02/14/2006 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB186 | |
| HB347 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 347 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 238 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 14, 2006
8:08 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
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 186(JUD)
"An Act relating to the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 347
"An Act relating to mandatory motor vehicle insurance, license
suspensions, and notices relating to motor vehicles and driver's
licenses."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 238
"An Act relating to contribution rates for employers and members
in the defined benefit plans of the teachers' retirement system
and the public employees' retirement system and to the ad-hoc
post-retirement pension adjustment in the teachers' retirement
system; requiring insurance plans provided to members of the
teachers' retirement system, the judicial retirement system, the
public employees' retirement system, and the former elected
public officials retirement system to provide a list of
preferred drugs; relating to defined contribution plans for
members of the teachers' retirement system and the public
employees' retirement system; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 186
SHORT TITLE: EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SEEKINS
04/22/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/22/05 (S) STA, JUD
04/26/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/26/05 (S) Moved CSSB 186(STA) Out of Committee
04/26/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/27/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/27/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/28/05 (S) STA RPT CS 3NR 1DNP
NEW TITLE
04/28/05 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, WAGONER, HUGGINS
04/28/05 (S) DNP: ELTON
04/28/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/28/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/29/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/29/05 (S) LEGISLATIVE ETHICS/MEETINGS
04/30/05 (S) JUD AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/30/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/01/05 (S) JUD AT 4:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/01/05 (S) Moved CSSB 186(JUD) Out of Committee
05/01/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/02/05 (S) JUD RPT CS FORTHCOMING 1DP 1DNP 2NR
1AM
05/02/05 (S) DP: SEEKINS
05/02/05 (S) DNP: FRENCH
05/02/05 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, HUGGINS
05/02/05 (S) AM: GUESS
05/02/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
05/02/05 (S) Moved Out of Committee 5/1/05
05/02/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/03/05 (S) JUD CS RECEIVED
NEW TITLE
05/04/05 (S) RETURNED TO RLS COMMITTEE
05/08/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/08/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 186(JUD)
05/09/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/09/05 (H) STA, JUD
01/31/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/31/06 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 347
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE & NOTICE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARA, LYNN
01/09/06 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/06
01/09/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/09/06 (H) STA, JUD
01/31/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/31/06 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information to the committee as
sponsor of SB 186.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of HB 347, reviewed technical
changes made to the bill.
J. KEVIN BURCHFIELD, Driver Services Supervisor
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
347.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department feedback regarding
suggested amendments during the hearing on HB 347.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:08:28 AM. Representatives
Gatto, Elkins, Ramras, Gardner, and Seaton were present at the
call to order. Representatives Lynn and Gruenberg arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
SB 186-EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS
8:09:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 186(JUD), "An Act relating to the Alaska
Executive Branch Ethics Act; and providing for an effective
date."
8:09:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony. He noted there is written
testimony in the committee packet from Richard Hahn.
8:10:30 AM
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of
SB 186, indicated that he had some difficulty acquiring the
information that was asked for by the committee.
Notwithstanding that, he said, "From the testimony that Barbara
Ritchie gave us ... she says it ... was fairly common for ethics
complaints to be brought against someone just to get at them."
In response to a question from Chair Seaton, he said in some
cases [those complaints] were made public. He added that they
did not get a press release, but they were passed around "in the
inside of the organization to blacken someone's eye, so to
speak." He said the biggest public [ethics issue] was the one
that was "at first allegedly brought against former Commissioner
Joel Gilbertson."
8:12:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON proffered, "We discussed that in some detail. The
question is, though, that wouldn't have been released for
stopping his advancement in the executive branch to another,
which was the case that we were talking about."
8:12:51 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS answered that's correct. He directed attention
to a handout [included in the committee packet] entitled,
"Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Complaint Process," and showing
[in a 24-step process covering four pages] "what happens in an
ethics complaint when it's brought." He told the committee that
the process becomes public at step 11: "Does the investigation
result in a finding of probable cause?" When the answer to that
is yes, he explained, the attorney general serves a copy of the
accusation on the subject, setting out the alleged violation,
and all proceedings are then open to the public. He stated that
the steps are logical and can be clearly followed through the
Ethics Law statute. However, he pointed out that the way bills
are drafted make it difficult to see the whole picture, because
only the sections that are going to be amended are mentioned.
8:16:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said Senator Seekins has described a
complicated process of addressing ethical complaints. She asked
Senator Seekins if he thinks a penalty for disclosure would have
a chilling effect on people who have a legitimate concern for
good government and would like to file a complaint.
8:16:50 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS emphasized his effort to write for the common
person, not just lawyers. He stated his belief that when
someone becomes involved in the public process, it should be
clear what the law requires of him/her and of the person against
whom the complaint is being made. Currently, it is a violation
of the Ethics Act to break confidentiality prior to a finding of
probable cause. He said, "If we condone breaking the Ethics Act
on one person's side of the page and not the other, the law is
hypocritical. And I don't think that's the intent of any of us
that are in the legislature." He said he supports the committee
process. He stated his belief that the person who knowingly or
intentionally breaks a confidentiality requirement should
receive penalty, but not so someone who does so unintentionally.
He said the legislature has two choices: Either take the
confidentiality requirement completely out of the law, or having
a meaningful penalty for those who knowingly and intentionally
break the law.
8:22:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said there is a big distinction between
someone who is trying to follow government and those who are in
office. The latter group has to open up to public scrutiny.
She asked, "Aside from your proposed penalties, what would be
the consequences to somebody who signs something under oath that
is knowingly false or malicious ...?"
8:23:23 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS answered that that is a different matter
entirely. He clarified, "Someone who knows that it's [an]
unrighteous complaint has broken another section of the law, and
there should be a penalty for that - and there is." He said he
thinks people have a responsibility to turn a person in when
they know that person is wrongfully filing a complaint. He
continued:
There are two things there: You're saying if you're
bringing it and yet you know it isn't true, that's one
violation. If you knowingly and intentionally make it
public to get the second blow, that's a different
violation. [They are] totally separate, and they
shouldn't be confused.
8:25:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to [the aforementioned letter from
Mr. Hahn]. In the letter, he noted, Mr. Hahn wrote that he
considers "closed caucuses, where legislators are told how to
vote, to be unethical." Representative Gatto said, "If this
person truly believes that legislators are told how to vote,
he's ... in serious error." Representative Gatto indicated that
Mr. Hahn also thinks legislators "paid by special interests to
sponsor or block legislation" [are unethical]. Representative
Gatto opined that Mr. Hahn is making statements that are false.
He said he personally faults the media more than the individual
for printing a story for which it has no factual information.
He said he would love to go after the media for carrying a story
for which it had absolutely no basis other than "somebody said
[it]." He stated that it's not a concern of his to stop a
person from making a statement, because that's a First Amendment
right. He concluded, "So, I guess it's not a question for you,
except that I think it weighs heavily on how we handle ethics
legislation when it specifically looks at the individual who
simply made statement, rather than "the violator, which is the
media."
8:28:23 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS said there will always be those who have no
solution to what they perceive to be a problem but "just want to
blow it up from the outside." He said he was in a discussion
with someone in the media who portrayed news today as
entertainment rather than journalism. He told Representative
Gatto, "When we were elected ..., there was this transformation
that took place ... from being solid citizens in our community
to becoming scoundrels in the eyes of many of the people in the
public. And we have to live with that and understand that some
folks just don't really understand the process."
8:30:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 24-LS0874\X.5,
Wayne, 2/13/06.
8:31:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
He said he has trouble with the language in the underlying
statute regarding blind trusts. He handed out a copy of that
statute [AS 39.50.040], which read:
Sec. 39.50.040. Blind trusts.
(a) A public official may transfer all or a
portion of the official's assets to a blind trust for
the duration of service in public office. The original
assets placed in the blind trust shall be listed by
the official in the statement required to be filed
under this chapter. The instrument creating the blind
trust must be included with the statement.
(b) For a trust to qualify under this section,
(1) assets transferred to the trust shall be
marketable;
(2) the trustee shall be a bank or other
institutional fiduciary;
(3) the trustee shall have full authority to
manage the trust, including the purchase, sale, and
exchange of its assets in accordance with fiduciary
principles;
(4) information regarding the identity and the
nature of its assets shall be confidential from the
trustor for the duration of the trust;
(5) the trustee shall be required to report any
known breach of confidentiality or the termination of
the trust to the office where the trustor is required
to file statements under this chapter; and
(6) {[}Repealed, Sec. 26 ch 25 SLA 1975{]}.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said there are two loopholes in
[subsection (b), paragraph (4)]. He said the word
"confidential" is vague and doesn't necessarily mean, "shall not
be disclosed," which is what he said he thinks the intent is.
Also, "from the trustor" is a loophole, he explained, because
the "the trustee can simply tell the trustor, his wife, business
associate, attorney, accountant, [or] somebody else." He said
it is beyond the scope of the bill to deal with AS 39.50.040;
however, he said he would like to add language in Amendment 1 to
tighten those loopholes.
8:32:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1, so that as used in AS 39.52.415, the following
terms in AS 39.50.040(b)(4) shall have the following meanings:
"confidentiality" shall mean "shall not be disclosed", and
"trustor" shall include not only the trustor, but any trustor's
agents or immediate family.
8:35:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 upon a request from Representative Lynn.
8:35:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1
would mean that a management firm or agency would be prevented
from disclosing to the person who deposits the assets what any
of those assets are.
8:35:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG added, "Or what happens to them, yes -
that makes it blind, as opposed to just a trust."
8:35:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. There being none, it was so
ordered.
8:36:58 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS directed attention to the language in Amendment
1 [as amended], which read, "the trust must be divested promptly
of assets originally transferred into it by the public officer".
He asked Chair Seaton if he has considered the tax ramifications
of that language for someone who has a large portfolio. He
offered his understanding that the portfolio that was
transferred by the former attorney general exceeded a million
dollars. He said, "If those assets were to be divested, any
unrealized gains would immediately become taxable, because they
would become realized gains, and you would subject that
particular person to probably in excess of 25 percent of their
portfolio being spent immediately as taxes, which would have a
chilling effect on being involved as a successful person in
public office." He said the definition of a blind trust is "a
trust set up to prevent the owner from having detailed knowledge
of the assets in the trust."
8:38:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained the reason for the language is that a
person will know initially what's in the trust. He added, "And
if there is no requirement for divestiture in that, you're going
to know for a long period of time." He said the tax
consequences of which Senator Seekins spoke "would be correct if
there was a zero cost basis for those assets."
8:38:56 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS noted that government officials frequently use
blind trusts to avoid conflicts between their official duties
and personal financial transactions. He surmised that Governor
Murkowski has bank shares that he bought 20-25 years ago. He
opined, "You're discouraging successful people from being
involved in government."
8:39:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that the intent is not to say that
everyone has to divest all their assets and put them into a
blind trust. He said, "This is a mechanism that would be
voluntarily used by a person who thought that they were going to
have an ethical conflict with certain stocks or certain assets
that they owned, and as long as they put that into some place
that they would remain fairly confident would remain in that
trust until some future time, whatever actions they would take
would have effect on their assets."
8:41:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Senator Seekins' remarks give him
concern. He asked if deleting lines 9 and 10 [as labeled on
Amendment 1, as amended] would alleviate Senator Seekins'
concern.
8:42:11 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS suggested that the reference to AS 39.50.040
should be made directly to the section of the Ethics Act, rather
than to the provision that allows a public official to "transfer
those acts in." He said he would also change the reference on
line 8 [as numbered on Amendment 1, as amended] "to that section
of the Executive Ethics Act."
8:42:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Amendment 2 to Amendment 1 [as
amended], on line 8 [as numbered on Amendment 1, as amended] to
delete "under" and insert "as defined in".
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
8:44:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Chair Seaton and
Senator Seekins, said there would be more language to amend, but
he would like to address the changes in small steps.
8:44:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any further objection to
Amendment 2 to Amendment 1 [as amended]. [Chair Seaton's own
objection was treated as removed.] There being no further
objection, Amendment 2 to Amendment 1 [as amended] was adopted.
8:44:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't understand the phrase
"and a provision of this chapter" on line 8 [as numbered on
Amendment 1, as amended]. He said it is vague.
8:45:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained, "This provision was to apply to a blind
trust utilized in this ... section of the Ethics Act."
8:46:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Conceptual Amendment 3 to
Amendment 1 [as amended], on line 8 [as numbered on Amendment 1,
as amended] to delete "and a provision" and insert "for these
purposes".
8:47:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Conceptual
Amendment 3 to Amendment 1 [as amended]. There being none, it
was so ordered.
8:47:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated his support of SB 186. He said it
would allow the public a methodology for approaching ethics
issues in an appropriate and responsible fashion. He said the
proposed legislation would also help attract the best people
into the executive branch of government. He said he does not
think [Amendment 1, as amended] serves that purpose and he plans
to vote against it, even as amended.
8:48:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred with the previous comments of
Senator Seekins that Amendment 1 [as amended] would have adverse
tax consequences for someone entering the executive branch
because of language in [paragraph] (1), on lines 9 and 10 [as
numbered on Amendment 1 [as amended], text provided previously].
He suggested an amendment could be offered to address this
issue, but he said he is not interested in weakening the Ethics
Act. He said he would like to hear Chair Seaton's response.
8:50:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to [page 1, lines 12-13], which
read: "or the public officer does not have management control
over the financial interest". Chair Seaton said many people
have managed accounts and receive a quarterly or monthly report,
and thus know exactly what is in the account. He clarified, "We
may not have management control [regarding] whether we're buying
or selling things out of that portfolio, but we know what's in
it." Chair Seaton said that raises an ethical concern. He
explained that buying and selling assets is not what creates the
ethical conflict; the ethical conflict comes from having "an
asset which you can make more valuable by your actions."
Therefore, he suggested that the next amendment would be to
eliminate the management control section and maintain the blind
trust. He then related his understanding that for this ethical
violation, [assets] would be voluntarily placed in a [blind
trust] to escape an ethical problem. The aforementioned, he
said, is before the committee for consideration.
8:52:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked the bill sponsor if he thought
Amendment 1 [as amended] needed further amending.
8:53:36 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS said he would like to see the blind trust left
in the ethics laws because it allows a successful individual who
has already had to disclose what was in his/her portfolio to
place it outside of his/her management control. He indicated
that the language in the bill, "financial interest in a matter
is held in a blind trust or the public officer does not have
management control over the financial interest", was added in an
effort to "not preclude other mechanisms that duplicated the
same thing with a blind trust." He added, "But ... they should
have that confidentiality, so I wouldn't have any objection to
that other language being stricken." He stated, "If there's
anything in there that says you have to divest of that asset ...
and take those tax ramifications ..., I think it has a chilling
effect."
8:54:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if Senator Seekins was talking about
line 9 [as numbered on Amendment 1, as amended].
8:55:07 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS answered yes. He reiterated his concern that it
would discourage people from running for office.
8:55:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said it seems that the chilling effect
would not be on someone's ability to be in office but in his/her
ability to make public decisions which that person has reason to
believe would benefit him/herself. She continued:
Outside of management control, as a blind trust is,
does not mean "has not personal interest or stake in
the outcome," and that's where we need to find a
solution. If I have valuable assets and I don't want
to pay the taxes on them, ... I put them in a blind
trust. I know they're in a blind trust; I have every
reason to expect they're still going to be there after
I finish my public service. I have an interest and a
stake in the outcome of decisions I make. And I think
that if we want to serve the public good, we need to
remove that possibility. We can serve, and we cannot
deal with issues that directly affect our own assets,
whether they're in a blind trust or not.
8:56:35 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS posited that the effect of Representative
Gardner's suggestion would be to limit the talent pool and end
up with candidates for high office who "have never been
successful in their own life and career - in terms of investing
in their portfolio." He reiterated, "These are assets, [that]
when ... put in the blind trust, ... have already been publicly
disclosed according to our public disclosure laws."
8:57:22 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS, in response to a request for clarification from
Chair Seaton, admitted that he had been referring to those in
higher office "where the ... greatest conflict does exist in
terms of stock portfolio." He said the average state employee
probably does not have a significant stock portfolio; however,
many of them still do have some type of stock investment. He
offered examples.
8:57:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON said:
And again, we're talking about not the fact that you
have [a] stock portfolio or that you have assets, but
only if you are in a situation where the ... executive
branch action that you are going to take is going to
significantly impact the value of that asset and it
rises above the value of $10,000.
8:58:23 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS said that could happen.
8:58:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON reiterated that it's not just about a 401K and its
value, but also that "you have to be taking an action which is
influencing that investment."
8:58:49 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS concurred.
8:59:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if there has ever been an instance
where anyone has not come into government because of a lack of a
blind trust provision in Alaska's ethics law.
8:59:38 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS said there is an existing blind trust law which
allows a person to "put that in just to avoid any conflict of
interest." To Representative Gardner's question, he said he has
not polled those who have not come into public service to find
out if that's the reason they didn't.
9:00:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks there are a number of
successful classified employees "who potentially might use
this." He offered an example of someone who is a land officer
who owns land in a subdivision in which other parcels are being
sold. He said that person's parcel might be affected by what
the land disposal is.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 4 [to
Amendment 1, as amended], beginning on line 9 [as numbered on
Amendment 1, as amended], to delete: "the trust must be
divested promptly of assets originally transferred into it by
the public officer; and (2)".
9:01:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that if the committee were to adopt
Amendment 4 to Amendment 1 [as amended], there wouldn't be
anything left to Amendment 1 [as amended]. He said, "... The
blind trust just wouldn't be quite as blind."
9:01:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that that's not his intent.
He stated that he thinks [Amendment 1, as amended] is a good
amendment, "aside from that one issue." He said the amendment
still includes language about a blind trust and the recently
adopted Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 tightens up the definition of
blind trust for the purpose of the Ethics Act. He stated his
hope that Chair Seaton does not withdraw Amendment 1 [as
amended].
9:02:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated her objection to Amendment 4 to
Amendment 1 [as amended].
9:03:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered a hypothetical question:
Let's just ... say you live in Juneau, in your own
home, and you're a successful businessman - you own a
$600,000 home - which in this vicinity is not that
unusual. Would you have to put that in a blind trust,
if indeed before your committee was coming legislation
that indicated we might have to move the capital, and
therefore you would say, "Gosh, what will happen to
the value of my home?" Would that have to be in a
blind trust, then?
9:03:51 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS said he doesn't believe so. He said a person
might look at the home as an investment, but it's where he/she
lives. He said he thinks that would be exempt from that
provision. A piece of property, on the other hand, could be
considered an investment, he concluded.
9:04:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON said if the language in Amendment 4 to Amendment 1
[as amended] is going to be deleted, then he thinks lines 11-16
[as numbered on Amendment 1, as amended] should be deleted as
well, because they deal with an asset that's transferred into
the trust, which would continue to be there until a person is
notified that it's no longer there. He said that's the same as
a person knowing what's in his/her blind trust until being
notified that it's no longer there.
CHAIR SEATON said he would like Representative Gruenberg to
withdraw Amendment 4 to Amendment 1 [as amended] and offer an
amendment to delete lines 9-16 [as numbered in Amendment 1, as
amended].
9:05:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to comments by Representative
Gruenberg, clarified his point is that a person has to be told
when assets [in a blind trust] are sold. If that person has 10
assets and is told six of them have been sold, he/she knows that
four still exist. He said, "So, ... anything that had a value
of over $10,000 is going to be known to be still in that trust
until you're notified that it's gone. So, it totally defeats
the idea of the blind trust."
9:06:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 4 to Amendment 1 [as
amended].
9:07:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any further discussion regarding
Amendment 1 [as amended].
9:07:24 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Gatto, and
Seaton voted in favor of Amendment 1, as amended.
Representatives Ramras, Gruenberg, Elkins, and Lynn voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, failed by a
vote of 3-4.
9:08:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt [Conceptual] Amendment 2, as
follows:
On page 3, line 30:
After "blind trust"
Delete "or other investment where the employee
does not have management control over the financial
interest"
On page 10, line 1:
After "appropriate"
Delete ", placement of the financial interest
into an investment where the employee does not have
management control over the financial interest"
Replace similar language throughout Version X.
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 2, as
follows:
On page 1, line 12:
After "blind trust"
Delete "or the public officer does not have
management control over the financial interest"
9:10:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2. There being none, it was so ordered.
9:11:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2,
[as amended].
9:11:32 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS said he has no objection to Amendment 2, as
amended.
9:11:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that there being no objection, Amendment
2, as amended was adopted.
9:11:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, as follows:
On page 2, line 7:
Insert new subparagraph "(D) does not have any
stock, purchase or other options that pertain to the
business;"
Reletter accordingly
CHAIR SEATON, upon a request from Representative Gruenberg,
withdrew his motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3.
9:13:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG handed out an amendment labeled 24-
LS0874\X.6, Chenoweth, 2/14/06, and he said he would like it to
replace Conceptual Amendment 3, [but he did not make a motion to
adopt it].
SENATOR SEEKINS indicated his acceptance of the language in the
amendment labeled 24-LS0874\X.6, Chenoweth, 2/14/06.
9:13:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON renewed his motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3
[text provided previously].
9:14:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVES LYNN and GRUENBERG simultaneously objected for
discussion purposes.
9:14:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON spoke to Conceptual Amendment 3. He said covering
all stock options is probably more significant than specifying a
dollar amount, because "there is a prospective arrangement of
obtaining the business."
9:16:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed a desire to have Conceptual
Amendment 3 incorporated into his amendment labeled 24-
LS0874\X.6, Chenoweth, 2/14/06.
9:16:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he is confused by the language in
Conceptual Amendment 3. After ascertaining from Chair Seaton
that "options" is meant to modify "stock" and "purchase", he
said he thinks the word "option" should follow both words.
9:17:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON said, "I would take that as a friendly amendment."
[The committee treated that friendly amendment as an adopted
Amendment 1 to Amendment 3].
CHAIR SEATON told Representative Gruenberg that he thinks it
would be too confusing to carry out his suggestion of melding
the amendments.
9:19:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Suppose that you require an
option for one share in the business. Are you prohibiting that
...?"
9:19:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON said if a person is acquiring an option in the
business, it is going to be difficult to ascertain the
percentage or the amount.
9:20:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, in response to Representative Gruenberg's
question to Chair Seaton, said, "Well, if I have a company that
has 5 shares - me, my wife, and my three children - a single
share is worth 20 percent of the company."
9:20:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Representative Gatto is correct.
He clarified his question: "Suppose you only have one share in
a big company. ... The thing that I'm trying to get at is that
the reason that there is in the legislation the 1 percent or
$10,000 di minimis exception is because otherwise you couldn't
have even a ... tiny interest in the business." He said he
doesn't think there is any evidence the committee has that that
creates a substantial conflict. He concluded, "When you're
talking about acquiring a business, that's a lot more by
definition than 10 percent." Regarding "other options that
pertain to the business", he said, "You could have an option to
supply things to the business or an option - like in your fish
business - to purchase fish from the business. That would be an
option that pertains to the business. Are you going to prohibit
that too?" He offered another example of how Conceptual
Amendment 3 would disallow options. He said, "I thought we were
talking about ownership interest here."
9:22:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a remark by Chair
Seaton, told the chair that Conceptual Amendment 3 [as amended]
would make having an option a conflict of interest. He
explained:
So, I'm an executive branch employee, and I want an
option to buy fish from the Seaton fish processing
company. That would be unethical here. And that's
just a business deal. You're either a supplier or a
purchaser. Are you planning to ... prohibit that?
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that his amendment labeled 24-
LS0874\X.6, Chenoweth, 2/14/06, be considered "an amendment in
substitute to Conceptual Amendment 3." He expressed his
willingness "to add something to it to do what you're
suggesting."
9:23:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she thinks the committee is looking
at the issue out of context. She noted that the bill lists
insignificance as one criterion, and that is followed by the
word "or". Therefore, she said, "If your example fits in the
first one, then the second one's not..."
9:23:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the word "[INSIGNIFICANT]"
is deleted from the bill [on page 1, line 7 of Version X]. He
said "This is the definition that we're dealing with of what's
insignificant."
9:24:06 AM
SENATOR SEEKINS announced that his presence was needed at
another committee hearing.
CHAIR SEATON stated his understanding that Representative
Gruenberg had moved to substitute Conceptual Amendment 3 [as
amended] for the aforementioned language of 24-LS0874\X.6,
Chenoweth, 2/14/06.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if it was the chair's intention
to pass the bill out of committee today. If not, he indicated
that some work could be done outside of committee.
CHAIR SEATON said, "Sure, we can do that. We can put that on
hold and work on that for better language."
9:24:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked that "INSIGNIFICANT" was removed
from [page 1], line 7, but still shows on [page 1], line 10. He
said he wondered if that was an oversight.
9:25:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the word "INSIGNIFICANT"
is used in two different capacities. The one defines the
quantity of an interest in the business, while the other defines
the type of action that is taken by the business. He said
keeping "INSIGNIFICANT" on line 10 is appropriate.
9:25:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he has no way to quantify the word
"INSIGNIFICANT", because it varies from person to person. He
suggested that for the sake of keeping the integrity of the bill
in order, the term may need a substitution.
9:26:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "I would hope that we don't touch
that language on line 10 because that's got to be up to the
triers."
9:27:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that Conceptual Amendment 3, as amended,
would be put aside. [The motion to substitute Amendment 3, as
amended, for the language of 24-LS0874\X.6, Chenoweth, 2/14/06
was left pending.]
9:27:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 4, as follows:
On page 8, lines 16-24:
Delete Section 15
Renumber accordingly
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS objected for discussion purposes. He
suggested that Amendment 4 would gut the intent of SB 186. He
indicated that the $5,000 fine that would be deleted is the
heart of the bill.
9:28:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON responded that the bill contains a lot more than
that; it also defines the amount and includes business partners
as well as members of the family. Currently, he said, a person
who files [a complaint] he/she knows is not true is subject to
"false swearing" penalties. He said, "It does not put a
separate new section of law for someone who discloses that
they're about to or did file [an] ethics complaint, but it would
not relieve one from ... filing a false ethics complaint and the
charges that would arise from that."
9:29:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that she thinks the ethics bill
can be a strong one without having penalties for the public.
9:30:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated his belief that "we" are looking at
the wrong people when trying to assess a fine against an
individual for making a statement, even though the statement may
be an exaggeration. He stated his support of Amendment 4.
9:31:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS maintained his objection to Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "I'm going to stand corrected ...
just for the record ...." He stated that making a false
statement under oath is perjury, which is a class B felony,
whereas unsworn falsification - submitting a false written or
recorded statement on an application for a benefit or a form
bearing a notice, with the intent to mislead a public servant in
the performance of a duty - is a class A misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he was citing AS 11.56.200 and
210. He indicated that the entire statute regarding perjury and
related offenses is found in AS 11.56.200-240.
9:32:05 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Gruenberg,
Gatto, and Seaton voted in favor of Amendment 4.
Representatives Elkins and Ramras voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 4 passed by a vote of 4-2.
9:32:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 5, as follows:
On page 8, line 26:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may"
9:33:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes. He
stated his support of Amendment 5, then removed his objection.
9:33:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any other objection. There
being none, Conceptual Amendment 5 was adopted.
9:33:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 6, as follows:
On page 9, lines 3-4:
Delete paragraph (3)
On page 9, lines 16-17:
Delete paragraph (3)
9:34:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS objected.
9:34:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that Conceptual Amendment 6 is
a conforming amendment.
9:34:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said, "I just think we shouldn't have
amended Section 15 out of the bill, so I object to this
amendment for the same reason."
9:35:04 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Gatto,
Gardner, and Seaton voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 6.
Representatives Elkins and Ramras voted against it. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 6 passed by a vote of 4-2.
9:36:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Conceptual Amendment 7, as
follows:
On page 9, lines 18-19:
Delete subsection (d)
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the language in
subsection (d) references language that the committee just
deleted [in Conceptual Amendment 6].
9:37:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Conceptual
Amendment 7. There being none, it was so ordered.
9:37:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 8, lines 26-
29, which read as follows:
Sec. 39.52.352. Wrongful use of complaint.
(a) The board shall find there has been wrongful use
of an executive branch ethics complaint if it
determines, after compliance with due process
requirements, including a hearing and a majority vote,
that the complainant
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the language does not
specify whether or not it must be a public "hearing".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 8, as follows:
On page 8, line 28:
Before "hearing"
Insert "public"
9:38:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
9:38:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO [moved to adopt] an amendment to Amendment
8, as follows:
On page 8, line 28:
After "hearing"
Insert ", if requested"
9:38:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the amendment to Amendment 8 was
adopted without objection.
9:40:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question from
Representative Gatto, said both the complainant and the board
have the ability to request a hearing.
9:40:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to Amendment 8 [as amended].
There being no further objection, Amendment 8 [as amended] was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that she had distributed an
amendment but was not prepared to moved it today.
9:40:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that SB 186 was heard and held.
HB 347-MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE & NOTICE
9:41:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 347, "An Act relating to mandatory motor vehicle
insurance, license suspensions, and notices relating to motor
vehicles and driver's licenses."
[Amendment 1, left pending from the 1/31/06 House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting, was renamed and offered as Amendment
7.]
9:42:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of
HB 347, explained that at the last hearing of the bill there
were some technical changes that both the committee and the
director of the Division of Motor Vehicles had recommended, and
he said those changes are stapled together in the committee
packet as possible amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in response to a question from Chair
Seaton, said she would be offering those amendments.
9:42:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to an e-mail in the committee
packet from Duane Bannock, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles.
9:43:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to adopt Amendment 1, as follows:
On page 2, line 2:
Following "department"
Insert "Notwithstanding AS 28.05.121"
9:44:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Amendment 1.
There being none, it was so ordered.
9:44:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled "24-
LS1372\G.6, Luckhaupt, 2/1/06"], which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 3 - 4:
Delete "most current"
Insert "most recently recorded"
9:45:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected. He said the most recently
recorded address may not necessarily be the most current;
therefore he questioned the advantage of Amendment 2.
9:46:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested using the phrase "most recently
provided" instead.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested the phrase "most recently
obtained".
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked why the committee doesn't leave the
language to read "most current".
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO explained that a person could say, "You
know, that's my most current address, but I'm leaving there in a
day. Why don't you just send it to my Mom ...."
9:47:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that "we're not dealing with
someone's private knowledge. He explained that the address in
question would be obtained from only three sources, [as shown on
page 2, lines 5-9, which read as follows:]
(1) the address the department has for the
person;
(2) the address shown on the citation or
police report of the accident; and
(3) the address provided to the Department
of Revenue in an application for a permanent fund
dividend.
CHAIR SEATON said he wants to know the reason for the request
for Amendment 2.
9:47:42 AM
J. KEVIN BURCHFIELD, Driver Services Supervisor, Division of
Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, testified that
"most recently recorded" is preferred so that the address
obtained from the accident report can be used. He added, "That
is the person that was in the most recent contact with the
individual."
9:48:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that from a law perspective,
the word "recorded" usually refers to a deed that is recorded by
the registrar of deeds.
9:48:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Chair Seaton, recalled that
the it was the committee who had a problem with the term "most
current". He said he thinks that term would work, or perhaps
"most recently provided" would work.
9:49:18 AM
MR. BURCHFIELD, in response to Representative Gara's suggestion,
said "most recently provided" is acceptable.
9:49:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated his preference for the phrase
"including but not limited to", which includes the three items
previously noted, but "gives the individual an ability to seek
out any other one."
9:49:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the issue is that currently the DMV
has to send that notice to the [address] that it has on file,
even if the police report or the Permanent Fund Division has a
more current address. He stated, "I mean, if we're wanting to
go out and say DMV is supposed to go out on an Internet search
for somebody's address, ... we're stepping far beyond where we
are in this bill currently.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in response to Representative Gatto's
recommendation, suggested that if the language said "most
current but not limited to", a person could say, "But you could
have sent it to all of them and you didn't, and therefore you
didn't make efforts to reach me." She warned that would open up
unnecessary problems. She stated her preference for the term
"most recently provided".
9:51:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO maintained his objection. He remarked that
the "most recently provided" [address] could be a couple years
old.
9:51:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON responded that someone who provide the police
officer with an address that is a couple of years old doesn't
want to get his/her notice from DMV.
9:51:55 AM
MR. BURCHFIELD, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, said the word "recorded" is a reference to the way
that [the address] is recorded on the accident report. He said
it is probably a poor choice of words.
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, explained again that the language in question refers
to the three addresses [on page 2, lines 5-9, text provided
previously].
9:52:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment
2, to change "recorded" to "provided". There being no
objection, Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:53:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2,
[as amended]. There being none, it was so ordered.
9:53:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to adopt Amendment 3, [labeled "24-
LS1372\G.5, Luckhaupt, 2/1/06"], which read as follows:
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "citation or"
9:54:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that Representative
Gruenberg stated an objection [for discussion purposes].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Burchfield, "If there happens
to be a citation, why couldn't they use that address?"
9:54:46 AM
MR. BURCHFIELD responded, "Because the Division of Motor
Vehicles does not receive the citations."
9:54:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection. There being no
further objection to Amendment 3, it was so ordered.
9:55:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to adopt Amendment 4, [labeled "24-
LS1372\G.4, Luckhaupt, 2/1/06], which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 7 - 9:
Delete all material.
Insert "accident."
9:56:49 AM
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration, [in response to some committee discussion],
clarified for the committee that Amendment 4 "is specific only
to the Department of Revenue as it pertains to [the] permanent
fund [dividend]." He said DMV asked that the language be
removed because [obtaining addresses from the Permanent Fund
Division] would be outside the field of DMV.
9:57:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
said he would leave the decision whether or not to adopt
Amendment 4 up to the committee. He proffered that the most
accurate address will be the one on the citation or accident
report.
9:58:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said the problem in including the
language [on page 2, lines 8-9, text provided previously] is
that it would require DMV to take the additional step of looking
up the permanent fund dividend application information, which is
really not the DMV's bailiwick.
9:58:35 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected to Amendment 4, in order to further
clarify the language. He then removed his objection.
9:59:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS objected. He explained as follows:
Years ago I used to buy dividends - permanent fund
dividends - and when they changed the law, I had a lot
of money out there that I couldn't get paid for. And
I had to take those addresses, and find those people,
and get them to show proof of birth, ... because the
Department of Revenue had determined that if they sold
their dividend they might not be a real person. And I
got to tell you - and it was quite a bit of money, ...
so obviously quite a few people - [for] every person
that I had to contact the address was true. And so,
... I have a little bit of problem taking that out,
because people don't fool around -- I mean, when they
put their permanent fund address down, it's usually
bedrock.
10:00:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON responded that he understands Representative
Elkins' point of view. However, he stated that he supports
Amendment 4 because he doesn't want to burden DMV with having to
seek out addresses of people who are not giving police their
most current address.
10:01:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Amendment 4.
[Representative Elkins' objection was considered withdrawn].
There being no further objections, Amendment 4 was adopted.
CHAIR SEATON referred to [page 2, lines 6-7], which [after being
previous amended by the adopted Amendments 3 and 4] read:
(2) the address shown on the police report
of the accident.
CHAIR SEATON asked if that language is acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he thinks that DMV's position is that
the report is called an accident report, not a police report.
10:01:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Bannock for his recommendation.
10:02:47 AM
MR. BANNOCK recommended that the word "police" on page 2, line
6, be deleted and replaced with the word "accident". In
response to a request for clarification from Chair Seaton, he
amended his recommendation to simply delete "police", thus
leaving:
(2) the address shown on the report of the
accident.
10:03:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to adopt Amendment 5, as follows:
On page 2, line 6:
Delete "police"
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Amendment 5.
There being none, Amendment 5 was adopted.
10:04:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to adopt Amendment 6, [labeled 24-
LS1372\G.7, Luckhaupt, 2/1/06], which read as follows:
Page 1, line 6, following "infraction":
Insert "punishable by a fine not to exceed $300"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes, then
removed his objection. He recalled that when this issue was
discussed in the past, there was talk that "infraction" is "not
defined in Title 28 anyway."
10:05:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA recollected that the discussion had taken
place to address Representative Gruenberg's concern about
whether or not "there was a catch-all fine amount for driving
license violations." He said, "There is, but it doesn't state
an amount." He said he wants "the $300 fine to apply to this
violation." He said he thinks Representative Gruenberg's
recommendation was to "come up with a number and apply ... it to
all violations at DMV." He said he does not feel comfortable
coming up with an amount for the other violations, because he
doesn't know what they are or what the fines should be. He
concluded that he thinks [Amendment 6] is the "cleanest way to
do it."
10:06:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that his objection was
withdrawn.
10:06:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any further objection to
Amendment 6. There being none, Amendment 6 was adopted.
10:06:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved Amendment 7, labeled 24-LS1372\G.2,
Luckhaupt, 1/27/06 [previously named Amendment 1], which read as
follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "suspensions,":
Insert "penalties for operating a motor vehicle
while license is canceled, suspended, revoked, or
limited, mandatory impoundments of vehicles used in
certain offenses,"
Page 1, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 28.15.291(b) is amended to read:
(b) Upon conviction under (a) of this section,
the court
(1) shall impose a minimum sentence of
imprisonment
(A) if the person has not been previously
convicted, of not less than 10 days with 10 days
suspended, including a mandatory condition of
probation that the defendant complete not less than 80
hours of community work service;
(B) if the person has been previously
convicted, of not less than 10 days;
(C) if the person's driver's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license
was revoked under circumstances described in
AS 28.15.181(c)(1), or if the person was driving in
violation of a limited license issued under
AS 28.15.201(d) following that revocation, of not less
than 20 days with 10 days suspended, and a fine of not
less than $500, including a mandatory condition of
probation that the defendant complete not less than 80
hours of community work service;
(D) if the person's driver's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license
was revoked under circumstances described in
AS 28.15.181(c)(2), (3), or (4) or if the person was
driving in violation of a limited license issued under
AS 28.15.201(d) following that revocation, of not less
than 30 days and a fine of not less than $1,000;
(2) may impose additional conditions of
probation;
(3) may not
(A) suspend execution of sentence or grant
probation except on condition that the person serve a
minimum term of imprisonment and perform required
community work service as provided in (1) of this
subsection;
(B) suspend imposition of sentence;
(4) shall revoke the person's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license,
and the person may not be issued a new license or a
limited license nor may the privilege to drive or
obtain a license be restored for an additional period
of not less than 90 days after the date that the
person would have been entitled to restoration of
driving privileges; and
(5) may order that the motor vehicle that
was used in commission of the offense be forfeited
under AS 28.35.036 and shall order that the motor
vehicle used in the commission of the offense be
forfeited under AS 28.35.036 if the person has been
previously convicted under this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, following line 9:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 28.35.036(b) is amended to read:
(b) Before forfeiture of a motor vehicle,
aircraft, or watercraft, the court shall schedule a
hearing on the matter and shall notify the state and
the convicted person of the time and place set for the
hearing. Except for a motor vehicle, aircraft, or
watercraft that is required to be forfeited under
AS 28.15.291, AS 28.35.030, or 28.35.032, the court
may order the forfeiture of the motor vehicle if the
court, sitting without a jury, determines, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the forfeiture of
the motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft will serve
one or more of the following purposes:
(1) deterrence of the convicted person from
the commission of future offenses under
[AS 28.15.291(b),] AS 28.35.030 [,] or 28.35.032;
(2) protection of the safety and welfare of
the public;
(3) deterrence of other persons who are
potential offenders under [AS 28.15.291(b),]
AS 28.35.030 [,] or 28.35.032; or
(4) expression of public condemnation of
the serious or aggravated nature of the convicted
person's conduct.
* Sec. 6. AS 28.40 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 28.40.080. Impoundment of motor vehicle when
arrested for certain offenses. On the arrest of a
person for a violation of AS 28.15.291, AS 28.33.030,
28.33.031, AS 28.35.030, or 28.35.032, the motor
vehicle used in the commission of the offense shall be
impounded. If the motor vehicle is not forfeited, the
motor vehicle shall be held for six months, unless the
person is acquitted of the offense. The cost of towing
and storage of the vehicle is a lien on the vehicle.
If another person claims an ownership or security
interest in the motor vehicle and establishes that the
interest predated the offense and was acquired by the
other person in good faith, the vehicle may be
released to that other person if the person pays the
accrued cost of towing and storage of the vehicle."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected to Amendment 7.
10:09:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON said, "This is a question of whether we should have
drivers licenses at all." He stated, "It seems to me if we're
not going to say there is something more than just saying you're
not supposed to drive without your license upon second
conviction, we're really saying we shouldn't be issuing a
driver's license and we should just let anybody drive."
10:10:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said adding Amendment 7 is up to the
committee. Notwithstanding that, he added:
If the person driving the car without a license is the
owner, that seems to be the penalty you're getting at.
But what if the car is ... owned by somebody who
didn't know that the person who was driving it had no
license.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered an example. He said he thinks there
ought to be a defense for the owner of the car who doesn't
knowingly provide the car to someone without a license.
10:11:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opposed Amendment 7. He said he is
definitely not in favor of people driving without insurance,
without a license, or with a suspended license; however, he
indicated that a forfeiture "can be way out of proportion to the
seriousness of the offense."
10:12:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON said, "The forfeiture from someone who is not
knowingly involved is not really the case." He said [Amendment
7] covers two issues: the first part deals with the forfeiture
issue, and the part of the amendment addressing Section 6 deals
with the impoundment of the vehicle. He reminded the committee
of several recent driving incidents. One was a couple from
Anchor Point killed by a person driving without a license. Even
after that accident, a relative loaned the person without the
license a car. There was no penalty at all for the person who
loaned the vehicle, he said. He stated, "At some point in time,
if you're loaning what is basically a deadly weapon on our
streets to somebody, you ought to be responsible enough to find
out whether that person's entitled to drive."
10:15:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that the two issues in Amendment
7 be considered separately. He asked that "part a" include page
1, line 6, through page 3, line 10, [as numbered on Amendment
7], and that page 3, lines 11-21 [as numbered on Amendment 7] be
called "part b."
CHAIR SEATON said, "I will accept that as a division of the
question."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated, "Then I will move the question
on part a ... as [an] amendment to delete part a."
[Representative Gruenberg moved to adopt Amendment 7a.
Representative Gruenberg moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment
7a.]
10:16:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON said objected to Amendment 1 to Amendment 7a.
10:16:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER directed attention to page 2, lines 17-20
[as numbered on Amendment 7a]. She said she thinks there needs
to be a provision addressing when a defendant is driving a
vehicle that is not his own.
10:17:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said [Amendment 1 to Amendment 7a]
would remove the language that Representative Gardner had just
highlighted [because it would remove Amendment 7a entirely].
CHAIR SEATON added, "And your issue, like I said, we could
clarify, but it's already covered in law."
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a request for clarification from
Representative Gatto, said the motion is to delete "everything
before Section 6 [as shown in Amendments 7a and 7b]."
10:17:37 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gruenberg voted in
favor of [Amendment 1 to Amendment 7a]. Representatives Gatto,
Gardner, and Seaton voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 to
Amendment 7a failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-3. [The result
of this vote is that the motion to adopt Amendment 7a remains
before the committee.]
10:18:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she would like some public testimony
on "this provision." She stated, "As a general principle ... I
support taking a vehicle away from somebody who persists in
using it without a license."
10:19:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to page 2, lines 17-19,
[as numbered on Amendment 7a], and said it seems the court
currently has the discretion to order a forfeiture for driving
without a license, so "maybe that's the way it should be." He
recommended having the mandatory impoundment provision that is
in [Amendment 7b], but not to have mandatory forfeiture in all
cases. He offered further details.
10:20:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON responded, "I think that that would have been the
effect of Representative Gruenberg's motion."
10:21:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked for unanimous consent to rescind the
committee's action in failing to adopt [Amendment 1 to Amendment
7a, which would have deleted the entire language of Amendment
7a]. There being on objection, it was so ordered [and Amendment
1 to Amendment 7 was before the committee.]
10:22:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he would like the bill held over in
order to leave time for the public to testify.
10:22:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 347 was heard and held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:22:46 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|