Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/05/2004 09:03 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 5, 2004
9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 385(JUD) am
"An Act relating to homeland security, to civil defense, to
emergencies and to disasters, including disasters in the event
of attacks, outbreaks of disease, or threats of attack or
outbreak of disease; establishing the Alaska division of
homeland security and emergency management in the Department of
Military and Veterans' Affairs and relating to the functions of
that division and that department; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 385(JUD) am OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 231(FIN)
"An Act relating to unclaimed property; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 231(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 354(STA) am(efd fld)
"An Act relating to complaints filed with, and investigations,
hearings, and orders of, the State Commission for Human Rights;
and making conforming amendments."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 385
SHORT TITLE: SECURITY;DIV. HOMELAND SECURITY/EMER. MGT
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
04/05/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/04 (S) HES, FIN
04/05/04 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/05/04 (S) Heard & Held
04/05/04 (S) MINUTE(HES)
04/07/04 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/04 (S) -- Rescheduled to 5:30 pm 04/07/04 --
04/07/04 (S) HES AT 5:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/04 (S) -- Rescheduled from 1:30 04/07/04 --
04/08/04 (S) HES RPT CS 2DP 2NR SAME TITLE
04/08/04 (S) DP: DYSON, WILKEN; NR: GUESS, DAVIS
04/16/04 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED REFERRED TO RULES
04/20/04 (S) JUD REFERRAL ADDED AFTER HES
04/20/04 (S) JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE23
04/21/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/21/04 (S) Moved CSSB 385(JUD) Out of Committee
04/21/04 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/22/04 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 2NR SAME TITLE
04/22/04 (S) DP: SEEKINS; NR: FRENCH, OGAN
04/22/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/22/04 (S) Waived from Committee
04/28/04 (S) RESCIND ACTION IN ADOPTING AM #2 UC
04/29/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/29/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 385(JUD) AM
04/30/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/30/04 (H) STA
05/04/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/04/04 (H) Heard & Held
05/04/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/05/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 231
SHORT TITLE: DECREASE TIME TO CLAIM UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
05/21/03 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/21/03 (S) STA, FIN
04/01/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/01/04 (S) Moved CSSB 231(STA) Out of Committee
04/01/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/02/04 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE
04/02/04 (S) DP: STEVENS G, COWDERY, STEDMAN
04/16/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/16/04 (S) Heard & Held
04/16/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/26/04 (S) FIN RPT CS FORTHCOMING 5DP 2NR
04/26/04 (S) DP: GREEN, WILKEN, DYSON, BUNDE,
04/26/04 (S) STEVENS B; NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON
04/26/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/26/04 (S) Moved CSSB 231(FIN) Out of Committee
04/26/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/29/04 (S) FIN CS RECEIVED NEW TITLE
05/03/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/03/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 231(FIN)
05/04/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/04/04 (H) STA, FIN
05/05/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 354
SHORT TITLE: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION PROCEDURES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/27/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/04 (S) STA, JUD
03/23/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/23/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/23/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/01/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/01/04 (S) Moved CSSB 354(STA) Out of Committee
04/01/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/02/04 (S) STA RPT CS FORTHCOMING 1DP 2NR
04/02/04 (S) NR: STEVENS G, STEDMAN; DP: COWDERY
04/05/04 (S) STA CS RECEIVED SAME TITLE
04/14/04 (S) JUD AT 5:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/14/04 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/20/04 (S) JUD RPT CS(STA) 1DP 3NR
04/20/04 (S) DP: SEEKINS
04/20/04 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, OGAN, FRENCH
04/20/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/20/04 (S) Moved CSSB 354(STA) Out of Committee
04/20/04 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/02/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/02/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 354(STA) AM(EFD FLD)
05/03/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/03/04 (H) STA, JUD
05/04/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/04/04 (H) Heard & Held
05/04/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/05/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/05/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN CRAMER, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of CSSB 385(JUD)am,
answered questions.
MICHAEL MITCHELL, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of CSSB 385(JUD)am,
answered questions.
DAVID E. LIEBERSBACH, Director
Division of Homeland Security/Emergency Management
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of CSSB 385(JUD)am,
answered questions.
MARY ELLEN BEARDSLEY, Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 231, offered to
answer questions.
TODD THAKAR
Prudential Financial
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 231, offered to
answer questions.
LISA FITZPATRICK, Chair
Human Rights Commission
Office of the Governor
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the Human Rights Commission
opposes the language in Section 6 of CSSB 354(STA)am (efd fld).
SCOTT J. NORDSTRAND, Deputy Attorney General
Civil Division
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of CSSB 354(STA)am (efd
fld), answered questions.
TOMAS H. BOUTIN, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of CSSB 231(FIN),
provided information.
RACHEL LEWIS, Unclaimed Property Section
Treasury Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of CSSB 231(FIN),
discussed sections of the bill that aren't in line with the 1995
Act.
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General
Legislation & Regulations Section
Office of the Attorney General
Department Of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of CSSB 231(FIN),
discussed the Department of Law's view on the changes.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-79, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. Representatives Holm,
Seaton, Lynn, Gruenberg, and Weyhrauch were present at the call
to order. Representatives Coghill and Berkowitz arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
SB 385-SECURITY;DIV. HOMELAND SECURITY/EMER. MGT
Number 0177
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 385(JUD) am, "An Act relating to homeland
security, to civil defense, to emergencies and to disasters,
including disasters in the event of attacks, outbreaks of
disease, or threats of attack or outbreak of disease;
establishing the Alaska division of homeland security and
emergency management in the Department of Military and Veterans'
Affairs and relating to the functions of that division and that
department; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0185
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt CSSB 385(JUD) am.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.
Number 0255
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
1. Page 11, line 28 - delete "threat of attacks" and
insert "threat level"
2. Page 12, line 16 - delete "threats from attack"
and insert "attack threats"
3. Page 13, line 4 - delete "preventive" and insert
"prevention"
4. Page 21, lines 7-8 - delete "an attack or imminent
threat of attack" and insert "a credible threat of
imminent enemy or terrorist attack"
5. Page 21, line 29 - delete "an imminent" and insert
"a credible"
Page 21, line 30 - before "enemy" insert
"imminent"
6. Page 22, line 6 - delete "an imminent" and insert
"a credible threat of an imminent"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 1 makes
several technical and conforming changes. In response to a
question from Representative Holm, he explained that the changes
would help conform the bill "to itself," so that there are not
any internal inconsistencies.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
Number 0365
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection to adopting CSSB
385(JUD) am.
Number 0374
JOHN CRAMER, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs, said he is not
cognizant of all the changes that were discussed that are in
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reviewed the first change [text
provided previously]. He said he believes "threat levels" is
the correct term to use.
MR. CRAMER explained that one method of depicting levels of
threat is by a color system: level yellow, to level orange, to
level red. The State of Alaska has adopted a similar threat
level [indicator].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Cramer if he would "prefer
the change that we have here."
Number 0482
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH told the committee that he had indicated to the
sponsor that he wanted to move the bill out of committee. He
said there is no problem to offering amendments on the House
floor, but he doesn't want to slow the bill down in this
committee. He clarified that he doesn't mind hearing the
department's position, but he isn't inclined to amend the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would not waste his time if the
committee is not inclined to [address the amendment]. He said,
"Let's just leave this Amendment 1."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that Amendment 1 had been withdrawn.
Number 0549
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt] Amendment 2, which
read as follows:
Page 19, line 8:
Delete "The"
Insert "To the extent preempted by federal law,
the"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated his plans to take Representative
Gruenberg's amendments to Senator Fred Dyson's office for him to
"think about these in the context of ... this bill." He said he
wants the department to "talk about this a little more carefully
with Senator Dyson's staff." He mentioned the roles of various
departments and committees in this process.
MR. CRAMER concurred with Chair Weyhrauch that he had not had
the opportunity to speak with the sponsor or staff regarding any
changes to the bill.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected to Amendment 2.
Number 0655
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the language that Amendment 2
would add to the bill is the correct legal term to use.
Number 0688
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, at the request of Chair Weyhrauch,
withdrew Amendment 2.
Number 0700
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt] Amendment 3, which
read as follows:
Page 2, line 4, through page 7, line 24:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 24.20 is amended by adding a new
section to article 5 to read:
Sec. 24.20.680. Legislative review. (a) The
president of the senate and the speaker of the house
of representatives shall appoint members or committees
of the senate and the house, respectively, to review
confidential activities, plans, reports,
recommendations, and other materials of the Alaska
division of homeland security and emergency management
established in AS 24.20.025, or of other agencies or
persons, relating to matters concerning homeland
security and civil defense, emergencies, or disasters
in the state or to the state's preparedness for or
ability to mount a prompt response to matters
concerning homeland security and civil defense,
emergencies, or disasters. In making appointments
under this subsection, each presiding officer shall
ensure that the political party membership of the
members appointed by that presiding officer is
proportional to the political party membership of the
house of the legislature over which the officer
presides.
(b) To be eligible for appointment under (a) of
this section, a member shall have a federal security
clearance at the secret level at the time of
appointment or shall have an interim security
clearance at the secret level at the time of
appointment and shall apply for and receive a federal
security clearance at the secret level. Members
holding a federal security clearance at the secret
level at the time of appointment or receiving the
clearance following appointment shall maintain the
federal security clearance at the secret level to
remain qualified to serve in appointed status.
(c) The president of the senate and the speaker
of the house of representatives may condition the
appointment of members under (a) of this section upon
the execution of appropriate confidentiality
agreements by the members or by persons assisting
those members. Information and documents received by
appointed members or persons assisting appointed
members under a confidentiality agreement as described
in this subsection are not public records and are not
subject to public disclosure under AS 40.25.100 -
40.25.220.
(d) Appointed members who remain qualified under
(b) of this section serve for the duration of the
legislature during which the members are appointed.
If a member is reelected or a member's term of office
extends into the next succeeding legislature and the
member remains qualified under (a) and (b) of this
section, the member shall continue to serve until
reappointed or the appointment of the member's
successor.
(e) When a member appointed under (a) of this
section files a declaration of candidacy for an
elective office other than that of member of either
house of the legislature, and the member has not
resigned from appointed status, the member's appointed
status terminates on the date that the member leaves
legislative office."
Page 22, line 16, through page 23, line 5:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 21. AS 24.20.680 is repealed January 1,
2009.
* Sec. 22. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED
LEGISLATION. If the adjutant general of the
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs
determines that additional qualifications for
appointment under AS 24.20.680, added by sec. 2 of
this Act, would significantly enhance the security of
sensitive materials or information to be reviewed
under AS 24.20.680, the adjutant general shall prepare
a bill proposing amendments to AS 24.20.680, enacted
by sec. 2 of this Act, for consideration by each house
of the legislature, and shall deliver the bill to the
Secretary of the Alaska State Senate and the Chief
Clerk of the Alaska State House of Representatives not
later than 30 days following the convening of the
First Regular Session of the Twenty-Fourth Alaska
State Legislature.
* Sec. 23. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
INITIAL APPOINTMENT. The President of the Alaska
State Senate and the Speaker of the Alaska State House
of Representatives shall make the appointments
required under AS 24.20.680, enacted by sec. 2 of this
Act, within 15 days after the effective date of this
Act."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected to Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the bill itself sets up
a [Homeland Security and Emergency Management] Subcommittee of
the Joint Armed Services Committee to receive confidential
information. He indicated that those involved would have to
receive a "secret clearance" and sign a confidentiality form.
Unfortunately, he said, the Joint Armed Services Committee is
not a legislative committee. He noted that the Senate does not
have a committee on military and veterans' affairs, while the
House does. He explained that [Amendment 3] would allow the
presiding officers the discretion to appoint individuals or a
committee "to deal with this." Those individuals would receive
"secret clearance," sign a confidentiality document, and have
access "to this information." He stated, "It's the same
process; it's just a question of who would be doing it."
Representative Gruenberg said he is under the impression that
the co-chair of the [Joint] Armed Services Committee, among
others, seem to think [Amendment 3] is a good idea.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a request by Chair
Weyhrauch, withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 3.
Number 0912
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to [a two-page list of]
questions [included in the committee packet], which were
submitted by Jim Butler. He said some of the questions probably
ought to be addressed. For example, on page 12, beginning on
line 16, the language proposes that folks in the DMVA will have
police powers, but they will not get police training. He
questioned if the situation would exist where people who are
untrained are "doing the establishment of these procedures."
Number 1011
MICHAEL MITCHELL, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law,
said he would defer to Mr. Cramer regarding the specifics of the
activities in which the department engages. In regard to page
12, line 16, he offered his understanding that "investigation"
in that context is "evaluation or assessment of the nature of
the threat, rather than a law enforcement form of investigation
or intelligence gathering." More generally, he stated his
understanding that DMVA does not engage in law enforcement-type
of activities or police-type activities.
Number 1089
DAVID E. LIEBERSBACH, Director, Division of Homeland
Security/Emergency Management, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs, noted that "the individuals that are assigned
to this" do get training to the certification of state troopers,
when they are acting with the state and before they are deployed
with the state troopers. He clarified that the investigative
type of work these folks do is gathering information and
evaluating critical infrastructure of state or private
facilities. He emphasized that the investigations are done by
request. For example, assessments are currently being done on
Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), the Alaska Railroad,
and the Port of Anchorage. He said, "I could go on and on, but
we're getting a little bit into sensitive areas." Those
investigators are looking for vulnerability to potential
terrorist activity, and they provide input to assisting that
state or private facility to developing plans and programs to
lessen their vulnerability. He emphasized that no kind of
criminal investigations are done; that job strictly lies with
the Alaska State Troopers or local police, or - if federal -
with the federal force.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that he would like answers to
Mr. Butler's questions.
MR. CRAMER noted that the language on page 12, "lines
16, 22, 24, 28" is currently in statute, in AS 26.20.
He reiterated that those civil statutes were enacted
in 1951 and have been there since that time. He said
the department has the authority to execute [AS]
26.20. He spoke of combining [two existing divisions
into the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management], in order to save money. He indicated the
intent to "get rid of a lot of the very onerous stuff
that was in the ... original civil defense statute.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that he didn't want [Mr.
Butler's] questions glossed over in the committee's rush to
address the bill; however, he stated that he knows the committee
doesn't have the time to "do it here."
MR. CRAMER stated that [SB 385] is a critical piece of
legislation that the department would like to see moved forward.
He noted that the department has, for its own use, prepared
responses to [Mr. Butler's] questions, and he offered to make
those responses available to the committee.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that would be important, particularly if
Mr. Cramer could make those available before the bill gets to
the House floor.
Number 1374
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his hope that Chair Weyhrauch
will indicate on the House floor why the committee left
[amendments] to address on the House floor.
Number 1399
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to report CSSB 385(JUD)am out of
committee, with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON again removed his objection to adopting
CSSB 385(JUD)am.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there were any further objections to
the motion to report CSSB 385(JUD)am out of committee. There
being none, CSSB 385(JUD)am was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 231-DECREASE TIME TO CLAIM UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
Number 1433
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 231(FIN), "An Act relating to unclaimed
property; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt CSSB 231(FIN).
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected.
Number 1449
MARY ELLEN BEARDSLEY, Assistant Attorney General, simply noted
that she had assisted the department in drafting the
legislation, and she offered to answer questions.
Number 1463
TODD THAKAR, testifying on behalf of Prudential Financial,
stated that company's support of [SB 231]. He offered to answer
questions.
Number 1515
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned there would be a need to
update the bill to the new "Unclaimed Property Act."
[SB 231 was heard and held until later in the meeting.]
SB 354-HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION PROCEDURES
Number 1588
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 354(STA) am(efd fld), "An Act relating to
complaints filed with, and investigations, hearings, and orders
of, the State Commission for Human Rights; and making conforming
amendments."
Number 1600
LISA FITZPATRICK, Chair, Human Rights Commission, Office of the
Governor, testifying on behalf of the commission, stated that
the commission opposes the language of Section 6 - the provision
that provides the remedies that the commission can order when a
legal discrimination has occurred - because it would take away
the tools the commission needs to do its job.
MS. FITZPATRICK mentioned a recent celebration of the 40 years
that the commission has been in existence. She noted that
discrimination is just as alive today as it was 40 years ago.
She gave examples of discrimination and said there is a
continuing need to eliminate discrimination in Alaska. She
opined that the bill would encroach on the commission's ability
to do its job.
MS. FITZPATRICK noted that, under current law, the commission
has the authority to order any appropriate relief when
discrimination has occurred. She clarified that appropriate
relief isn't extraordinary relief, doesn't include punitive
damages, and doesn't include compensating the person for his/her
pain and suffering. She stated, "The whole premise of human
rights laws is simply: Let the individual back in the situation
they would have been in had the illegal discrimination not
occurred." She noted that the majority of the cases handled by
the commission are regarding discrimination in the workplace;
therefore, the remedies that are relevant to workplace
discrimination are particularly important.
MS. FITZPATRICK noted that the bill would allow the commission
to order "training of the employer for discriminatory practices"
and for the reinstatement or upgrading of an individual who has
been discriminated. It would authorize the award of front pay
for one year. She said the bill doesn't take into account so
many types of relief that the commission - and commissions
around that country - have been historically empowered to award.
She offered examples.
Number 1800
MS. FITZPATRICK explained that back pay compensates an
individual for the loss of pay, retrospectively, while front pay
- which is rarely awarded - pays an employee prospectively when,
for whatever reason, it's not possible to restore the
discrimination by restoring the individual to the situation that
he/she would have been in before the discrimination. She
offered examples. She noted that the bill would [allow for] an
award for a period of one year's front pay. She stated that the
commission opposes the one-year limitation and would prefer a
bill with no limitation on it, because "every situation where
it's used is unique." She noted that there has never been a
complaint that the commission has abused its discretion in this
regard, and she questioned the reason for the change.
Number 1883
MS. FITZPATRICK said she has heard the argument made at previous
committee hearings that it's important that individuals know the
scope of relief that can be awarded against them. She stated
the fact is that people do [know]. She reiterated that the idea
is to put the individual back in the position he/she would have
been in without the discrimination. She said, "Because this can
be so fact-dependent, it's extremely difficult to create an all-
purpose list. But, if you have an individual and you have not
given them a raise as a result of their being a black person,
... a woman, or disabled, then you can reasonably anticipate
exactly what kind of relief ... could potentially be ordered
against you."
MS. FITZPATRICK noted that a second argument heard is that
victims of discrimination could just take their cases to court.
She explained that that is not a realistic alternative for
people. She indicated that she doesn't know why it would be
preferable to ship the people over to the court's calendar when
there is an agency [to deal with these issues]. Furthermore,
she stated that it is not practical to send people to the
courts. She explained that the average value where the
commission has found that there's substantial evidence to
proceed is $5,800. She said there is no economic incentive for
a lawyer to take the case and proceed to court with it. She
said, "Individuals cannot go to small claims court, because, by
statute, the original jurisdiction for these cases lies in the
superior court. And that is a world apart from both the
commission and from the small claims court forum."
MS. FITZPATRICK estimated 450 cases are processed, and the vast
majority of those cases "settle out." She said most of the
cases are small dollar settlements; however, in the "cases of
higher value," probably only about 20 percent of the employers
are represented by attorneys. She said that "this is a very
informal sort of a process," which gives people relief. She
stated that it doesn't give people anything beyond their
restoration to their position before the discrimination, but it
serves an incredibly valuable function - both society as a whole
and individuals. She said it pains her to consider that a bill
has been introduced which could turn back the hands of time on
discrimination law by taking away the tools the commission needs
to do its job and to protect the public.
Number 2038
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that the legislative intent
section [in current statute] regarding the Human Rights
Commission says that the statutory scheme is "to seek out and
eradicate discrimination in employment, in credit and financing
practices, in places of public accommodations and in the sale,
lease or rental of real property." He asked if SB 354 would
compromise the ability of the Human Rights Commission to carry
out the legislative intent.
MS. FITZPATRICK answered yes.
Number 2080
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 26
Delete "in the executive director's discretion"
Insert: "with the concurrence of the commission"
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said Amendment 1 would ensure that
there are some checks and balances involved in the process. He
said it would make sure that if an executive director is going
to get rid of a case, it is done with the commission's
concurrence.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested that the executive director could send
letters to the commission members to which they could reply.
There wouldn't necessarily have to be an affirmative concurrence
of the commission by a vote, for example. He asked
Representative Berkowitz if he agrees that "this is sort of
broad to allow the commission to do its business in lots of
different respects."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ agreed. He explained that if it's not
particularly onerous for the director, he would actually prefer
that one person not have the authority to dismiss cases, without
the concurrence of others.
Number 2143
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that "that's in line with
testimony that we had the other day."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would like to hear from the
department.
Number 2158
SCOTT J. NORDSTRAND, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division,
Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law, said the
department drafted the bill to allow the discretion in the
executive director. He offered his understanding that the
commission supports "the current text." He said [Amendment 1]
would require the commission to "do concurrence," and he said he
understands that the commission does not support [Amendment 1].
He noted that Ms. Fitzpatrick had indicated that [the
commission] prosecutes Human Rights Act violations for the
state. He said that in the context of a criminal case, [the
department] gives the district attorney's office - and
ultimately the attorney general - the authority to decide which
cases to bring, based upon the needs of the office and the
evidence that's available. He emphasized that [the department]
does not ask for the concurrence of the court, at that point.
He compared asking for concurrence of the commission to asking
for concurrence of the court.
Number 2215
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that it's not absolutely the
case that prosecutors have absolute discretion to "not charge."
He said there are some profound policy requirements [to meet]
before cases can be dismissed. He noted that there's a great
body of law that has to do with prosecutorial discretion and the
abuse of prosecutorial discretion. He said the courts and the
executive branch do intrude on how prosecutors charge. He
concluded, "And that analogy, I think, is a propos in this case,
because we're saying if we don't want a single individual with
absolute discretion over whether to pursue or not pursue cases."
Number 2247
MR. NORDSTRAND responded that the whole process of the Human
Rights Commission charges the executive director with the
responsibility for investigating the cases. He said:
This person has the sole authority to determine
whether there is 'substantial evidence,' which is the
gate that opens that allows someone to even get to the
commission. So, to somehow say that the executive
director would have too much power with this, when in
fact they are the ones themselves to make the
determinations without the commission on whether or
not there's a substantial evidence finding that would
allow anyone to even ever get to a hearing - it seems
to me it's six to one or half dozen of another.
Number 2273
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that the concern that is being
addressed is that in the process of making a complaint, a
complainant may be left without some recourse or "some due
process beyond this." He asked Mr. Nordstrand if he could give
him some comfort that if [Amendment 1] fails that that [would
not happen].
MR. NORDSTRAND responded that if the executive director chooses
not to pursue a case, the recourse for the person is to go to
court; however, the recourse in the Human Rights Commission
would end. He clarified that the process of providing a free
attorney to represent the person to go forward through a hearing
process and, ultimately, to a decision by the commission would
end.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he wonders if having the commission
"review these things" doesn't give the complainant at least some
comfort that he/she will be heard. He asked, "Can you give me
some reason that that shouldn't happen?"
MR. NORDSTRAND answered, "It certainly could happen. We believe
that it's ... more appropriate for the executive director to
make that decision, because the executive director has the
information necessary to make that decision. He said he thinks
people may be under the assumption that the Human Rights
Commission actually hears cases as a body that listens to
testimony. He said that's not the fact. He said, "What happens
is these cases are heard before ... contract hearing officers
that are hired - lawyers that are hired for $100 an hour to hear
the case. They hear all the evidence; they evaluate all the
evidence; they write the decisions; they send a recommended
decision to the commission; the commission then considers it."
He said to ask volunteer member of the commission board to
substantively evaluate every dismissal that's made is a big
challenge. He said, "We have to ask whether a voluntary
commission can do that."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the executive director is held
to a protocol.
TAPE 04-79, SIDE B
Number 2382
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that the reason he is pursuing
this line of questioning is because the issue of having
significant power vested in the executive director "begins the
whole argument of the remaining amendments."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if Representative Coghill is maintaining
his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he still wants an answer regarding a
protocol or body of law that would compel the executive director
or hold the executive accountable, such as a district attorney
might be.
Number 2345
MR. NORDSTRAND responded that the statute that is being proposed
in Section 4 provides that the executive director may dismiss
cases in accordance with a list of criteria at the executive
director's discretion. He explained that would mean that that
decision would be subject to review in the courts for an abuse
of that discretion. So, if someone could establish that the
director had, for some inappropriate reason, dismissed the case
and had not done it meaningfully, accurately, and correctly
pursuant to the list of criteria, then the court could reverse
the decision and it would be an abuse of discretion situation.
Number 2322
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned Wagstaff v. Superior Court.
In that case, he noted, the superior court said it could not
review a decision whether or not to prosecute a case, because
that was a violation regarding separation of powers. He stated
that there may be "internal things that govern whether a case
can be reviewed or not." The question of judicial review is
highly circumscribed by the separation of powers doctrine in
that case. He offered his understanding that there are other
cases, as well.
Number 2282
MR. NORDSTRAND replied that that may be the case, although he is
not a criminal lawyer and does not profess to be one. He said:
But, in the case of administrative law, which is what
we're talking about here, where a ... representative
of an administrative agency takes an action that would
violate in some way the statute, and thereby abuse the
discretion given under the statute, I would argue
that, in fact, the courts do have the power to address
whether that ... discretion were abused.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks Mr. Nordstrand should
"really check that out," because he does not think it would be
an abuse of discretion standard, but is a constitutional
separation of powers standard. He emphasized that that's an
important difference.
Number 2233
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz,
Gruenberg, Seaton, and Weyhrauch voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Lynn, Holm, and Coghill voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
Number 2210
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Amendment 2, which would
delete paragraphs (4), (6), (8), and (9), on page 3, lines 2, 5,
7, and 8, and renumber accordingly. [Amendment 2, as submitted
to the committee read "subsections" where it should read
"paragraphs".]
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that the criteria by which
the executive director "in now the commission" would dismiss
complaints is overbroad and, in some ways, is a deprivation of
due process. He said one of the criteria he wants eliminated is
from paragraph (4), which would allow a determination by the
executive director that "a hearing will not benefit the
complainant". He said that is paternalistic and he doesn't know
what that means. Paragraph (6) would be deleted by Amendment 2;
it pertains to a determination by the executive director that "a
hearing will not represent the best use of commission
resources". Representative Berkowitz remarked, "Well, under
that criteria, ever the most deserving of cases - if they might
tax the resources overmuch to the exclusion of, for example,
other cases - could be thrown out because they don't want to
take the hard cases that, in fact, might be most in need of
attention."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ turned to paragraphs (8) and (9), the
last two paragraphs which he proposed to delete through
Amendment 2. Paragraph (8) would allow a determination by the
executive director that "the probability of success of the
complaint on the merits is low", while paragraph (9) would allow
a determination by the executive director that "proceeding to a
hearing will not serve the public interest". Regarding
paragraph (8), Representative Berkowitz said, "If you believe
that everyone deserves their day in court, then you shouldn't be
in a position where the court looks at you and says, "We're
tossing you out before we get you, because we don't think you're
going to prevail. That's prejudging the evidence, and I think
that is ... an unfair way for any branch of the justice system
to work. We do not prejudge evidence." Regarding paragraph
(9), he said the public interest is determined in AS 18.80.200,
and [paragraph (9)] is "an overbroad description and gives too
much authority." He added that it frankly is an intrusion on
the legislative authority that is enshrined in statute.
Number 2124
MR. NORDSTRAND stated that the department thinks that the four
provisions [that would be deleted by Amendment 2] give latitude
to the executive director to do what the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does. He explained
that the EEOC has similar jurisdiction and "remedies available,"
and it proceeds with cases that "it chooses to believe are the
most important, the most egregious, [and the most] significant."
He said that, unlike the Human Rights Commission, if the EEOC
wants to bring a complaint, it has to "go downtown to the
federal courthouse and file a complaint in federal court and
proceed forward, with a few exceptions." He stated, "We're
trying to describe discretion here and ... obviously it's ...
intended to be an inclusive list." He offered the example of
the issue of resources, which he said is a serious issue for the
commission. He continued as follows:
The way the thing is set up now - with the substantial
evidence test and the low standard for a substantial
finding of a discrimination, combined with the fact
that there's no process to ... end claims for summary
judgment or any other summary proceeding prior to
hearing - essentially, if you have the merest smidgeon
of evidence of discrimination, you get a hearing. And
that has essentially brought the system ... -- they're
certainly working more quickly than they have, but
year's past it took years to get to a hearing, because
of all the cases that were stacked up. And so, we
think that the merits (indisc.) is a good standard. I
mean, ... any good lawyer would look at a case and
say, "Are we going to win, or is this a waste of time?
Is there really enough evidence here to win this
case?" And if that's not the case, then government
resources need not be used to pursue the case. Again,
all of these folks will have the same remedy everyone
else does to go to the courts, should they choose to,
with any other kind of claim. But it's just these
specialized discrimination claims that have access to
the Human Right Commission. That's a good thing -
that should be there - but we ... I think as a policy
matter ought to be able to say which cases are the
most significant to take to hearing, and which are
not. And this gives them that power.
Number 2023
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that he is troubled by what
Mr. Nordstrand said, because the purpose of alternative ways of
pursuing justice is to make justice more affordable and
available. He said, "If you're saying that, because we don't
want to pay for it at the administrative level people now have
to shell out money to go to court, what you're doing is you're
putting more of a burden on the court system. You're making it
harder for individuals to seek regress in a nonconfrontational
way ..., and I just reject that." He said "this" would add
costs to the court system if done incorrectly and would deprive
people of the chance to pursue the justice they think they need.
Number 1999
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated, "I think that flies in the face of
what the courts ought to be doing, and that is making decisions
about frivolous law suits and frivolous circumstances." He
asked Mr. Nordstrand to discuss the balance that should be exist
between accusation and justice when someone has truly been
[discriminated against]. He said it seems to him that that's
where the balance is and the assumption would be made that an
[executive] director would "get the information at hand" to
decide whether [a case] should go forward to some causation. He
said it's easy to "spout out" and say that the intent is to look
for justice, but he pointed out that the accused deserved
justice as well. He stated, "I'm trying to find that middle
ground and I think I tend to err on the side of having somebody
oversee it first, just to make that decision."
MR. NORDSTRAND said the department's view of the system is that
it's designed to provide a fair outcome to all of the parties
that appear before it. He confirmed that there are lots of
cases that sometimes are brought repetitively by the same people
who have grievances that they want to play out in the Human
Rights Commission "or other forum like this." He said, "Now,
that's not to say there aren't lots and lots of very deserving
cases that need the commission's support ... [and action]." He
clarified, "What we're saying is, if they can focus better their
resources and their efforts on those cases, then I think that we
will have a better system overall." Regarding the process, he
asked the committee to remember that there's a cost associated
with taking every case to hearing. The commission doesn't want
to do that. The Department of Law represents the commission in
cases where the executive director finds no substantial evidence
and the case gets appealed. He said, "Well, the superior court
- now based upon the decision we've talked about ... - they
reverse it and tell the commission, 'Sorry, you've got to go to
hearing on this case.'" He clarified that he is talking about
cases that did not even make the substantial evidence test which
are being required to be heard. He said that's just not a good
use of resources and he thinks the commission would agree with
that entirely.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the committee could hear from
a representative of the commission.
Number 1865
MS. FITZPATRICK said the commission is under tremendous monetary
pressure due to a backlog in processing cases, and there are
cases that the commission believes should be dismissed. She
said [the commission] went from a staff of 22 to a staff of 15,
within the last several years, and she estimated that the
current backlog is 80 cases - a number that is growing. She
noted that the backlog was down to zero a couple of years ago
because of additional funding, but now that the funding is gone,
the commission is struggling once again to keep up with the
caseload.
MS. FITZPATRICK offered an example of a case that might be
dismissed under [paragraph (4)]: She said there was a case
where an individual was offered by his/her employer all of the
relief that he/she would be entitled to at the hearing, but the
individual somehow wanted something more. Under those
circumstances where the commission views that the individual has
received all of the benefits that would make them whole, it
believes it has to push its resources on to other cases.
Because of the fiscal problems the commission faces, it cannot
simply prioritize cases, because then people's cases just
languish if they're not top priority. She concluded, "So, we
believe that this language would actually benefit the
commission."
Number 1765
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the case to which Ms. Fitzpatrick
referred wouldn't have been covered under [paragraph (1), on
page 2, lines 27-28, which read as follows]: "(1) the
complainant's objection to a proposed conciliation agreement is
unreasonable;".
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced his intent to hold SB 354, return to
SB 231, recess to a call of the chair, and address SB 354 when
the committee reconvenes.
MS. FITZPATRICK offered to speak to "staff" [regarding
Representative Seaton's question] during the recess.
[SB 354 was heard and held. The motion to adopt Amendment 2 was
left pending.]
SB 231-DECREASE TIME TO CLAIM UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
Number 1718
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the committee would return to CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 231(FIN), "An Act relating to unclaimed
property; and providing for an effective date."
The committee took a brief at-ease [due to technical
difficulties].
Number 1673
TOMAS H. BOUTIN, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Revenue, said SB 231 was "worked on
last May."
The committee took a brief at-ease [due to technical
difficulties].
MR. BOUTIN stated that SB 231 benefits all Alaskans. He
deferred further remarks to Ms. Lewis.
RACHEL LEWIS, Unclaimed Property Section, Treasury Division,
Department of Revenue, emphasized that SB 231 is in line with
the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act of 1995 ("1995 Act"),
which was the commissioner's update of the Uniform Act of 1981.
She indicated that Alaska [enacted its Unclaimed Property Act]
in 1986. She said every portion of the bill, with the exception
of four sections, is "straight from the 1995 Act." Any question
regarding the shortening of the dormancy periods, she indicated
relates to the 1995 Act. She said she would address the
sections of the bill that are not in line with the 1995 Act.
MS. LEWIS directed attention to Section 5, on page 3, which read
as follows:
*Sec.5. AS 34.45 is amended by adding a new section to
read:
Sec. 34.45.175. Certain property distributed in
insurance company reorganizations. (a) The following
property distributable in the course of a
demutualization or related reorganization of an
insurance company is considered abandoned two years
after the date of demutualization or reorganization as
follows:
(1) money that remains unclaimed and the
owner has not otherwise communicated with the holder
or its agent regarding the property as evidenced by a
memorandum or other record on file with the holder or
its agent;
(2) stock or other equity interest if
(A) the instruments or statements
reflecting the distribution are either mailed to the
owner and returned by the post office as
undeliverable, or not mailed to the owner because of
an address on the books and records of the holder that
is known to be incorrect; and
(B) the owner has not otherwise
communicated with the holder or its agent regarding
the property as evidenced by a memorandum or other
record on file with the holder or agent.
(b) Property that is not subject to (a) of
this section is reportable as otherwise provided in AS
34.45.110-34.45.780.
MS. LEWIS explained that the 1995 Act did not address this
section, because "it's a relatively new area of unclaimed
property." She deferred to Mr. Thakar to address questions
regarding the industry side of "demutualization."
Number 1574
MR. THAKAR, stated that Prudential Financial supports the
addition of Section 5, with regard to demutualization. He noted
that there are quite a few insurance companies that were mutual
companies that have "demutualized."
The committee took a brief at-ease [due to technical
difficulties].
Number 1528
MR. THAKAR explained that the companies that have demutualized
have become stock companies. He offered his understanding that
25-26 other states have passed virtually identical legislation.
He mentioned that Prudential Financial demutualized in 1991 and
there were "known bad addresses." He said, "And so, those are
the people that would be covered by this bill and would
immediately be issued into the state." He noted that several
states had asked if "we" had uncashed checks, why weren't "we"
also issuing those, thus there has been an amendment that
several states have included that would allow "if there's any
uncashed checks from our demutualization, that those two would
immediately escheat to the state." He said Prudential Financial
supports this because it's consistent with what's being done
across the country. He stated his belief that [the legislation]
would generate a revenue of approximately $100,000 to Alaska.
Number 1468
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the attorney liability
protection service (ALP) - his malpractice carrier - has gone
through the demutualization. He said Prudential Financial
obviously not an Alaska corporation; the assets presumably, in a
demutualization, would not be held in Alaska; therefore, he
presumed that state of the home office "would be the applicable
law in demutualization." He asked if that was correct.
MR. THAKAR offered his understanding that "if we know that our
last known address, et cetera, is an Alaskan, than Alaska law
would dictate on the escheatment timing." In response to a
follow-up question from Representative Gruenberg, he confirmed
that the law would apply to the home state of the individual,
rather than to the company.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if one of the upcoming amendments
addresses the issue of the uncashed checks.
MR. THAKAR responded that "it was part of the amendment which we
all supported in the Senate version, so it would be incorporated
in the bill as is, right now."
Number 1379
MS. LEWIS, in response to a follow-up question from
Representative Gruenberg, noted that the amendment incorporated
by the Senate is located on [page 3, beginning on] line 19,
which read as follows:
(1) money that remains unclaimed and the
owner has not otherwise communicated with the holder
or its agent regarding the property as evidenced by a
memorandum or other record on file with the holder or
its agent;
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned the Uniform [Unclaimed
Property Act of 1995] and asked if the addition of Section 5
will destroy the uniformity of [Alaska's Unclaimed Property
Act].
MS. LEWIS replied that she doesn't think it will affect the
uniformity of the Act, because so many states have realized that
"they have already added this to their current laws."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested, "If they're going to revise
this Act again, maybe this is a provision they ought to put in
the new addition."
Number 1318
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation &
Regulations Section, Office of the Attorney General, Department
Of Law, said she is also a Uniform Law commissioner. She noted
that the act was adopted in 1995, and she stated that it's not
unusual for "events in society to pass it by." She noted that
laws are routinely updated, especially for electronic commerce
or new trends in industry. She stated her assumption that "with
28 states going in a particular direction, we'll be looking at
it." She continued as follows:
When I look at things being not uniform, I look that
they trump or do something different. If the Uniform
Act is silent on it, we're extremely comfortable with
the changes that are (indisc. - voice trailed off).
Number 1280
MS. LEWIS directed attention to Section 10, [on page 5, lines
20-26], which she said is different from what is in the Uniform
Law Commission has in its '95 Act. Section 10 read as follows:
*Sec.10. AS 34.45.280(f) is repealed and reenacted to
read:
(f) The requirements of this section apply
to the holder of intangible property with a total
aggregate value greater than $750 that is presumed
abandoned under AS 34.45.110 - 34.45.780 during the
year preceding June 30 of each year. For purposes of
determining total aggregate value under this
subsection, the holder shall include all intangible
property from prior years that was not reported under
AS 34.45.110 - 34.45.780.
MS. LEWIS noted, "Alaska is the only state that has this unique
language, and it was put in by the legislators in 1986, because
they did not want companies to have too much paperwork to report
unclaimed property." She said unclaimed property is an uncashed
check. For example, if there is a "Mom and Pop" store in Alaska
that wrote a 16-cent check to the U.S. Post Office that didn't
get cashed, the language adopted in 1986 would allow the owners
of that store to wait until they had $750-worth of property
before they would be required to report it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his assumption that since "this
provision" is simply a clarification, it wouldn't "make it not
uniform." He asked Ms. Behr if that is correct.
Number 1212
MS. BEHR answered, "We would not have a problem with it. We now
are credited with our '85 Act; this makes no real substantive
difference in the '85 Act."
MS. LEWIS directed attention to Section 13, [regarding notice
and publication of lists of unclaimed property]. She continued
as follows:
Our law requires that we publish the names of people
every single year in a newspaper. That cost $30,000
last year. We had 300 claims that were generated from
that. The Internet, which costs us nothing, generated
1,600 claims.
MS. LEWIS said [Section 13] asks the department to evaluate the
best way to promote unclaimed property, without always having to
advertise.
Number 1170
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH expressed his appreciation of the stated
providing an analytical basis for "doing ... a common sense
thing."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Does this destroy uniformity?"
Number 1142
MS. BEHR responded, "It's one of these where the events of
society have ... passed the '95 Act; in '95 the average person
didn't have ... [the] access to computers that they do now. And
the nice thing about the way this is written, it allows her to
evaluate what is the best way to notify somebody ...."
Number 1125
MS. LEWIS noted that the last section that differs from the
Uniform Law Commission's 1995 Act is Section 17, which read as
follows:
*Sec.17. AS 34.45.760 is amended by adding new
paragraphs to read:
(18) "gift certificate" means an obligation
of a business association arising from a transaction
between the business association and a consumer to
provide goods or services at a future date; "gift
certificate" includes a gift certificate, stored value
card, gift card, on-line gift account, or other
representation or evidence of the obligation of a
business association;
MS. LEWIS indicated that the term "gift certificate" is being
expanded because of all the different types of electronic
variations of a gift certificate, which are listed in Section
17.
MS. BEHR, in response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, stated
that [Section 17] would not put Alaska out of conformity with
the Uniform Act, because it's just a clarification to deal with
electronic commerce that wasn't envisioned in 1995.
Number 1088
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he likes all of the provisions
that have been added that are not in the Uniform Act and
recommended that other states add them.
MS. BEHR responded that she would be happy to "formerly send
this to them ...."
Number 1048
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSSB 231(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Lewis if there were any other
amendments that she wanted the committee to consider.
[Any response from Ms. Lewis was inaudible.]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH complimented Ms. Lewis on a "good job."
Number 0999
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that [CSSB 231(FIN)] was reported out
of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was recessed at 10:23
a.m. to a call of the chair. [The meeting was never
reconvened.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|