03/17/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB36 | |
| HB178 | |
| HB12 | |
| HB34 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 178 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 36 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2005
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to applications requesting the delivery of
absentee ballots by mail."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 36(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 178
"An Act relating to special motor vehicle registration plates;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 178(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 12
"An Act relating to televisions and monitors in motor vehicles."
- MOVED CSHB 12(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 34
"An Act relating to the expungement of records relating to
conviction set asides granted after suspended imposition of
sentence."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 186
"An Act relating to quarterly payments of a permanent fund
dividend, and to a permanent fund dividend and eligibility for
public assistance; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 36
SHORT TITLE: ABSENTEE BALLOTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THERRIAULT
01/11/05 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/07/05
01/11/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/11/05 (S) STA, JUD
01/20/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/20/05 (S) Heard & Held
01/20/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/01/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/01/05 (S) Moved CSSB 36(STA) Out of Committee
02/01/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/02/05 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP 1NR
NEW TITLE
02/02/05 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, WAGONER, HUGGINS
02/02/05 (S) NR: ELTON
02/08/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/08/05 (S) Moved CSSB 36(JUD) Out of Committee
02/08/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/10/05 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 1NR
NEW TITLE
02/10/05 (S) DP: SEEKINS, THERRIAULT, HUGGINS
02/10/05 (S) NR: FRENCH
03/02/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/02/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 36(JUD)
03/03/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/03/05 (H) STA, JUD
03/15/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/15/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 178
SHORT TITLE: SPECIAL REQUEST LICENSE PLATES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) OLSON
02/25/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/25/05 (H) STA, FIN
03/17/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 12
SHORT TITLE: TVS AND MONITORS IN MOTOR VEHICLES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRUENBERG, LYNN, GARDNER, MCGUIRE
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/01/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/05/05 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM CAPITOL 106
03/05/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 34
SHORT TITLE: EXPUNGEMENT OF SET ASIDES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WEYHRAUCH
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) STA, JUD
03/01/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/05 (H) Bill Postponed
03/17/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID STANCLIFF, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 36 on behalf of Senator
Therriault, sponsor.
LAURA GLAISER, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 36.
KONRAD JACKSON, Staff
to Representative Kurt Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 178 on behalf of
Representative Olson, sponsor.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Alaska Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 178.
DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Senior Director,
Technology Policy
Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 12.
REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE WEYHRAUCH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 34 as sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:04:14 AM. Present at the call
to order were Representatives Gatto, Elkins, Lynn, Ramras,
Gardner, Gruenberg, and Seaton.
SB 36-ABSENTEE BALLOTS
8:07:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 36(JUD), "An Act relating to absentee
ballots."
CHAIR SEATON said there had been questions raised at the prior
hearing of SB 36, regarding the direct submission of
applications to the Division of Elections, and what that means.
8:08:24 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to a legislative intent letter
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
The legislature understands and intends that the
requirement to "submit the application directly to the
division of elections" means that no intermediary
organization will control the applications which could
cause delay in their submission to the Division nor
are the ballots available for data mining by
individuals or other organizations. The language of
"direct return" is not meant to prevent deposit into
the US mail, Fed Ex, or other expedited delivery
system by a friend, relative or others.
CHAIR SEATON said the legislative intent letter could be done
conceptually, because there may be typographical errors. He
asked if the intent letter is acceptable to the sponsor.
8:09:32 AM
DAVID STANCLIFF, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of Senator Therriault, sponsor,
indicated support of the language [in the legislative intent
letter].
8:10:28 AM
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, said [the language in the legislative
intent letter] is perfect and helpful. It makes it clear how
the legislature would like the division to deal with the
absentee by-mail ballots.
8:11:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO directed attention to the third line of the
legislative intent letter and the phrase, "which could cause
delay". He emphasized the word "could". He said what the
legislature is really trying to prevent is data mining.
MS. GLAISER agreed that there is a concern regarding data
mining. She stated that the additional concern is in regard to
organizations that had, in order to mine the data, caused a
significant delay. She explained as follows:
We had absentee, by-mail applications that were signed
by an individual, that were driven by a particular
party, and those were turned into our division almost
a month after the voter signed them. So, that's what
we're trying to prevent; that caused significant delay
in delivery of the ballot.
And that's what ... breaks our hearts; that's what
made us work ... 24 hours, for weeks on end, to try
and get those processed. So, ... that cause delay is
... equally important to the division - and I think to
everybody who's concerned about a voter's right to
receive a ballot - as the data mining, which
interferes with their confidentiality. So, I think
they both have equal weight of importance to the
division.
8:13:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON indicated the following amendments to the
legislative intent letter:
On the third line of the letter:
Between "applications" and "which"
Insert "in a manner"
On the fourth line of the letter:
Between "nor" and "the ballots"
Delete "are"
Insert "would"
8:14:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to see "this
language or the conceptual amendment be put in as a legislative
intent section." He clarified that he would like it to be
Section 1 of the bill.
8:14:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he doesn't think that "this is going to be
misread," but he asked if the sponsor would prefer that the
language in the legislative intent be included as a section of
the bill.
8:15:25 AM
MR. STANCLIFF opined that the issue is whether or not "we" trust
the directors of the Division of Elections to have the
discretion to decide what is worth investigating and what is
not. He said, "This is certainly preferable than trying to
dictate to them in the body of the bill exactly what they should
do."
8:16:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO directed attention to the last sentence,
which read:
The language of "direct return" is not meant to
prevent deposit into the US mail, Fed Ex, or other
expedited delivery system by a friend, relative or
others.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that he has been considering an
amendment [that would insert on page 1, line 13, following
"elections."]: "In this subsection, "directly" means in person,
by electronic transmission, by mail, or by other common
carrier." He said, "It's a way of phrasing it in the
affirmative to say exactly what you mean, rather than what you
didn't mean." He said he would like to substitute one sentence
for another.
8:17:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, in response to remarks by Chair Seaton and
Representative Gruenberg, explained that he had originally
intended for the sentence to be added in the text of the bill;
however, he said after speaking previously to Ms. Glaiser, he
thinks it could be added within the language of the legislative
intent letter.
8:18:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if anyone has a problem with exchanging [the
last sentence of the legislative intent letter] for the sentence
suggested by Representative Gatto, [text provided previously].
8:19:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the language proposed by
Representative Gatto would "narrow this a little further." He
explained, "The way it could have been read was that the voter
had to hand carry it to the director; and what the Gatto
language means is you can put it in the mail." He said he
thinks that it's obviously the intent of the bill to "allow you
to put it in the mail." He said he prefers [the language at the
end of the legislative intent letter], which would broaden the
bill to mean "you don't have to do it yourself, but you can give
it to a friend to put it in the mail." He indicated that he
hopes the committee would not adopt Representative Gatto's
amending language.
8:21:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON said, "... Since we've got this as a new Section 1,
as intent, ... I think it's pretty clear, as we're just
intending that it doesn't restrict you from using a friend or
relative. So, I'd prefer leaving the language the way we have
it in the ... legislative intent."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked, "Does that go in Section 1?"
CHAIR SEATON answered, "No, it will be a new section ahead of
Section 1; it'll be legislative intent, and it'll be right in
the bill." He asked Representative Gatto, "You didn't make an
amendment; we were just talking about it, right?"
8:21:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied, "I didn't, right. This was just a
thought. I didn't really plan on submitting it as an amendment
unless nothing else had happened."
8:22:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated, "I would move to include this legislative
intent in the bill, as Section 1 in the bill."
8:22:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO [objected]. He said "Fed Ex" is a specific
company. He said that group, plus UPS, for example, "must fall
under a name." He explained that he didn't want to mention one
company and exclude another.
8:22:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would consider it a friendly amendment to
delete "Fed Ex" and "other" [from the legislative intent
letter]. In response to a question from Representative Gatto,
he said he thinks the word "expedited" is necessary, because "we
don't want it to be a slow delivery through someplace else."
8:23:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what the phrase meant that includes
the words "expedited" and "by a friend, relative or others".
8:23:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that
Representative Gardner is referring to the modifier of the
sentence. He suggested that the sentence should read:
The language of "direct return" is not meant to
prevent deposit by a friend, relative or others into
the US mail.
8:24:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON said that would be fine.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested changing the word "other" to
"similar".
8:25:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said, "What about 'designated person'?"
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said, "I'll remove my objection."
8:25:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any further objection to
adopting the Conceptual Legislative Intent language [as
amended]. In response to Representative Gardner, he clarified
that the last sentence of the legislative intent letter now
read:
The language of "direct return" is not meant to
prevent deposit by a friend, relative or others into
the US mail, or expedited delivery system.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected, "or an expedited".
CHAIR SEATON responded, "Yeah, that's fine."
8:25:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested removing "The language of".
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO responded, "That's a good idea."
8:26:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON, upon hearing no objections, announced that [the
legislative intent letter] was adopted.
8:26:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report CSSB 36(JUD), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being no objections HCS CSSB
36(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
HB 178-SPECIAL REQUEST LICENSE PLATES
8:27:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 178, "An Act relating to special motor vehicle
registration plates; and providing for an effective date."
8:27:39 AM
KONRAD JACKSON, Staff to Representative Kurt Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HB 178 on behalf of Representative
Olson, sponsor. He explained that if HB 178 were to pass, "all
registration plates will be available for use on all motor
vehicles." Currently, passenger vehicles, motorcycles,
noncommercial vans, pickup trucks, and motor homes are the only
vehicles allowed to display "nonstandard license plates or
registration plates."
8:29:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked how he could put a regular-sized
vanity plate on a motorcycle.
MR. JACKSON replied, "It would not actually be the same size
license plate. It would be a motorcycle-sized plate with the
custom lettering."
8:29:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if state vehicles would be included
under the bill.
MR. JACKSON deferred to the director of the Division of Motor
Vehicles.
8:31:26 AM
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Alaska Department of Administration, replied that the State of
Alaska could choose to put a personalized license plate on one
of its vehicles and pay the extra fee.
8:32:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that on page 6, lines 10-11,
the bill refers to "a vehicle owned by the state" and "a vehicle
owned by an elected state official." He asked if perhaps the
language should include vehicles owned by a municipality or
other government entity.
MR. BANNOCK responded that there are other sections of the bill
that deal with local governments. He said:
This bill is not about vehicle registration or the fee
that someone does or does not pay for vehicle
registration. This bill is about the piece of metal
that goes on the vehicle that is the subject of
vehicle registration, regardless of what the cost of
the registration is.
8:34:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that under the current license
plate system, a person can identify vehicles that are owned by
the government by the number. She asked if that would still be
true if HB 178 passed.
MR. JACKSON said there would not be a change to that. He said
that he didn't foresee any instance where the state would
"change that registration."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that the bill language leaves
the option open. She opined, "There's a value in citizens being
able to tell which vehicles are government-owned because they
want to watch and see if [the vehicles] are used appropriately."
CHAIR SEATON stated, "As I understand it, this doesn't change
the policy decisions that are made by any department."
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS expressed, for the record, his
appreciation for the "exemplary service" at the Juneau DMV
office.
8:36:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to page 6, line 12, which read,
"the fee required for that vehicle under (b), (c), (h), or (i)
of this section." He asked if this language would allow
legislators to get a legislative plate for their motorcycles and
trailers.
MR. BANNOCK responded:
There are four key categories for vehicle
registration: [Subsection (b)] is most common,
noncommercial registration; [subsection (c)] is
commercial registration, which is a two-year biannual
commercial registration; [subsection (h)] references
annual commercial registration; and [subsection (i)]
references the permanent trailer registration.
8:40:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that he and Representative
Gruenberg have been involved in getting interlocks installed in
vehicles under certain circumstances. He asked if there would
be any value in having identification on a license plate of a
vehicle that has an interlock devise installed.
MR. BANNOCK replied:
As to whether or not the plate itself should identify
that [there is an interlock device in the vehicle],
that is an excellent debate. It's been discussed
among others of you in Juneau, and there are some
major hurdles because, in the [DMV], our system
records you as an individual for one record, and we
record your automobile as a separate record that you
just happen to be an owner of. As a result, there is
no direct connection between the alcohol offender and
the vehicle that that alcohol offender owns. ...
[That] doesn't mean that it can't be done, it just
means that if we were to go in that direction, I would
be looking for some additional resources.
8:43:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS commented that his office determined there
would be a $12 million fiscal note to attach the "scarlet letter
license plate" to a vehicle.
8:43:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what interlock is.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO explained that it is a Breathalyzer that
won't let an intoxicated person start his/her car. He then
pointed out to Mr. Bannock, "One cannot help but notice that
some of those unmarked police cars have those three letters
'AST', and were someone to apply for those, I guess that's
prohibited, as would be 'XXX'."
8:44:45 AM
MR. BANNOCK replied:
Regulation speaks to that. And while we do have some
proposed regulation changes that will help us in our
zeal to get more personalized plates on the road, we
have no intention of allowing a customer to get a
license plate that could be in ... any way, shape, or
form confused with an Alaska State Trooper car or any
other government exempt car. For instance, ['XXE'
has] a specific implication, and there are other sets
of criteria that we already utilize. We intend to
continue that policy through regulation.
8:45:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that page 3, line 12 says
that registration plates issued to legislators remain with the
owner of the vehicle only during the term of office. She asked,
"What's the mechanism by which this is upheld?"
MR. BANNOCK responded that he believed that distribution and
recall of those plates is done through the Office of Legislative
Affairs in Juneau.
CHAIR SEATON commented that he knows there are a number of
plates that are signed and auctioned off.
8:47:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that as he understood it, an
elected official can retain the plates once he/she is out of
office, but the plates can't be on the car anymore. He moved to
[adopt an amendment] which would delete the final sentence on
page 3, lines 11-13.
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes and suggested
changing the sentence to read, "The registration plates issued
under this subsection may remain on the vehicle only during the
official's term of office."
8:48:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his previous motion, and then
moved to adopt a new Conceptual Amendment 1:
Page 3, lines 11-12, after "subsection":
Delete "remain with the owner of"
Insert "may remain on"
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS said he thought the current language
already says that, and therefore the amendment was not needed.
CHAIR SEATON said that there seems to be confusion about whether
plates were recalled from legislators at the end of term of
office. He commented that the amendment would clear up the
confusion.
8:51:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS objected to Conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that the amendment would make
it legal for legislators to keep the legislative plates as
souvenirs, but not keep the plates on their vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS removed his objection.
[There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.]
8:52:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out, "I don't like the idea of
state officials' license plates being on commercial vehicles."
She suggested a conceptual amendment which would retain the word
"noncommercial" on page 3, line 9, and take out subsections (c)
and (h) on page 6, line 12. "I just think that it's sort of
inappropriate to blend legislative duties and privileges with
commercial activities," she commented.
CHAIR SEATON stated that the bill addressed all vanity plates,
not just those owned by legislators. He asked if Representative
Gardner thought there should be no commercial vanity plates at
all.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that she doesn't think legislative
plates should be on a commercial vehicle.
8:53:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested deleting the language on page
6, line 12.
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Bannock which sections would need to be
removed to address Representative Gardner's concerns.
MR. BANNOCK replied that changes would need to be made to page
3, line 9.
8:55:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that [subsection (b)] on page
6, line 12 refers to noncommercial vehicles, and therefore that
should remain in the bill, while (c) and (h) in the same line
refer to commercial vehicles, and therefore should be removed
from the bill.
8:55:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if a vehicle would be considered to be
commercial if it had a magnetic business sign on it.
MR. BANNOCK replied that Section 4 of the bill only applies to
the legislators, and the DMV "doesn't have any heartburn" about
what becomes of this section. He continued:
The principle behind the matter is that it is your
director's opinion that there are a lot of vehicles
that should be paying commercial registration fees
that, quite frankly, are not paying commercial
registration fees, and one of the reasons we suspect
that they are not paying commercial fees is because of
some of the laws prohibiting the display of license
plates on those commercial vehicles.
MR. BANNOCK explained that if a person were to lease a car, the
car title and registration would be in the name of the financial
services company; based on the way the car is registered, it
would be considered a commercial vehicle. He stated that the
reason for changes [that would be made by the bill] is that the
cost of the registration is predicated upon how the vehicle is
titled. He continued:
We do not feel that it is appropriate that the license
plate rules be predicated upon the price of the
registration, which is why we made these changes, so
that if you did lease that [car] and you did pay
higher commercial use registration fees, but [if] you
still wanted to put a personalized license plate on
it, you would have that opportunity to do so.
8:59:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented, "The distinction is then in
terms of the ownership of the vehicle, not the usage of the
vehicle. And my concern is that legislative plates not be on
vehicles that are visibly commercially used."
MR. BANNOCK replied that the DMV has developed the "three-way
test," which he explained is a statutorily dictated test that
determines what is a commercial vehicle. He continued:
Step test number one: is [the vehicle] registered in
the name of a business or a company? Step number two:
does it weigh in excess of 10,000 pounds, excluding
motor homes and buses? Step number three: is it used
commercially? And then we go in different sections of
the code of the statute book to determine what the
delimitation of "used commercially" is.
MR. BANNOCK explained that if a vehicle is used for commercial
purposes, however rarely, it is still considered to be a
commercial vehicle.
9:01:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the words on page 3, line 9 should
be changed from "noncommercial" to "not-for-profit passenger
vehicle" instead.
MR. BANNOCK replied, "I hesitate to answer that because there is
already a statutory provision that defines what commercial
registration is." He presented an example of a vehicle that is
used seasonally for business purposes, and asked the committee
if this vehicle would be included as a "not-for-profit passenger
vehicle".
CHAIR SEATON asked the committee members to rethink their
concerns about the language in the bill.
9:03:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Mr. Bannock if the fees charged
cover the costs paid for vanity plates.
MR. BANNOCK answered, "Yes, many times over." In response to
Chair Seaton, he confirmed that the vanity plates provide a net
income to the general fund.
9:04:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
9:04:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Mr. Bannock why there is a fiscal
note for this bill if the vanity plate program is income
generating.
MR. BANNOCK replied that there is a $5,000 cost in fiscal year
(FY) 06 for changing the programming in the DMV system. He
noted, "Under changes in revenues, we have suggested quite a
large increase in revenues compared to the capital expenditure
to pay for the plates themselves."
9:05:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN mentioned that there is a bill [being
considered] in the House Special Committee on Military and
Veterans' Affairs involving license plates for Purple Heart
recipients.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG proposed an amendment on behalf of
himself and Representative Lynn that would add language to the
bill which would allow recipients of the Purple Heart to receive
the [special license] plate without paying the $30 fee.
CHAIR SEATON noted that HB 178 does not modify fees or fee
structures.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Mr. Bannock how many Purple Heart
license plates there are currently in Alaska.
MR. BANNOCK replied that he didn't have that information at
hand, but he did know that there are a total of 52 special
license plates for Purple Heart recipients, Prisoners of War,
and Pearl Harbor survivors.
CHAIR SEATON remarked that if the Purple Heart license plates
become free, more people may apply.
9:09:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he offered the amendment with the
proviso that if Representative Olson objected to it, the
amendment would be deleted.
MR. BANNOCK retracted his previous answer, and stated that he
now had the correct information which showed that in FY 03 there
were a total of 509 Purple Heart license plates in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that if this number was
correct, then his proposed amendment would equal a $15,270
reduction [in funds to the state].
9:10:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON remarked that if the amendment were to cost the
state about $15,000, then the 2008-9 fiscal note which says that
there would be a [net income] of $10,000 would then instead
become a cost of $5,000 to the state.
MR. BANNOCK pointed out that even if there were 509 such plates
today, it doesn't mean that there were that many issued in a
single year; some of the plates could have been issued 20 years
ago.
9:11:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that the text of the amendment
would modify AS 28.10.421 (d)(2), on page 6, line 1 of the bill,
changing the figure "$30" to "none". He remarked that the
amendment would also modify AS 28.10.431(h) to add "or a
recipient of a Purple Heart" to make it clear that the applicant
must still pay the registration fee, but is exempted from the
$30 fee for the plate.
9:13:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if a [legislator] who is also a
contractor is allowed to have a legislator plate on his work
truck.
MR. BANNOCK answered that this might be possible. He explained
that if the contractor had disclosed to the DMV that he uses the
truck commercially, he would not be able to put the legislative
plate on his truck. If he did not disclose to the DMV that he
uses the truck for work, the bill would have no effect on him.
If the bill were to pass, the contractor who disclosed to the
DMV that the truck is used commercially would now be able to use
legislative plates.
9:14:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that he was confused by this
answer. He offered his own example in which a contractor goes
to a worksite with a legislator's plate on his truck, which
gives the contractor "a bit of an unfair advantage" because
perhaps the client will then view the contractor in a better
light.
MR. BANNOCK replied that Representative Gatto was correct about
how the bill could be applied. He said, "We have a tremendous
amount of automobiles in Alaska that meet the definition of
'commercial' ... but have not been disclosed to the [DMV] so we
think that they are noncommercial vehicles." He continued:
I believe I understand what your concern is. It goes
back to the intent of how the vehicle ... is currently
registered. If that person that you're describing has
disclosed to the [DMV] that the vehicle is a
commercial use vehicle, under the rules today that
person could not display their legislative plates on
that vehicle.
9:17:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that under current law, that
person would be violating the law for failure to disclose; this
legislation would simply give him the privilege of not violating
the law.
MR. BANNOCK said, "This change that we're proposing doesn't have
anything to do with that violation because until that violation
is cured, the customer comes in, reregisters his vehicle as a
commercial vehicle. That violation is still going on regardless
of what type of plate they're displaying on the vehicle." He
noted that there have been several recent court decisions in
Alaska that backed up this position; that the use of the vehicle
predicates if a vehicle should be required to pay commercial
registration or not.
9:19:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed her concern that it may not be
appropriate for someone to be visibly doing a commercial
activity with legislative plates on the vehicle.
CHAIR SEATON commented, "Hopefully we will have legislators that
use their discretion on legislative plates and consider that
within the ethical bounds instead of the statutory bounds." He
reminded the committee that Conceptual Amendment 1 had been
adopted.
9:20:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report HB 178, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
178(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
HB 12-TVS AND MONITORS IN MOTOR VEHICLES
9:21:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 12, "An Act relating to televisions and monitors in
motor vehicles."
9:22:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) to HB 12, Version 24-LS0058\L, Luckhaupt, 3/9/05, as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version L was before the
committee.
9:23:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reviewed the changes incorporated into
the committee substitute. He said:
This attempted to deal with all the issues that were
raised [at the last committee meeting] with the
exception of one that we were not able to solve.
First, on line 5 of page 1, we changed "operation of"
in the title to "driving". ... Secondly, on line 9, we
inserted "laptop type portable computer". Third, we
added in there the [paragraph] 2, ... which includes
also "devices that are visible to or intended to be
viewed by the driver and that would visually distract
the driver, excluding devices used in the operation of
the vehicle." ... That dealt with everything we had
raised in the previous hearing of the bill with the
exception of the word "watching", which Representative
Gatto had asked [us to define], and the intent of that
is watching to the extent that you are distracted,
because you couldn't be totally watching it and
driving, but the point is that you're watching it to
the extent that you're distracted.
9:25:24 AM
DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Senior Director, Technology Policy, Consumer
Electronics Association (CEA), testified in support of the bill.
He commented that HB 12 "follows very closely with a model that
we've been supportive of across the country." He noted that CEA
developed a model bill on the subject of in-vehicle video
displays, and in 2003 both California and Indiana adopted this
model. He noted that CEA had submitted written comments to the
committee and he pointed out the key points:
[Consumer Electronics Association is] looking for a
consistent treatment of this across the country, which
obviously benefits drivers and law enforcement, as
well as the industry. Secondly, we're looking for
flexibility with regard to the bill. If you start
singling out individual technologies or products which
are constantly changing in our industry, then the
legislation needs to be frequently amended, and so
we're looking for a more comprehensive approach that
targets the behavior that's in question rather than
itemizing specific technologies. And thirdly, ... we
want to focus on the problem at hand, which is ...
watching, not driving. So we believe that the model
approach, which we've been supportive of in other
states, tracks well with the introduced version of HB
12....
9:28:06 AM
MR. JOHNSON addressed the changes made in Version L. He said:
We don't have any comment about the first change.
That's fine. The mention of laptop portable computer,
however, is an example of identifying a specific
product or technology. The problem with that, of
course, as I mentioned, is that technology is always
changing and if you start [to] list products, we're
not sure when you'd stop. ... There's a lot of devices
out there that are portable, that have screens, and we
think it's a better approach to focus more generically
on the problem.
... Just a quick comment on the [term] "interlock,"
which appears in a couple of different places in the
bill: a couple of states have used that term. It's
not in our model approach. We favor a more generic
term called, "device" instead of "interlock" ...
because of the confusion about what interlock really
means.... That was one specific concern we had there.
The other had to do with the removal of "power
provision", which is in [subsection (b)] of the bill.
We would suggest and support "disable" rather than
"remove power". ... We feel that this is redundant
since it's already included in [paragraph] 5 of the
bill, but if it is to be included in [subsection (b)],
we favor the more generic term "disable". When you
remove power from something, that's kind of hard to
define with a technology product, and somewhat hard to
do in an engineering sense.
9:30:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Johnson if paragraph (5) of the bill
comports with his testimony.
MR. JOHNSON replied affirmatively, "save for the term 'interlock
device'."
9:31:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
as follows:
Page 2, line 19, after "has"
Delete "an interlock"
Insert "a"
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected and noted that the word
"interlock" appears in several places in the bill.
9:33:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt an amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 1:
Page 2, line 6, after "moving."
Delete "An interlock or other mechanism"
Insert "A device"
[There being no objection, it was so ordered.]
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested that Representative Gruenberg
make an additional change to Amendment 1, changing the words
"removes power" on page 2, line 6, and substituting the word,
"disables."
9:34:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt a second amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 1:
Page 2, lines 6-7, after "that"
Delete "removes power from"
Insert "disables"
[There being no objection, it was so ordered.]
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended,
was adopted.
9:35:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2,
as follows:
Page 2, line 12, after "a"
Delete "Global Positioning System"
Insert "navigation or global positioning"
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:36:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that he was not going to
limit [the bill] to "low speed maneuvering," although this was
Mr. Johnson's recommendation.
MR. JOHNSON responded that he had no objection to leaving that
out.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Johnson if any he had any
other suggestions that the committee may have missed.
MR. JOHNSON reiterated that CEA would recommend deleting the
reference to "laptop type portable computer" on page 1, lines 9-
10.
CHAIR SEATON said that he would like to leave that language in
the bill.
9:39:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
9:39:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO turned attention to the words "laptop type
portable computer" and commented:
A computer itself is an instrument that ... has no
real reason to be stared at or looked at; the only
thing we're really concerned about is the display.
And so, adding "laptop type portable computer" without
somehow connecting it to the screen that is with it -
the computer itself is not something anyone would look
at.
CHAIR SEATON noted lines 7-8 on page 1, which say "A person may
not drive a motor vehicle while watching a". He commented,
"Everybody knows what a laptop is."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he believes that the screen is
part of the computer, so the word "computer" includes the
screen.
9:41:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report CSHB 12, Version 24-
LS0058\L, Luckhaupt, 3/9/05, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
9:41:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes. He
said that he has been in touch with the Alaska Department of
Law, and that department will deal with this bill when it is in
the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He removed his
objection.
9:42:12 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any further objection. There
being none, CSHB 12(STA) moved from House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
HB 34-EXPUNGEMENT OF SET ASIDES
9:42:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 34, "An Act relating to the expungement of records
relating to conviction set asides granted after suspended
imposition of sentence."
9:42:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE WEYHRAUCH, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor, presented HB 34 to the committee. He explained that a
court has the option to set aside a conviction following the
defendant's successful completion of the conditions of his/her
suspended sentence. However, under current law, that conviction
will always be on the defendant's record. He commented,
"There's no opportunity for a person to have their record
expunged of a conviction; there's no opportunity to wipe the
slate clean." He clarified that HB 34 would authorize the
expungement of a record of a conviction that has been set aside
following a suspended imposition of sentence.
9:48:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH pointed out that some crimes are so
heinous that it wouldn't be good public policy to give that
individual the opportunity to have an expunged record. But in
some case, he said, "I think it is appropriate to consider
allowing an individual to have their record expunged or
cleaned."
9:50:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON commented that the committee had just received some
of the bill background information.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH replied that is his intention to get
the bill introduced and he would consider a committee substitute
or a sponsor substitute to address the committee's concerns.
9:50:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON turned to a list in the committee packet titled,
"Crimes Excluded from Set Aside Options," and asked
Representative Weyhrauch if these crimes would not be expunged.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH explained that those crimes are
excluded from the set aside option and therefore would not be
able to be expunged. Giving the example of a battered woman who
finally kills her abuser, he commented that there may, however,
be some instances in which an individual convicted of a crime on
the list should have his/her record expunged.
9:53:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked why 4th Degree Assault and Reckless
Endangerment are omitted from the list.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH replied that in some cases, individuals
who committed these crimes should be eligible for expungement.
9:54:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked why 1st Degree Custodial Interference is on
the list, but 2nd Degree Custodial Interference is omitted.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH replied, "I'm simply going off what the
set aside statute allows, and then allowing those convictions
that can be set aside and a suspended imposition imposed to then
be allowed the class of convictions that can be expunged - to
limit it to that. It's already under existing statute...."
9:55:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked for other examples of crimes to be
available for expungement.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH replied, "Teenage drinking, smoking
marijuana. A lot of these are youthful offenses that show up on
a person's record forever. Theft, [shoplifting]." He pointed
out that these types of offenses can make it difficult for a
person to get into college or a military academy, or to get a
job. He noted that the only way a record can currently be
expunged is through the President of the United States or the
governor of the State of Alaska for a pardon or executive
clemency.
CHAIR SEATON suggested that it would be helpful for the
committee to have more examples [of offenses to which this bill
would apply] for the next hearing.
9:58:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 34 was heard and held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:59:58 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|