transfer  of   bank  accounts,  brokerage                                                               
accounts, and real  estate.  Ms. Tuck asserted  that the transfer                                                               
on death deed  (TODD) process is simple and  has been successful.                                                               
She  also mentioned  that Ms.  Chapman  assisted with  clarifying                                                               
language  in the  current bill  to  address litigation  concerns.                                                               
She  went on  to  say  that there  were  35  states with  similar                                                               
legislation.   Ms. Tuck added  that the proposed  legislation was                                                               
drafted  through the  work of  Representative  Gruenberg and  the                                                               
DMV.  She  stated that watercraft and snow machines  would not be                                                               
included under  the proposed  legislation, but  motorcycles would                                                               
be included.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
8:13:06 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LYNN,  after  ascertaining  that no  one  else  wished  to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony on HB 273.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:13:37 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER  moved to  report  CSHB  273, Version  29-                                                               
LS0322\I, Bannister,  3/10/16, out  of committee  with individual                                                               
recommendations and  the accompanying fiscal notes.   There being                                                               
no objection, CSHB  273(STA) was reported out of  the House State                                                               
Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 8:14 a.m. to 8:16 a.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
           HB 229-REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
8:16:19 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LYNN  announced that  the next order  of business  would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  229 "An  Act relating  to regulation  notice and                                                               
review  by the  legislature; and  relating to  the Administrative                                                               
Regulation Review Committee."                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
[Because of  their length, some  amendments discussed  or adopted                                                               
during the  meeting are found  at the end  of the minutes  for HB                                                               
229.  Shorter amendments are included in the main text.]                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
[Left  pending from  the House  State Affairs  Standing Committee                                                               
meeting of  2/4/16, was  a motion to  adopt Amendment  1, labeled                                                               
29-LS1104\A.1,  Gardner,  2/3/16,  with   an  objection  for  the                                                               
purpose of  discussion by Representative Gruenberg.   The pending                                                               
objection  to the  motion to  adopt  Amendment 1  was treated  as                                                               
withdrawn and Amendment 1 was treated as adopted.]                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER  moved to  rescind the  committee's actions                                                               
on Amendment  1 [labeled 29-LS1104\A.1, Gardner,  2/3/16].  There                                                               
being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:17:20 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   MIKE   CHENAULT,   Alaska   State   Legislature,                                                               
presented  HB 229,  as  prime sponsor.   He  stated  that HB  229                                                               
relates to regulation  notice and review by the  legislature.  He                                                               
cited the  state's declining  revenues and  the need  to identify                                                               
ways to reduce the cost  of the legislature and state government.                                                               
He  further offered  that  the  Administrative Regulation  Review                                                               
Committee,  although  active  and  effective at  times,  was  not                                                               
always  so, and  HB 229  proposes to  abolish the  Administrative                                                               
Regulation Review  Committee and  turn regulation review  over to                                                               
other committees.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
8:18:43 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LYNN  asked the sponsor  if, after a regulation  is drafted                                                               
by the  department, it would be  turned over to the  committee of                                                               
jurisdiction.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CHENAULT confirmed  that  the department  already                                                               
sends  regulations to  certain legislators  for review;  however,                                                               
under the proposed legislation a  regulation would be sent to the                                                               
committee of  jurisdiction.  The committee  of jurisdiction would                                                               
then have  the option of  scheduling a committee hearing  on that                                                               
regulation.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:19:51 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TOM  WRIGHT, Staff,  Representative Mike  Chenault, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,  testifying on  behalf  of Representative  Chenault,                                                               
prime  sponsor  of  HB  229, said  state  statute  requires  that                                                               
regulations  be  forwarded  to   all  incumbent  legislators  and                                                               
remarked that he is not sure if that occurs.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
8:20:59 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER  moved to  adopt Amendment 2,  [labeled 29-                                                               
LS1104\A.4, Gardner, 3/10/16].   [Amendment 2 is  provided at the                                                               
end of the minutes on HB 229.]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for purpose of discussion.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER  declared  his  support  for  HB  229  and                                                               
concurred   with  Representative   Chenault's   testimony.     He                                                               
explained  that the  intent of  Amendment  2 was  to establish  a                                                               
process for  referring a regulation  to a standing  committee and                                                               
to clarify the  powers of the chair in this  process.  He further                                                               
offered  that the  proposed amendment  would give  the chair  the                                                               
power  to   delay  implementation  of  a   regulation  until  the                                                               
committee takes action on the regulation.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
8:22:43 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LYNN asked  the  sponsor  how much  money  would be  saved                                                               
through the proposed legislation.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT responded that  the fiscal note indicates                                                               
a savings of about $53,000.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:23:51 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JIM   POUND,   Staff,   Representative   Keller,   Alaska   State                                                               
Legislature,  stated  that  the  intent of  Amendment  2  was  to                                                               
reinstate authority  to the  legislature in  light of  the Alaska                                                               
Supreme  Court ruling  on State  v.  A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary,  which                                                             
reads  that   the  legislature  cannot  annul   a  regulation  by                                                               
resolution.  He further explained  that the court decision stated                                                               
that in order for the legislature  to repeal a regulation, it had                                                               
to  be done  through  a  legislative process  -  that  is, by  an                                                               
introduced bill  that passes through  both houses and is  sent to                                                               
the governor for  signature.  He offered that  under Amendment 2,                                                               
a  regulation would  be sent  to the  presiding officers  of each                                                               
house,  who  may  pass  it  to the  chair  of  the  committee  of                                                               
jurisdiction to decide  if that regulation needs  to be reviewed.                                                               
He  voiced his  belief that  95  percent of  regulations are  not                                                               
problematic but  about 5  percent need  modification.   He stated                                                               
that  under Amendment  2 if,  after review,  a committee  was not                                                               
satisfied  with  the  regulation,  the committee  could  ask  the                                                               
department to  amend it  to comply with  legislative intent.   If                                                               
the department  refused, the committee  could put  the regulation                                                               
on  hold until  the regular  session when  the legislature  could                                                               
attempt to  repeal it through  the legislative process.   He said                                                               
that if  the legislature fails  to repeal the  regulation through                                                               
legislation,  implementation of  the regulation  would occur  the                                                               
day after the end of the  regular session of the legislature.  If                                                               
the committee takes  no action on a regulation within  35 days of                                                               
receipt, the department could proceed with implementation.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:27:27 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ  commented that the 35-day  limitation for                                                               
the committee  response may be too  short, especially considering                                                               
unavailability of legislators during interim.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. POUND commented  that the average normal comment  period on a                                                               
regulation is 40  days.  The intent was to  stay within that time                                                               
period.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ  voiced her concern that  the procedure as                                                               
stated  would suppress  the legislature's  ability  to annul  any                                                               
regulation  at  any time  and  would  put  the legislature  in  a                                                               
position subservient to the executive branch.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  POUND stated  that  the legislature  was  currently in  that                                                               
position.     He   reminded  the   committee  members   that  the                                                               
legislature has gone to court over regulations and lost.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
8:31:22 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER  requested the  sponsor speak  to Amendment                                                               
2.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. WRIGHT deferred to Susan Pollard.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:32:55 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SUSAN  POLLARD,   Chief  Assistant,  Legislation   &  Regulations                                                               
Section, Department  of Law (DOL),  stated that DOL  had concerns                                                               
with the suspension  provisions in Amendment 2.   She paraphrased                                                               
page 2,  Section 4  (e), by  saying that  in certain  instances a                                                               
standing committee of the legislature  could suspend a regulation                                                               
for a period  of time based on when the  next legislative session                                                               
is, and  the legislature could  choose to  act or not  act during                                                               
that  time.    She  posited  that  the  suspension  part  of  the                                                               
amendment  brings  up  concerns  from the  1980  case,  State  v.                                                             
A.L.I.V.E.  Voluntary.   She explained  that in  the cited  court                                                             
case,  the  Alaska  Supreme  Court   considered  a  now  repealed                                                               
regulation related  to the power  of the legislature to  repeal a                                                               
regulation by  way of concurrent  resolution.  She  conceded that                                                               
the issue of  that case was slightly different  from the language                                                               
in the proposed amendment; however,  she claimed that in State v.                                                             
A.L.I.V.E.  Voluntary,  the  court considered  the  instances  in                                                             
which  the  legislature can  act  to  effectuate something  which                                                               
affects  the  public and  determined  that  moving by  concurrent                                                               
resolution to suspend a regulation  was not sustainable under the                                                               
Alaska  Constitution.   She noted  that Amendment  2 attempts  to                                                               
sidestep the State v. A.L.I.V.E.  Voluntary ruling by including a                                                             
suspension provision  as opposed  to an annulment  provision, but                                                               
does not, however,  remove legal questions or  the possibility of                                                               
litigation, depending on the situation.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:37:03 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER offered  two  comments  for Ms.  Pollard's                                                               
response:  one,  the process has yet to be  established; and two,                                                               
the  suspension in  the proposed  amendment would  be for  a time                                                               
specific and not an annulment.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. POLLARD  responded that it  is unknown  at this point  if the                                                               
proposed amendment's suspension of  regulation would run afoul of                                                               
State v.  A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary.   She offered that  currently the                                                             
legislature  has the  power to  review and  annul regulations  by                                                               
changing statute.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
8:38:53 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked Ms.  Pollard to  state again                                                               
the defendant in the case that she cited.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. POLLARD answered  that it was a non-profit  group referred to                                                               
by the acronym A.L.I.V.E.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked Ms.  Pollard if  the concern                                                               
was that  suspension of a  regulation until  the end of  the next                                                               
legislative  session  would  effectively put  the  regulation  in                                                               
limbo  for 11  months  and  may have  an  adverse  effect on  the                                                               
public.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. POLLARD said  DOL's concern is that  whenever the legislature                                                               
acts  outside  of  the  legislative  enactment  process  and  the                                                               
constitutional   requirements   considered   in  the   State   v.                                                             
A.L.I.V.E.  Voluntary court  case, it  runs the  risk of  a legal                                                             
challenge  to that  action.   She conceded  that there  may be  a                                                               
practical  effect, alluded  to by  Representative Kreiss-Tomkins,                                                               
of  regulations in  long-term  suspension  and public  perception                                                               
regarding those regulations; however,  she contended that was not                                                               
the concern to which she referred.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
8:41:37 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KREISS-TOMKINS  offered   that  there   are  two                                                               
concerns to be  addressed in consideration of Amendment  2:  one,                                                               
the  constitutional concern;  and two,  the pragmatic  concern of                                                               
regulations in  limbo impacting the public.   He related it  to a                                                               
hypothetical  situation -  a regulation  passed by  the Board  of                                                               
Fisheries  and   suspended  by   the  House   Resources  Standing                                                               
Committee, which  would essentially  put the regulation  in limbo                                                               
until the adjournment of the next legislative session.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  POLLARD  agreed  that his  example  reflects  the  procedure                                                               
described in Section 4 of Amendment 2.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:42:56 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER  asked  if  the concern  was  regarding  a                                                               
possible  lawsuit due  to the  delay in  implementing regulations                                                               
and, if so, what the basis of that lawsuit would be.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. POLLARD opined  that it is difficult to speculate.   In State                                                             
v.  A.L.I.V.E.  Voluntary the  Department  of  Revenue (DOR)  was                                                             
enforcing a regulation against the plaintiff in the case.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KELLER  asked   Ms.  Pollard   to  explain   the                                                               
enforcement aspect - that is,  if the legislature could delay the                                                               
enforcement of an existing regulation through suspension.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  POLLARD  claimed  that  the  issue  of  the  status  of  the                                                               
regulation  during  suspension,   including  enforcement  of  the                                                               
regulation, is  a question not yet  answered and is the  basis of                                                               
the hearing.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
8:45:24 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER  attested that  proposed regulation  is not                                                               
law.   He stated his belief  that Alaskans have the  right to the                                                               
process  and  the  legislature is  uniquely  positioned  to  hear                                                               
concerns  about  regulations.   He  further  contended  that  the                                                               
Department  of  Health  &  Social  Service  (DHSS)  regulation  -                                                               
disallowing guns  in private care  homes -  raises constitutional                                                               
concerns,  and  when confronted  DHSS's  response  was to  extend                                                               
approval time  for that  regulation to  outside of  session time.                                                               
He  recommended   that  the  legislature  have   input  into  the                                                               
regulation process before a regulation takes effect.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. WRIGHT  suggested that in  the example  Representative Keller                                                               
mentioned, the  legislature has the prerogative  to write statute                                                               
to nullify the  regulation.  In regard  to Representative Kreiss-                                                               
Tomkins' concern, Mr.  Wright recommended that the  Board of Game                                                               
and the Board of Fisheries  be exempt from the proposed amendment                                                               
because, in  his opinion,  regulations coming  from end-of-season                                                               
decisions  cannot wait  a whole  season for  implementation.   He                                                               
cautioned that there  may be unknown consequences  to Amendment 2                                                               
and careful thought and more work is needed before adoption.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
8:49:20 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WRIGHT,  in response  to  Chair  Lynn,  stated that  he  has                                                               
concerns about Amendment  2, but supports the bill  moving out of                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER stated  that he  supports Amendment  2 and                                                               
fears that  HB 229 without  it further distances  the legislature                                                               
from the regulatory process.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
8:52:08 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 8:52 a.m. to 8:55 a.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
8:55:27 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. WRIGHT  requested that  the agencies look  at Amendment  2 to                                                               
determine any fiscal impacts.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER requested  the chair  schedule HB  229 for                                                               
the  next  House State  Affairs  Standing  Committee meeting  and                                                               
promised to consult with the agencies.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 229 was held over.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
                           AMENDMENTS                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
The following amendments to HB 229 were either discussed or                                                                     
adopted during the hearing.  [Shorter amendments are provided in                                                                
the main text only.]                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Amendment 2 [29-LS1104\A.4, Gardner, 3/10/16] (pending):                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 1, following "legislature;":                                                                                
          Insert   "providing    for   legislative   review,                                                                  
     amendment, approval, disapproval,  annulment, and delay                                                                  
     of proposed agency regulations;"                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, lines 4 - 6:                                                                                                       
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 7:                                                                                                            
          Delete "Sec. 2"                                                                                                     
          Insert "Section 1"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                              
     Page 2, lines 1 - 8:                                                                                                       
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
        "* Sec. 2. AS 24.05.182(a) is amended to read:                                                                      
          (a)  A standing committee of the legislature                                                                          
     furnished   notice   of   a   proposed   action   under                                                                    
     AS 44.62.190  or  44.62.320(d) shall,  consistent  with                                                            
     the  committee's   jurisdiction  as  provided   in  the                                                                
     uniform rules  of the legislature, review  the proposed                                                                
     regulation, amendment  of a regulation, or  repeal of a                                                                    
     regulation before the date  the regulation is scheduled                                                                    
     by the department or agency  to be adopted, amended, or                                                                    
     repealed.                                                                                                                  
        * Sec. 3. AS 24.05.182(d) is amended to read:                                                                         
          (d) A standing committee that receives a copy of                                                                  
     a proposed  regulation, amendment,  or order  of repeal                                                                
     under  AS 44.62.320(d)  shall,  within  35  days  after                                                                
     receipt  of  the  proposed  regulation,  amendment,  or                                                                
     order  of repeal,  approve or  disapprove the  proposed                                                                
     regulation,  amendment, or  order  of repeal.   If  the                                                                
     standing committee does not take  action within 35 days                                                                
     after  receipt of  the proposed  regulation, amendment,                                                                
     or   order   of   repeal,  the   proposed   regulation,                                                                
     amendment,  or  order  of repeal  shall  be  considered                                                                
     approved.  If a  standing committee  determines that  a                                                                
     regulation, amendment  to a regulation, or  repeal of a                                                                    
     regulation  does  not  properly  implement  legislative                                                                    
     intent   and  disapproves   or  returns   the  proposed                                                                
     regulation,  amendment,  or  order  of  repeal  to  the                                                                
     department   or   agency,  the   standing   committee's                                                                
     findings  shall, within  35 days  after receipt  of the                                                                
     proposed regulation, amendment, or  order of repeal, be                                                                
     transmitted to the                                                                                                         
               (1)  department or agency;                                                                                   
               (2)  regulations attorney at the Department                                                                  
     of Law; and                                                                                                            
               (3)  senate secretary and the chief clerk of                                                                 
     the    house    of   representatives    [ADMINISTRATIVE                                                                
     REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE].                                                                                              
        *  Sec. 4.  AS 24.05.182  is amended  by adding  new                                                                  
     subsections to read:                                                                                                       
          (e) A proposed regulation, amendment, or order of                                                                     
     repeal that  is disapproved under this  section or that                                                                    
     is  returned  to  the  department   or  agency  with  a                                                                    
     proposed amendment, other  than an emergency regulation                                                                    
     adopted  under AS 44.62.250,  shall be  suspended until                                                                    
     the  adjournment   of  the  next   regular  legislative                                                                    
     session   following  the   date   of  the   committee's                                                                    
     disapproval.  The  notice  of  disapproval  under  this                                                                    
     section  expires   upon  adjournment  of   the  regular                                                                    
     legislative  session during  which  the disapproval  or                                                                    
     amendment was  made or,  if the  legislature is  not in                                                                    
     regular session,  the next regular  legislative session                                                                    
     following   the  date   of   disapproval,  unless   the                                                                    
     legislature  enacts  a  law that  annuls  the  proposed                                                                    
     regulation or order of repeal.                                                                                             
          (f) If the standing committee that is reviewing a                                                                     
     proposed  regulation,  amendment,  or order  of  repeal                                                                    
     under   this   section  disapproves   the   regulation,                                                                    
     amendment, or order of repeal  or proposes an amendment                                                                    
     to the  regulation, amendment, or order  of repeal, the                                                                    
     department  or  agency  that proposed  the  regulation,                                                                    
     amendment, or order of repeal  may request leave of the                                                                    
     standing committee  to withdraw  or amend  the proposed                                                                    
     regulation, amendment, or order of repeal.                                                                                 
          (g)   In    determining   whether    to   approve,                                                                    
     disapprove, or amend  a proposed regulation, amendment,                                                                    
     or  order of  repeal under  this section,  the standing                                                                    
     committee shall consider                                                                                                   
               (1) whether the absence of a regulation                                                                          
     would  significantly harm  or  endanger public  health,                                                                    
     safety, or welfare;                                                                                                        
               (2) whether a less restrictive regulation                                                                        
     would address the  regulatory concerns while adequately                                                                    
     protecting the public;                                                                                                     
               (3) whether the  regulation would directly or                                                                    
     indirectly increase the cost of any goods or services;                                                                     
               (4)   whether    the   increased    cost   of                                                                    
     implementing  and  enforcing  the regulation  would  be                                                                    
     more detrimental than the purpose of the regulation;                                                                       
               (5)  whether  the   regulation  was  designed                                                                    
     solely for the purpose of  the protection of the public                                                                    
     and  would have  the primary  effect of  protecting the                                                                    
     public; and                                                                                                                
               (6)   any   other   factors   the   committee                                                                    
     considers to be appropriate."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 4 - 7:                                                                                                       
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 24, through page 4, line 19:                                                                                  
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, following line 5:                                                                                                  
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
        "* Sec. 10. AS 44.62.180 is amended to read:                                                                        
          Sec. 44.62.180. Effective date. A regulation or                                                                     
     an  order of  repeal filed  by the  lieutenant governor                                                                    
     becomes effective  on the  30th day  after the  date of                                                                    
     filing unless                                                                                                              
               (1)   otherwise specifically provided  by the                                                                    
     statute under  which the regulation or  order of repeal                                                                    
     is adopted, in which event  it becomes effective on the                                                                    
     day prescribed by the statute;                                                                                             
               (2)    it  is a  regulation  prescribing  the                                                                    
     organization or procedure of an  agency, in which event                                                                    
     it  becomes effective  upon  filing  by the  lieutenant                                                                    
     governor or  upon a later  date specified by  the state                                                                    
     agency in  a written  instrument submitted with,  or as                                                                    
     part of, the regulation or order of repeal;                                                                                
               (3)   it is an emergency  regulation or order                                                                    
     of  repeal adopted  under AS 44.62.250,  in which  case                                                                    
     the   finding   and   the  statement   of   the   facts                                                                    
     constituting the  emergency shall  be submitted  to the                                                                    
     lieutenant  governor,   together  with   the  emergency                                                                    
     regulation  or order  of repeal,  which, in  that event                                                                    
     only, becomes  effective upon filing by  the lieutenant                                                                    
     governor or  upon a later  date specified by  the state                                                                    
     agency in  a written  instrument submitted with,  or as                                                                    
     part of, the regulation or order of repeal;                                                                                
               (4)  a later date is prescribed by the state                                                                     
     agency in  a written  instrument submitted with,  or as                                                                    
     part of, the regulation or order of repeal;                                                                            
               (5) a standing committee of the legislature                                                                  
     disapproves  the  regulation  or   returns  it  to  the                                                                
     department or  agency with a proposed  amendment, under                                                                
     AS 24.05.182,   in   which   case,  if   the   proposed                                                                
     regulation,  amendment,   or  order  of   repeal  takes                                                                
     effect, it takes effect on the later of                                                                                
               (A) adoption by the agency of an amendment                                                                   
     proposed by  a standing  committee of  the legislature;                                                                
     or                                                                                                                     
               (B) one day following adjournment of both                                                                    
     houses   of   the   legislature   as   provided   under                                                                
     AS 44.62.325."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 31, following "legislators":                                                                                  
          Insert "and to the presiding officer of each                                                                      
     house"                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 4, through page 9, line 9:                                                                                    
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
        "* Sec. 12. AS 44.62.190(b) is amended to read:                                                                     
          (b)  If the form or manner of notice is                                                                               
     prescribed by statute, in  addition to the requirements                                                                    
     of filing  and furnishing  notice under  AS 44.62.010 -                                                                    
     44.62.300,  or  in  addition  to  the  requirements  of                                                                    
     filing and mailing notice under  other sections of this                                                                    
     chapter,  the   notice  shall  be   published,  posted,                                                                    
     mailed,  filed, or  otherwise publicized  as prescribed                                                                    
     by  the  statute.  In  the   notice  furnished  to  the                                                                
     legislature  under   AS 44.62.190(a)(6),  new  language                                                                
     added to  an existing  regulation shall  be underlined,                                                                
     and language deleted from  an existing regulation shall                                                                
     be bracketed and capitalized.                                                                                          
        * Sec. 13. AS 44.62.195 is amended to read:                                                                           
          Sec. 44.62.195. Fiscal notes on regulations. If                                                                     
     the adoption, amendment, or repeal  of a regulation has                                                                
     an economic effect on a  department, agency, or person,                                                                
     the  proposed  regulation  or   order  of  repeal  must                                                                
     include  a fiscal  note prepared  by the  department or                                                                
     agency in  accordance with this section  [WOULD REQUIRE                                                                
     INCREASED APPROPRIATIONS  BY THE STATE,  THE DEPARTMENT                                                                    
     OR  AGENCY AFFECTED  SHALL PREPARE  AN ESTIMATE  OF THE                                                                    
     APPROPRIATION  INCREASE FOR  THE FISCAL  YEAR FOLLOWING                                                                    
     ADOPTION, AMENDMENT,  OR REPEAL  OF THE  REGULATION AND                                                                    
     FOR AT LEAST TWO SUCCEEDING FISCAL YEARS].                                                                                 
        * Sec. 14.  AS 44.62.195 is amended by  adding a new                                                                  
     subsection to read:                                                                                                        
          (b)  A fiscal note required under this section                                                                        
     must include, where applicable,                                                                                            
               (1)  a determination  of the present need for                                                                    
     the   regulation  and   the  expected   need  for   the                                                                    
     regulation;                                                                                                                
               (2)    a  determination   of  the  costs  and                                                                    
     benefits of  the regulation and  an explanation  by the                                                                    
     department   or   agency   of  whether   the   proposed                                                                    
     regulation is  the most cost-effective,  efficient, and                                                                    
     feasible  means   of  allocating  public   and  private                                                                    
     resources to achieve the stated purpose;                                                                                   
               (3)   the effect of the  regulation on market                                                                    
     competition;                                                                                                               
               (4)   the  effect  of the  regulation on  the                                                                    
     cost of  living, employment, and doing  business in the                                                                    
     geographical  regions where  the regulation  would have                                                                    
     the greatest effect;                                                                                                       
               (5)   the source of revenue  to implement and                                                                    
     enforce the regulation;                                                                                                    
               (6)   a summary  of the short-term  and long-                                                                    
     term economic  effects of the regulation,  including an                                                                    
     analysis of the  persons or groups that  would bear the                                                                    
     costs of the regulation and  the persons or groups that                                                                    
     would   benefit  directly   or   indirectly  from   the                                                                    
     regulation;                                                                                                                
               (7)    the  difficulties  the  department  or                                                                    
     agency encountered,  if any, in estimating  the persons                                                                    
     or  groups that  would benefit  from the  regulation or                                                                    
     bear the costs of the regulation;                                                                                          
               (8)   the effect that adopting  or failing to                                                                    
     adopt the regulation would have  on the environment and                                                                    
     public health.                                                                                                             
        * Sec. 15. AS 44.62.245(c) is amended to read:                                                                        
          (c)  The state agency shall also send the notice                                                                      
     described in (b)(2) of this section to                                                                                     
               (1)   a  person who  has placed  the person's                                                                    
     name on  a distribution  list kept  by the  agency that                                                                    
     lists  persons  who want  to  receive  the notice;  the                                                                    
     agency may allow a person  to request that distribution                                                                    
     of the  notice be by  electronic means and  shall honor                                                                    
     that request if appropriate means are available;                                                                           
               (2)  the regulations attorney in the                                                                             
     Department of Law; and                                                                                                     
               (3)  the presiding officer of each house of                                                                  
     the  legislature  [THE  MEMBERS OF  THE  ADMINISTRATIVE                                                                
     REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE].                                                                                              
        * Sec. 16. AS 44.62.320(b) is amended to read:                                                                        
          (b)  At the same time a regulation is filed by                                                                        
     the lieutenant governor,  the lieutenant governor shall                                                                    
     submit the regulation to the  presiding officer of each                                                                
     house of  the legislature [CHAIRMAN AND  ALL MEMBERS OF                                                                
     THE  ADMINISTRATIVE  REGULATION  REVIEW  COMMITTEE  FOR                                                                    
     REVIEW  UNDER AS 24.20.400  - 24.20.460]  together with                                                                    
     the fiscal  information required  to be  prepared under                                                                    
     AS 44.62.195.                                                                                                              
        * Sec. 17. AS 44.62.320(c) is amended to read:                                                                        
          (c)  At the same time as a regulation is                                                                              
     submitted  to the  governor under  AS 44.62.040(c), the                                                                    
     state  agency  shall  submit   the  regulation  to  the                                                                    
     presiding  officer of  each  house  of the  legislature                                                                
     [CHAIR   AND   ALL   MEMBERS  OF   THE   ADMINISTRATIVE                                                                    
     REGULATION   REVIEW   COMMITTEE    FOR   REVIEW   UNDER                                                                    
     AS 24.20.400  -  24.20.460]  together with  the  fiscal                                                                    
     information    required    to   be    prepared    under                                                                    
     AS 44.62.195.                                                                                                              
        * Sec. 18. AS 44.62.320(d) is amended to read:                                                                        
          (d)  Within 10 days after receiving a regulation                                                                      
     under   (b)   or  (c)   of   this   section  or   under                                                            
     AS 44.62.190(a)(6),  the  presiding   officer  of  each                                                                
     house of  the legislature  shall provide copies  of the                                                                
     regulation to the  standing committee with jurisdiction                                                                
     over the  subject matter of the  regulation as provided                                                                
     in  the uniform  rules  of the  legislature for  review                                                                
     under AS 24.05.182  [, THE CHAIR OF  THE ADMINISTRATIVE                                                                
     REGULATION   REVIEW  COMMITTEE   MAY   SUBMIT  TO   THE                                                                    
     GOVERNOR,   BY   LEGISLATIVE  MEMORANDUM   OR   LETTER,                                                                    
     COMMENTS ON THE REGULATION].                                                                                               
        *  Sec. 19.  AS 44.62  is amended  by  adding a  new                                                                  
     section to article 7 to read:                                                                                              
          Sec.    44.62.325.   Legislative    annulment   of                                                                  
     regulations. (a)  The legislature  may, in  the regular                                                                
     legislative  session  during  which  a  disapproval  or                                                                    
     amendment  is made  or, if  the legislature  is not  in                                                                    
     regular  session, the  next  regular session  following                                                                    
     the disapproval or amendment  of a proposed regulation,                                                                    
     amendment, or  order of repeal by  a standing committee                                                                    
     under  AS 24.05.182,  annul  the  proposed  regulation,                                                                    
     amendment  of  the  proposed regulation,  or  order  of                                                                    
     repeal by law.                                                                                                             
          (b)  If the legislature, following adjournment of                                                                     
     the   regular  legislative   session  during   which  a                                                                    
     disapproval   or  amendment   is   made   or,  if   the                                                                    
     legislature  is  not  in   regular  session,  the  next                                                                    
     regular session  following disapproval or  amendment of                                                                    
     a proposed  regulation, amendment,  or order  of repeal                                                                    
     by  a standing  committee under  AS 24.05.182, has  not                                                                    
     enacted  a law  that  annuls  the proposed  regulation,                                                                    
     amendment  of  the  proposed regulation,  or  order  of                                                                    
     repeal,  the  proposed  regulation,  amendment  of  the                                                                    
     proposed regulation,  or order  of repeal  takes effect                                                                    
     one  day  after  adjournment  of  both  houses  of  the                                                                    
     legislature."                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 9, line 13:                                                                                                           
          Delete "(AS 44.62.040 - 44.62.319) [AS 44.62.040                                                                  
     - 44.62.320]"                                                                                                              
          Insert "(AS 44.62.040 - 44.62.320)"                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 9, line 20:                                                                                                           
          Delete       "AS 24.05.182(b),       24.05.182(c),                                                                    
     24.05.182(d);"                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 9, line 22:                                                                                                           
         Delete "AS 40.25.120(a)(11); and AS 44.62.320"                                                                         
          Insert "and AS 40.25.120(a)(11)"                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LYNN announced that HCR 15 would be rescheduled for the                                                                   
next House State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[HCR 15 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
           HB 162-DMV REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE                                                                        
                [Contains discussion of HB 205.]                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
8:57:19 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business would be                                                                  
HOUSE BILL NO. 162 "An Act relating to administrative revocation                                                                
of a driver's license; and repealing Rule 603(a)(3), Alaska                                                                     
Rules of Appellate Procedure."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:57:32 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime                                                                 
sponsor of HB 162, read the following sponsor statement                                                                         
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     When you  make poor choices  and decide to  drive under                                                                    
     the influence you will  face criminal prosecution. Upon                                                                    
     conviction by  a jury  of your peers  you might  face a                                                                    
     sentence  of   imprisonment,  fines,  and  use   of  an                                                                    
     ignition   interlock  device   after  you   regain  the                                                                    
     privilege of  a driver  license. If  you are  found not                                                                    
     guilty  of  all  charges,  the court  shall  grant  you                                                                    
     access  to  driving  license privileges.  However,  the                                                                    
     state  of  Alaska  possesses  two  separate  bodies  of                                                                    
     authority  to determine  the rights  and privileges  of                                                                    
     Alaskan drivers.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Under AS 28.15.165, Department  of Motor Vehicles (DMV)                                                                    
     is authorized  to conduct an  administrative revocation                                                                    
     of  a  driver's  license  when a  chemical  test  of  a                                                                    
     person's  breath  shows an  alcohol  level  of 0.08  or                                                                    
     more, or the person refuses  to take the chemical test.                                                                    
     The  administrative  process  by   the  DMV  may  occur                                                                    
     whether or not  there is a criminal charge  for a court                                                                    
     to process.  If you wish to  contest the administrative                                                                    
     revocation   you   can   schedule   an   administrative                                                                    
     revocation  hearing  over  the phone  to  review  DMV's                                                                    
     action. The hearing for review  of action by the DMV is                                                                    
     limited  to the  issue of  whether the  law enforcement                                                                    
     officer had  probable cause to believe  that the person                                                                    
     was operating  a motor vehicle  under the  influence of                                                                    
     drugs or alcohol. The DMV  hearing officer will conduct                                                                    
     the  hearing, examine  witnesses, review  evidence, and                                                                    
     make  a  final  ruling  on  the  issue.  Administrative                                                                    
     revocations  by  the  DMV  may   be  concurrent  or  in                                                                    
     addition to any penalties applied  by the courts and is                                                                    
     at the discretion of the DMV hearing officer.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     The state  of Alaska  possesses two separate  bodies of                                                                    
     authority  to determine  the rights  and privileges  of                                                                    
     Alaskan  drivers.  The  state of  Alaska  court  system                                                                    
     provides  for a  trial by  a jury  of your  peers which                                                                    
     will  review the  evidence and  deliberate on  criminal                                                                    
     sentencing.  In  comparison,  the  DMV's  authority  to                                                                    
     impose conditions on the issuance  of a limited license                                                                    
     is designed to promptly  address public safety and does                                                                    
     not  necessarily  involve  the  considerations  of  the                                                                    
     verdicts  of  the  courts.  In   the  end,  anyone  who                                                                    
     presents probable  cause to  a law  enforcement officer                                                                    
     is considered  guilty. Even  if found  not guilty  by a                                                                    
     jury  of your  peers through  the Alaska  Court System,                                                                    
     the DMV  has the authority to  place additional burdens                                                                    
     on the  individual. HB 162  solves this dual  burden of                                                                    
     driver  license  revocations   by  repealing  the  DMVs                                                                    
     independent authority  to administrative  revocation of                                                                    
     a  driver's  license and  place  it  solely within  the                                                                    
     court.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
9:00:35 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON explained  that  the proposed  legislation                                                               
does not seek  to change the procedures related  to driving under                                                               
the influence (DUI),  but rather, to allow a  person charged with                                                               
DUI  and exonerated  by  the  court system  to  have  his or  her                                                               
license returned and  not receive any further  penalties from the                                                               
DMV.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
9:01:31 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LYNN asked  for clarification  that  someone arrested  for                                                               
DUI, who  is found not  guilty of DUI  by the court,  could still                                                               
have his/her license  revoked by the DMV.  He  asked also if that                                                               
situation constitutes double jeopardy.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON agreed  that  there  is an  administrative                                                               
review by the  DMV in addition to the  court proceeding; however,                                                               
she  added  that  it  is   not  double  jeopardy  because  it  is                                                               
considered  to be  similar  to  a civil  case,  as  opposed to  a                                                               
criminal case subject to court procedures.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed her support for HB 162.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
9:03:19 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ  expressed that she also  supports HB 162.                                                               
She   asked  for   clarification   that   through  the   proposed                                                               
legislation there would have to  be a judicial process before the                                                               
DMV could revoke a driver's license.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  responded that someone who  is stopped for                                                               
DUI by a law enforcement officer  and given a ticket must then go                                                               
to  court;  however,  as  she  explained  further,  even  if  the                                                               
individual is found  not guilty by the court, he  or she is still                                                               
subject  to the  findings  and penalty  of  a DMV  administrative                                                               
review.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ  asked if  the proposed  legislation would                                                               
affect federal funding.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded  that she was unable  to find any                                                               
evidence that  HB 162  would result in  loss of  federal funding.                                                               
She questioned why  there was a zero fiscal note  attached as she                                                               
speculated  that the  proposed  legislation  would eliminate  the                                                               
need for the two administrative hearing officers within the DMV.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
9:05:27 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  responded  to Chair  Lynn's  request  for                                                               
clarification on the issue of  federal funding by saying that the                                                               
federal  government has,  at times,  linked federal  funding with                                                               
certain  legislation,  such  as  seat  belt  laws;  however,  she                                                               
reiterated  that she  has  found no  evidence  that the  proposed                                                               
legislation  would   affect  any  federal  funding.     She  also                                                               
emphasized  that HB  162  does not  change  laws or  consequences                                                               
regarding  DUI, but  maintained that  the DMV  is not  the proper                                                               
place for adjudication.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
9:06:24 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER   stated  his  support  for   HB  162  and                                                               
maintained  his  belief that  in  Alaska  the administrative  and                                                               
judicial branches  are stronger  than the legislative  branch, in                                                               
part  because  the  governor appoints  the  commissioner  of  the                                                               
Department of Law  (DOL).  He opined that "anything  we can do to                                                               
separate  justice  from  the   enforcement  and  the  legislative                                                               
process ... cleans up our act."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
9:07:14 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
NICOLE THAM, Driver Services Manager,  Division of Motor Vehicles                                                               
(DMV),  Department of  Administration (DOA),  stated her  concern                                                               
that the committee  and the public understand that it  is not the                                                               
DMV's duty to administratively revoke  driver's licenses but that                                                               
the  Thirteenth  Alaska State  Legislature  -  to deal  with  the                                                               
problem  of  drunk  driving  and   increase  safety  on  Alaska's                                                               
roadways - adopted administrative  license revocation.  She added                                                               
that  one  of  the  primary purposes  of  administrative  license                                                               
revocation was  to impose swift  licensing sanctions  on impaired                                                               
drivers to deter drunk driving.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
9:08:13 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LYNN asked  Ms.  Tham to  explain why  there  would be  an                                                               
administrative revocation  in the  case where  the court  found a                                                               
person not guilty of a DUI.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  THAM responded  that there  were  two separate  proceedings:                                                               
the court proceeding to punish  the criminal action and the civil                                                               
proceeding  - administrative  revocation  - to  remove the  drunk                                                               
driver from the roadway.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LYNN asked for further explanation  as to the basis for the                                                               
DMV acting  as a  "second" court  hearing when  there has  been a                                                               
criminal proceeding that determined the driver was not impaired.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  THAM explained  that  even  if the  action  is dismissed  in                                                               
court,  the  two   main  issues  -  probable   cause  for  arrest                                                               
("probable cause")  and the validity  of the breathalyzer  test -                                                               
are the only two issues that the DMV considers in its hearing.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LYNN  contended  that  a  stop for  probable  cause  is  a                                                               
judgment call  by an officer that  the driver is impaired,  but a                                                               
subsequent  court  finding  that  the  driver  was  not  impaired                                                               
suggests two different court proceedings.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. THAM explained the process as  follows:  An officer will stop                                                               
a  driver   if  there   is  probable   cause  and   administer  a                                                               
breathalyzer  test.   If the  breathalyzer test  result shows  an                                                               
alcohol  concentration of  .08 or  greater,  indicating that  the                                                               
driver  is  actually  impaired,  or if  the  driver  refuses  the                                                               
breathalyzer  test, the  administrative proceeding  is initiated.                                                               
The driver is then served a  notice and order of revocation which                                                               
explains  the process,  why their  driving  privileges are  being                                                               
revoked,  and  serves as  a  seven-day  temporary license.    The                                                               
driver has  seven days to  request an administrative  hearing for                                                               
review of the action against  his/her driving privileges, and, if                                                               
a hearing  is not  requested, the  action is  put on  the record.                                                               
She  concluded   by  stating  that   often  the   separate  court                                                               
proceeding does not occur until months later.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
9:11:32 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES  reiterated  her  belief  that  the  DMV's                                                               
second-guessing the  court's determination appears  comparable to                                                               
a double  jeopardy and creates  more hardship for  the individual                                                               
who has already had to go through the court process.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
9:12:24 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if, in  Ms. Tham's opinion, the court                                                               
system of Alaska is incapable of swift sanctions.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  THAM  responded  that the  court  proceeding  is  completely                                                               
independent  of  the  DMV,  and  that  the  DMV  is  required  by                                                               
statutory  provision  to  take  action against  a  driver  for  a                                                               
breathalyzer test result of .08  or greater who received a notice                                                               
and order of  revocation.  She added that Alaska  is in line with                                                               
43  other  states,   the  District  of  Columbia,   and  the  two                                                               
territories  of  the  Northern Mariana  Islands  and  the  Virgin                                                               
Islands, in  adopting licensing sanctions to  deter drunk driving                                                               
and  remove  impaired  drivers  swiftly   from  the  road.    The                                                               
administrative  revocation of  the DMV  often precedes  the court                                                               
action, because the DMV action is  taken within seven days of the                                                               
notice  and  order  being  served unless  the  action  is  stayed                                                               
because the driver requested an  administrative hearing.  In most                                                               
cases the DMV action precedes court action.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
9:13:55 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER asked  why  there is  a  zero fiscal  note                                                               
attached to HB 162.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. THAM  explained that  the DMV does  other hearings  for motor                                                               
vehicle and  driver's license  issues, and  although the  bulk of                                                               
the  hearings   involve  administrative  revocation   of  driving                                                               
privileges,  there  are  hearings   related  to  title  disputes,                                                               
personalized plate disputes, and medical cancellation.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER reiterated  his belief  that the  proposed                                                               
legislation should have a positive  fiscal note due to the stated                                                               
reduction in duties.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. THAM responded that the full  fiscal implication of HB 162 is                                                               
unclear at this time.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
9:15:10 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. THAM, in response to  Representative Vazquez's question about                                                               
when  the notice  of revocation  is  issued, relayed  that it  is                                                               
issued at the time of arrest.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VAZQUEZ  asked what  the  wait  time was  for  an                                                               
administrative hearing, if requested.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. THAM replied that the  hearing requests are processed as soon                                                               
as  they are  received, and  hearings are  scheduled about  30-45                                                               
days  beyond that  point.   She added  that once  the hearing  is                                                               
granted the action  is stayed and is not applied  to the driver's                                                               
record until an affirmed decision  at the hearing.  If dismissed,                                                               
the action is not added to the record.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked  if there is notice of  the right to                                                               
appeal the decision in court  once the administrative decision is                                                               
issued.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  THAM  responded yes  and  added  that  the decision  may  be                                                               
appealed  through  the  superior  court within  30  days  of  the                                                               
decision of the hearing.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
9:17:14 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ  requested Ms. Tham explain  the instances                                                               
in  which  the DMV  does  not  adhere  to  a court  decision  but                                                               
proceeds  to revoke  the  license of  an  individual even  though                                                               
he/she was found not guilty by a court.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. THAM  explained that since the  administrative action usually                                                               
precedes  the  court action,  the  administrative  action is  not                                                               
dependent  at all  on  the  court action.    She  added that  the                                                               
criteria for  the DMV action has  a lower threshold than  that of                                                               
the court system - the DMV  criteria being probable cause and the                                                               
results of the breathalyzer test.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for confirmation  that the DMV has a                                                               
separate basis  for taking action against  someone's license from                                                               
that of the court system.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. THAM  confirmed that  under AS  28.15.165 that  statement was                                                               
correct.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VAZQUEZ   asked  if   the  DMV   action  occurred                                                               
regardless of the court's decision.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. THAM answered in the affirmative.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
9:18:35 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS asked  how many  full-time hearing                                                               
officers are tasked with the administrative hearings described.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. THAM responded that there  are two full-time hearing officers                                                               
who  review  DMV  hearings  of  all  types,  and  there  are  six                                                               
administrative  licensing staff  who perform  some aspect  of the                                                               
administrative revocation process.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked what  portion of  staff time                                                               
is spent on license revocations.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. THAM  expressed that  it would be  difficult to  estimate the                                                               
amount  of time,  and she  said she  would provide  the committee                                                               
with that information.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
9:20:21 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VAZQUEZ asked  how many  times the  DMV suspended                                                               
someone's license  when the court  determined him/her  not guilty                                                               
of DUI.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  THAM  stated  that  the  DMV  has  data  on  the  number  of                                                               
administrative  revocations and  administrative hearings,  but no                                                               
data on criminal conviction, as that would be with the court.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked Ms. Tham to  cite the number                                                               
of administrative revocations per year  and the average number of                                                               
revoked licenses in Alaska at any given time.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
9:22:17 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VAZQUEZ  expressed  that although  she  sees  the                                                               
merit  of swift  action by  the DMV,  she doesn't  understand how                                                               
anyone  who  has his/her  license  revoked  by  the DMV  after  a                                                               
judicial  action   exonerates  him/her  is  being   afforded  due                                                               
process.   She  added  that she  did recognize  the  merit of  an                                                               
administrative process  that is  more responsive than  the longer                                                               
and more cumbersome criminal process.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON asked  rhetorically, "Aren't  you innocent                                                               
until proven  guilty?"   She further attested  that a  DMV action                                                               
that precedes a court decision counters that principle.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
9:24:59 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ  voiced her opinion that  the matter under                                                               
discussion was one  of balance.  She declared  that public safety                                                               
is an  important consideration  - that is,  the issue  of drivers                                                               
suspected  of DUI  being  allowed on  the roadways.     She  also                                                               
conceded  that  having  one's driving  privileges  revoked  is  a                                                               
serious  impediment   in  Alaska.     She  opined  that   a  long                                                               
administrative  process  is  problematic but  that  the  judicial                                                               
system would  move even slower.   She expressed a desire  to hear                                                               
testimony from the court system.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LYNN  suggested  the possibility  of  these  issues  being                                                               
addressed  in the  House Judiciary  Standing Committee,  which is                                                               
the next committee of referral for HB 162.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:27:04 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS requested  the  number of  license                                                               
revocations annually in Alaska.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. THAM  answered that in  2008 there were  5,902 administrative                                                               
revocations for DUI,  and in 2014 there were 3,563,  a 40 percent                                                               
reduction.   She  asked  the committee  members  to consider  the                                                               
decrease  in  DUIs  in  light  of all  the  deterrents  to  drunk                                                               
driving, either  singularly or in combination,  namely sanctions,                                                               
convictions,  administrative  revocations,   and  all  the  other                                                               
requirements.   She stressed  that only  25-29 percent  of people                                                               
who get an administrative revocation request a review.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE    KREISS-TOMKINS    asked    if    administrative                                                               
revocations exist in other states.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  THAM repeated  her claim  from  earlier that  administrative                                                               
revocations exist in  43 other states, the  District of Columbia,                                                               
and the two  territories of the Northern Mariana  Islands and the                                                               
Virgin Islands.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
9:29:01 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked Ms. Tham and  the sponsor if                                                               
either knew how  HB 162 differs from or relates  similarly to the                                                               
criminal  justice reform  bill [HB  205, Criminal  Law/Procedure;                                                               
Driv  Lic;  Pub  Aid]  heard  in  the  House  Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee  the previous  day, and  he mentioned  specifically the                                                               
provisions in  HB 205 that  relate to the revocation  of driver's                                                               
licenses.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that  she spoke with Senator Coghill's                                                               
legislative aide,  who asserted  that the content  of HB  162 was                                                               
not included in HB 205 and  there was no conflict between the two                                                               
proposed legislations.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  THAM  mentioned that  she  was  aware of  discussions  about                                                               
proposed legislation  addressing the  issue of  limited licenses.                                                               
She  also noted  discussions  concerning the  review of  criminal                                                               
laws and practices  within AS 28, which includes  the dual system                                                               
of administrative and judicial license revocation.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
9:31:09 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES  opined that she understands  that having a                                                               
driver's license is a privilege.   She expressed her concern that                                                               
the DMV  is overstepping the bounds  of its expertise.   She went                                                               
on  to give  the  example of  a  homeless man  living  in a  non-                                                               
operational truck who  received a DUI for drinking  in his truck.                                                               
She said that  the court dismissed the DUI, but  the DMV required                                                               
the individual get a full  mental evaluation before returning his                                                               
driver license to him.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
9:32:50 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ declared that  her greatest concern is the                                                               
situation in which the court has  ruled and the DMV overturns the                                                               
decision.  She  opined that she also understands  the validity of                                                               
the DMV  removing an impaired  driver from the street  with swift                                                               
action.  She  stated further that the courts are  bogged down and                                                               
cannot swiftly take  action as can the DMV.   She maintained that                                                               
the issue is  "when the court takes action and  finds someone not                                                               
guilty for  whatever reason, that DMV  not be able to  usurp that                                                               
judicial  decision."   She  repeated  her  belief that  there  is                                                               
validity  to  having  an  administrative  process  that  is  more                                                               
flexible and faster than the judicial system.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
9:35:23 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER  asked Representative Vazquez if  she would                                                               
be comfortable relying on the  three House State Affairs Standing                                                               
Committee  members,  who  also   serve  on  the  House  Judiciary                                                               
Standing  Committee,  to  bring  her   issues  up  in  the  House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee  hearing.  He restated  her issue as                                                               
the balance between the considerations  for public safety against                                                               
administrative  authority for  license  revocation. He  expressed                                                               
that  the  desire   for  the  court  system   to  handle  license                                                               
revocation  was not  at all  a reflection  on the  administrative                                                               
review  system but  said that  he thought  it was  an unnecessary                                                               
duplication.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ suggested a  possible amendment to tighten                                                               
the timeframe  for the  administrative license  revocation review                                                               
process.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
9:37:39 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE    WILSON    responded   that    she    understood                                                               
Representative Vazquez's  concern but  asserted that  the court's                                                               
timeframe is  governed by  that process  and the  DMV's timeframe                                                               
precedes that of  the court.  She offered to  work with committee                                                               
members to consider amendments to  alleviate their concerns.  She                                                               
reiterated her  belief that  the court  system process  should be                                                               
the only process and it should precede license revocation.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   STUTES  agreed   with  Representative   Wilson's                                                               
assessment  of  the  current license  revocation  procedures  and                                                               
said, "You  don't punish somebody  for something before  you know                                                               
they've done it."  She reiterated that she supported the bill.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
9:40:39 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked Nancy Meade if  she knew the                                                               
usual wait  times and  process times for  someone charged  with a                                                               
DUI [in the court system].                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:41:47 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
NANCY  MEADE, General  Council, Administrative  Staff, Office  of                                                               
the Administrative  Director, Alaska  Court System,  responded to                                                               
the question  posed by  Representative Kreiss-Tomkins  by stating                                                               
that the average time for  disposition of misdemeanor DUIs - that                                                               
is, first and second DUIs -  is four months, and the average time                                                               
for  a felony  DUI is  nine months.   She  stated that  there was                                                               
great variation among the times.   She also reiterated Ms. Tham's                                                               
assertion that  the number of  DUIs has decreased and  the number                                                               
of DUIs in 2015 was 3,650.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:42:59 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked how  many of the 3,650 convictions                                                               
were felony.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE responded  that in 2015 there were  223 convictions for                                                               
felony  DUI  and 3,371  convictions  for  misdemeanor DUI.    She                                                               
explained  that these  numbers referred  to  convictions and  not                                                               
charges.   She added that there  is a low acquittal  rate for DUI                                                               
charges.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
9:43:51 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VAZQUEZ  asked for  the  acquittal  rate for  the                                                               
misdemeanor cases.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  replied that  she didn't know  but could  provide that                                                               
information to the committee along with the dismissal rate.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
9:44:20 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  repeated  the  number   of  DUIs  for  Representative                                                               
Spohnholz,  which  is  about  3600.    She  added  one  point  of                                                               
clarification regarding  HB 205.   She said that although  HB 205                                                               
does  not have  a  provision  similar to  HB  162,  it does  have                                                               
several provisions  about giving limited licenses  back to people                                                               
who have  had a DUI.   She directed the committee's  attention to                                                               
Section 83 of HB 205, which  says that if a court acquits someone                                                               
of a  DUI and  their license  had been  revoked administratively,                                                               
the court  decision would stop that  administrative revocation at                                                               
that  point  in   time.    She  added  that   almost  always  the                                                               
administrative   revocation   takes   place  before   the   court                                                               
disposition of the case.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SPOHNHOLZ  asked  the  sponsor  if  the  proposed                                                               
legislation would treat felony and misdemeanor DUIs differently.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  answered that they would  be treated alike                                                               
in  the   proposed  legislation  -   the  intent  being   to  put                                                               
jurisdiction back into the court system.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VAZQUEZ   asked  for  acquittal  rates   for  the                                                               
different categories of DUI.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE agreed to provide that information to the committee.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
9:46:43 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TALERICO  asked  Representative  Wilson  for  the                                                               
current  procedures when  someone is  stopped by  an officer  and                                                               
refuses a breathalyzer test.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ  alleged that  no one with  that expertise                                                               
is present who can answer Representative Talerico's question.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that a  person suspected of a DUI                                                               
does not  walk away.  She  contended that someone suspected  of a                                                               
DUI is  given notice  of the DMV  procedures and  timeline before                                                               
any  judicial  proceeding.    She stated  her  belief  that  this                                                               
scenario constitutes a  presumption of guilt before  a person has                                                               
been to court and received due process.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
9:49:28 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ  voiced her assumption that  the acquittal                                                               
rate is  about 5-10 percent.   She offered that  someone arrested                                                               
for  serial assault  or  serial  murder would  have  to wait  for                                                               
judicial  action.   She also  noted that  an employee  accused of                                                               
serious misconduct is suspended  immediately.  She suggested that                                                               
the balance  for public  safety and  interest is  a consideration                                                               
for immediate action in those cases.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON   reiterated  that  a  person   should  be                                                               
innocent until proven  guilty.  She claimed that she  knows of no                                                               
other  scenario  where  you must  go  through  an  administrative                                                               
hearing and  be punished  before a court  proceeding.   She cited                                                               
the example of a shoplifter.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
9:51:59 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ  countered that  in the case  of suspected                                                               
shoplifting and  certainly more serious accusations  there may be                                                               
a  number  of  pre-trial  conditions  set  by  court  before  the                                                               
judicial process, including bail, loss  of freedom of movement, a                                                               
court-appointed     custodian,    travel     restrictions,    and                                                               
imprisonment, all to safeguard the public interests.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON maintained that  the court determined those                                                               
conditions, not the DMV.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
9:54:08 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER  asked if the court  could restrict driving                                                               
as a pretrial condition in a simple but swift process.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ expressed concern  for the added burden to                                                               
the  court  to  be  tasked  in  that  way  but  acknowledged  the                                                               
possibility  of  the  court restricting  driving  as  a  pretrial                                                               
condition.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LYNN asked Representative Vazquez  to work with the sponsor                                                               
to address  her concerns  before HB  162 was  heard in  the House                                                               
Judiciary  Standing Committee,  if it  moved out  of the  current                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SPOHNHOLZ  asked if  HB  162  would increase  the                                                               
workload of the court system.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  responded that  HB 162 would  not increase                                                               
the  workload for  the court  system and  relayed that  the court                                                               
system offered no fiscal note for the proposed legislation.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony on HB 162.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
9:56:28AM                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS stated  his belief  that there  is                                                               
room for  improvement in the  degree of diligence with  regard to                                                               
the fiscal note.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
9:57:14 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER  moved to  report HB  162 out  of committee                                                               
with  individual  recommendations  and  the  accompanying  fiscal                                                               
notes.  There being no objection,  HB 162 was reported out of the                                                               
House State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
9:58:51 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:59.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
08 HB 273 Letter of Support AK Auto Assn 1-28-2016.pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 273
09 CSHB 273 v.I (STA).pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 273
10 HB273 Sectional Analysis v.I.pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 273
09 Keller Amendment A.4 HB 229 as of 3-10-2016.pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 229
01 HB 162 Ver. A.pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 162
02 HB 162 Sponsor Statement 1-2412016.pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 162
03 HB 162 Supporting Document - Spreadsheet States.pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 162
04 HB 162 Supporting Document - NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts January 2008.pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 162
05 HB 162 AS 28.15.181.pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 162
06 HB 162 AS 28.15.166.pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 162
07 HB 162 AS 28.05.165.pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 162
08 HB 162 Supporting Document - Montana Code Annotated.pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 162
09 HB162 Fiscal Note DOA-Motor Vehicles.pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 162
10 HB 162 Legal Services Bill draft request 4 Nov 2014.pdf HSTA 3/15/2016 8:00:00 AM
HB 162