02/01/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB21 | |
| HB19 | |
| HB38 | |
| HB58 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 1, 2007
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 21
"An Act relating to the proper disposal of the state flag."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to ignition interlock limited driver's license
privileges."
- MOVED CSHB 19(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 38
"An Act relating to legislators and candidates for the
legislature and to certain campaign contributions made in
exchange for certain agreements."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 58
"An Act relating to a public officer's taking official action
regarding a matter in which the public officer has a financial
interest; and defining 'official action' under the Alaska
Executive Branch Ethics Act and related law."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 21
SHORT TITLE: DISPOSAL OF STATE FLAG
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HARRIS, HAWKER, DAHLSTROM, WILSON
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA
02/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 19
SHORT TITLE: LIMITED DRIVER'S LICENSES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MEYER
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 38
SHORT TITLE: IMPROPER CONTRIBUTIONS TO LEGISLATORS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARA, CRAWFORD, GARDNER, DOLL,
KAWASAKI, BUCH, DOOGAN, GRUENBERG
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 58
SHORT TITLE: EXEC. BRANCH ETHICS:INTERESTS & ACTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARA, GARDNER, KAWASAKI, DOOGAN,
GRUENBERG
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD
02/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
PETER FELLMAN, Staff
to Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 21 on behalf of Representative
Harris, sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 19 as sponsor.
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff
to Representative Kevin Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed committee questions on behalf of
Representative Meyer, sponsor of HB 19.
WALT MONEGAN, Acting Commissioner
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 19.
JEFF OTTESEN, Director
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 19.
BABETTE A. MILLER
Smart Start of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 19.
NARDA BUTLER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself as the
person responsible for requesting HB 19.
RODNEY HAYBERT
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support
of HB 19.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 19.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Alaska Court System
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered feedback regarding Amendment 3 to
HB 19.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the hearing on
HB 19; introduced HB 38 as co-sponsor; presented HB 58 as co-
sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:02:18 AM. Representatives Roses,
Johansen, Johnson, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Coghill, Gruenberg, and Doll arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 21-DISPOSAL OF STATE FLAG
8:03:17 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 21, "An Act relating to the proper disposal of the
state flag."
8:03:26 AM
PETER FELLMAN, Staff to Representative John Harris, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 21 on behalf of Representative Harris,
joint prime sponsor. He revealed that Representative Harris'
office was approached by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in
North Pole, Alaska, with a concern that there is no provision in
state law for the proper and legal disposal of tattered and worn
Alaska State Flags. The proposed legislation would address that
concern by providing language regarding the respectful disposal
of the state flag.
8:04:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked if the definition of flag refers to a
flag of certain dimensions. She noted that she has very small
flags that she has distributed during parades, for example.
8:05:24 AM
MR. FELLMAN said he thinks the bill is directed towards flags
that fly over state buildings; however, he said he will get back
to Representative Doll with an answer.
8:05:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that there has been an e-mail
circulating throughout the capitol for the last couple days,
regarding the desecration of the Alaska State Flag, witnessed by
some of the military troops serving in Iraq. He explained that
the names of soldiers who had been injured or killed on duty
were embroidered on the flag. He reported that through the
House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs, which
he chairs, a general in Iraq was contacted, all of the names
were removed, and the practice will no longer occur.
8:07:02 AM
CHAIR LYNN noted that there is a committee substitute (CS)
[Version 25-LS0137\C, Bullock, 1/30/07] in the committee packet,
and he asked if anyone would move to bring that CS before the
committee. In response to a question from Representative
Coghill, he confirmed that the House State Affairs Standing
Committee is the only committee of referral for the bill.
8:07:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that AS
44.09.020 includes language designating the spacing of the stars
on the flag, but not the measurements of the flag itself. He
said he thinks the committee needs a better definition of
"official" as it pertains to the flag.
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 21 was heard and held.
HB 19-LIMITED DRIVER'S LICENSES
[Contains discussion of HB 85.]
8:08:54 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 19, "An Act relating to ignition interlock limited
driver's license privileges."
8:09:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 19 as prime sponsor. He said the creation of the bill is
credited to the efforts of a constituent. Representative Meyer
said he doesn't take the issue of drinking and driving lightly;
it is a serious public threat to society. He reported that last
year, 5-6,000 Alaskans received a driving under the influence
(DUI) citation, and approximately 800 of those Alaskans had a
revoked or suspended license. He said he shares the view of his
constituent that there must be a better way to deal with those
who have multiple DUIs. Representative Meyer said the bill will
not change the fact that when people get caught drinking and
driving, they will be fined and lose their license. The bill
will change how the state deals with the "limited license"
portion of the DUI laws.
8:11:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER explained that currently there are two
parts to the limited license section of the DUI statute. For
the first 30 days, a person convicted of driving while
intoxicated is not allowed to drive anywhere and must take
public transportation or carpool to get to work, for example.
Then, for the next 60 days the person is given a limited
license, which allows driving to and from work only.
Representative Meyer stated, "We're not so concerned where you
drive, but how you get there." The proposed legislation,
through the use of a devise called an "ignition interlock,"
would enable the person with the DUI to drive anywhere, because
the device will not allow them to start the car [if his/her
blood alcohol level is too high]. Other states have used the
system, and it has been used in Alaska with success.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER admitted that using the device will not
stop people "from still wanting to drive while intoxicated";
however, he argued that currently, people with limited licenses
are still driving while intoxicated. At least the ignition
interlock system will ensure that the person driving is not
intoxicated.
8:14:45 AM
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska
State Legislature, addressed committee questions on behalf of
Representative Meyer, prime sponsor of HB 19. In response to a
question from Chair Lynn, he offered his understanding that the
ignition interlock device costs approximately $125 to install
and $100 a month in recurring monitoring fees.
8:15:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he wants to talk to the vendor
regarding the ability to scam the system and the cost and life
span of the device.
8:16:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, at the behest of the chair, introduced a
group of students from North Pole Alaska, accompanied by their
teacher, Barbara Nore.
[A woman named Julie Robinson announced from the back of the
room that she was accompanying seven students with the Close Up
Program.]
CHAIR LYNN returned to discussion of HB 19.
8:17:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER concluded that he hopes HB 19 will offer a
better system for dealing with a public safety problem.
8:18:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER, in response to a question from
Representative Doll, reiterated that last year alone, there were
5,000 Alaskans arrested for driving under the influence, thus,
that could well be the number of devices installed in the first
year.
8:19:43 AM
MR. PAWLOWSKI, in response to a question from Representative
Coghill regarding insurance coverage, said at this point
insurance companies are not willing to state whether passage of
the bill would have an effect on insurance rates.
8:20:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER, in response to a question from
Representative Johansen, confirmed that it is the intent of the
bill that the cost of the devices be borne by the offenders.
8:20:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to AS 11.76.140,
which states that it is a misdemeanor, punishable by 30 days in
jail and a fine. If the offender cannot pay both the fine and
device, the court has the discretion to allow the offender to
only pay for the device. He stated, "What we're interested in
is making sure that the offender drives safely."
8:21:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his understanding that there is a
system for tracking the ignition interlock devices.
[MR. PAWLOWSKI nodded yes.]
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated his assumption that most of the
people using the device are on probation, and he asked if
failing the device and trying to use the vehicles anyway would
be admissible as evidence in court as grounds for revoking
probation.
MR. PAWLOWSKI responded that he believes it would be
[admissible]. He said the Division of Motor Vehicles has a
regulation wherein it may revoke a person's ignition interlock
license if that person "blows over a certain level." He
explained, "If I blow into the device and can't start my car,
have I committed a crime or haven't I committed a crime?" He
said the sponsor is not sure he wants to see the license taken
away in that scenario.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would like to know if failing the
blow test would be sufficient evidence to revoke [probation].
8:23:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he introduced the original
interlock device bill, which passed in 1989, and the answer to
Representative Johnson's question is yes, the judge could revoke
the person's probation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that in itself might be a
deterrent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that he and Representative
Les Gara are going to introduce HB 85, which would extend the
period during which the ignition interlock device could be used
in a vehicle.
8:25:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL expressed concern that the individual may
not even own a car and would use other people's cars. She said
she is also concerned about the [work] load of probation
officers. She referred to [page 2, lines 16-19], which read as
follows:
(B) the person is required to maintain
the ignition interlock device throughout the period of
the limited license, to keep up-to-date records in
each vehicle showing that any required service and
calibration is current, and to produce these records
immediately on request;
8:26:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER suggested that a representative from the
Department of Public Safety would be available to address those
concerns.
8:27:15 AM
MR. PAWLOWSKI, in response to questions from Representative
Roses, confirmed that the Department of Corrections certifies
[those who install the devices] and the vendor of the devices
bears the cost of that certification. Furthermore, he said, the
State of Alaska is not subject by civil suit "over a decision by
the commissioner." He said the function of the devices was
"fleshed out" under state law years ago.
8:27:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG confirmed that the aforementioned bill,
passed back in 1989, stipulated a department would oversee the
certifications; however, because of contention between the
Department of Public Safety and the Department of Corrections,
over which department was responsible, the bill was not
implemented for "a year or two."
MR. PAWLOWSKI said, "... The citation on that statute is [AS]
33.05.020."
8:28:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he has read about new tests whereby
the alcohol content is "read" through a skin test. He asked if
the language of the bill will allow for better technology down
the road.
MR. PAWLOWSKI answered no. He explained that in order to avoid
"false positives," the sponsor wants any new technology brought
before the legislature for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER confirmed that future technology, once it
has proven itself, can be proposed through a future bill.
8:30:23 AM
WALT MONEGAN, Acting Commissioner, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), stated that is takes a collective effort to get the drunk
driving situation under control. He reported that Alaska's
fatality rates [due to drunk driving accidents] have been
reduced significantly. He said HB 19 is another piece to that
puzzle. He said [the ignition interlock device could possibly
be circumvented; however, he point out that those who would do
so would also do the same with any other device installed.
Regarding Representative Johnson's mention of a skin test on the
steering wheel, Acting Commissioner Monegan suggested it may be
possible that a false reading could result from someone who had
just put aftershave on [an alcohol-based product]. He stated
support for the proposed legislation.
8:32:13 AM
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN, in response to a question from
Representative Coghill, confirmed that the license carried by an
individual who uses the device would alert a police officer to
that fact. In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Coghill, he said other members of the
individual's family could use the vehicle, and he offered his
understanding that an individual with several cars would have to
have a device installed in each of the cars.
8:33:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding Representative Johnson's
previous question about future advanced technology, noted that
the definition of ignition interlock device is found in [AS
12.55.102(e)(1)], which read as follows:
(1) "ignition interlock device" means equipment
designed to prevent a motor vehicle from being
operated by a person who has consumed an alcoholic
beverage, and that has been certified by the
commissioner of corrections under AS 33.05.020(c);
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concluded, "So, the commissioner of
[the Department of] Corrections could, by regulation, ... use
advance technology, as you're discussing; we wouldn't have to
deal with it in the legislature."
8:34:49 AM
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), told
the committee that he oversees the Alaska Highway Safety Office.
He apologized for the necessity of making a correction, and
explained as follows:
We issued a fiscal note to you on Monday that said
that this ... law, if passed, would cause one of our
highway safety sanctions to be relaxed, that is, the
federal government would no longer sanction us on this
issue. I received the e-mail this morning as I was
driving here, indirectly from the Office of Chief
Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration that rebuts that. It's their review
that this law would not meet the federal requirements
of what is known as Section 154, thus, the sanction
would still apply. That doesn't mean that it isn't a
good step forward in advancing highway safety; but
there would be no relaxation of that safety issue.
CHAIR LYNN asked, "What would be required to have these
sanctions lifted?"
MR. OTTESEN responded:
This is per the Office of Chief Counsel of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and
the three points they point out [are] that: it would
permit a repeat offender to drive before the mandatory
one-year minimum suspension period expected in the
federal law; it would not mandate that the ignition
air lock apply to all repeat offenders across the
state; and it would not require that the ignition
interlock apply to all vehicles owned by the repeat
offender.
MR. OTTESEN said he just checked the law, which addresses
vehicles operated by the repeat offender, rather than those
owned.
8:36:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for copy of that e-mail.
Regarding owner versus operator, he said he could foresee a
parent owning a vehicle driven only by a son or daughter. He
said, "It should be the ones that the offender operates,
regardless of who owns them."
8:38:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked, "Is it your understanding that we
have to satisfy all three of those requirements, or is it a best
two of three, to receive this?"
8:38:33 AM
MR. OTTESEN stated his understanding that all three requirements
must be met. He said there may be "a perverse benefit to all
this." He continued:
Right now, because we're sanctioned, the dollars in
question - a little more than $4 million - are taken
away from us for highway purposes and given back to us
for highway safety purposes. Those dollars are now
being spread across the state, [from] the police
departments, to the Department of Public Safety, to
the DUI teams that are out there. We're achieving
tremendous benefits from those dollars. What we're
not able to do with them is rebuild highways. So, ...
if we lift the sanction, the dollars will stay in the
state, the dollars flowing to safety programs will
cease, [and] the dollars flowing to highway
construction will increase. It's like, "Which of your
children do you like the most?" They're both
important programs.
8:39:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the state would have more
flexibility in spending the money if the sanctions were to be
lifted.
8:39:48 AM
MR. OTTESEN answered no. He explained:
The dollars - if they stay in the highway side - are
strictly available to highway construction,
reconstruction, and highway safety improvements -
things like intersection improvements [and]
guardrail[s] .... If they get sanctioned, the dollars
actually flow to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and then they give them to us. And
they require that we ... then identify what is known
as a split. We can split those dollars between the
Alaska Highway Safety Office, which is strictly
programs that address behavior - things like
enforcement patrols, educational efforts, those kinds
of activities - or we can split some of the dollars
back to highway safety. And when I say safety, I mean
projects targeted specifically to documented safety
problems, where we have a trail of evidence through
crash reports that tells us there's a safety program.
So, these dollars can come back to the highway
program, but in a very narrow sense. They can't be
used for repaving a road or widening a road or
something like that.
8:41:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES, referring to a scenario wherein the
sanctions are not met and the $4 million dollars go toward
highway safety, asked, "Are those $4 million counted in part of
the highway matching funds that you have, or would it now not
be?"
8:41:23 AM
MR. OTTESEN responded as follows:
The dollars that go to highway safety do require a
match, as well. But at that point the dollars are
being administered by a different federal agency than
the Federal Highway Administration; they're being
administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. And ... all this then actually
becomes targeted to DUIs - it's largely where it has
to be spent. So, we spend a great deal of these
dollars on DUI patrols.
Commissioner Monegan was just here. We have DUI
patrols in his department that are producing fantastic
results. In the past two years, Alaska's fatal
accident rate has dropped from about 95 ... fatalities
per year to about 75 or 72. That was a one-year drop
a year ago; it was the largest percentage drop in the
nation. And we think the DUI patrols was a big part
of that. In '06 we sustained that rate. We didn't
better it, but we at least sustained it, so it wasn't
just an aberration. Being a small state with a
relatively small number of fatalities, you can get
aberrations; you can have a single accident with five
or six people in it and really kind of skew your
numbers. We've now held that number for two years.
And we see the result also -- I believe Representative
Meyer has talked about the increase in the number of
DUI arrests. Well, that's in part the result of the
DUI patrols. We've got more eyes on the road,
specifically looking for drivers who drink. So,
tremendous safety benefit, just a phenomenal safety
benefit. Like I said, don't ask me to choose between
my children; they're both very important.
8:43:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, regarding the issue of a one-year
suspension, asked if there is something beyond a one-year
suspension mandate.
8:43:18 AM
MR. OTTESEN stated his belief that there is a mandatory one-year
suspension [of the person's driver's license] before driving
with the ignition interlock device. He said, "They want a
harsher penalty at the start."
8:43:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "It was brought to my attention
that not only is it a change in the suspension ... [to allow]
early driving; there might be some issue on what to do during
the probationary time."
8:44:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated that he finds the related
issues of money and "smoking mirrors" to be perplexing.
8:44:50 AM
MR. OTTESEN, in response to a question from Representative
Johnson, stated:
The lack of having a primary seatbelt law did not
result in a sanction; there [were] no dollars being
sanctioned for that omission in the eyes of the
federal government. There was a ... one-time carrot
[dangled] for passing the primary seatbelt law of ...
a little over $3 million, and we received those
dollars at the end of federal year 2006, just in
September of last year.
8:45:34 AM
BABETTE A. MILLER, Smart Start of Alaska, said Smart Start is a
vendor certified through the Department of Corrections to
install, monitor, and service ignition interlock devices. The
device keeps track of any individual assigned to it and allows
any authority to log in and check on the status of that
individual to determine when and where the vehicle is being
driven. Probation officers have access to the individual's
driving history prior to the probation appointment.
MS. MILLER, in response to a previous question regarding how
many vehicles must have the device installed, stated that
currently, Smart Start is installing the devices in the vehicle
that the individual operates. If Smart Start notices that the
vehicle is not used frequently, that may be an alert that the
individual may be driving one of his/her other vehicles.
Regarding the concern that aftershave may trigger the device to
register as though the person failed a sobriety test, she
assured the committee that the Smart Start ignition interlock
device is "alcohol specific," and the wearing of copious amounts
of aftershave will not affect breath samples taken.
MS. MILLER noted that currently there are quite a few clients
assigned to ignition interlock devices who have been issued
limited licenses. She explained that those individuals are only
allowed to drive to and from work and cannot drive to treatment
centers or the grocery store, for example. She remarked, "It
almost seems to me that it defeats the purpose." She pointed
out that treatment is usually court ordered or required by DMV
in order for the individual to keep his/her license.
8:50:32 AM
MS. MILLER, in response to a concern that the individual
assigned to a device might try to cheat the system by having
someone else blow into it, explained that the device asks for
"rolling retests." If the person fails the test while driving,
he/she must repeat the test until passing it, or pull over and
turn of the ignition. Ms. Miller said the first [rolling
retest] occurs between 1 to 15 minutes after the vehicle has
been started, and from thereafter it occurs every 1 to 45
minutes for the duration of the operation of the vehicle. She
said this feature usually prevents the individual from having
someone else start the car.
MS. MILLER said the device uses a "voice-tone anti-
circumvention" feature; therefore, the individual cannot fill
air into a balloon from an oxygen tank and try to use that to
pass the test. There must be a voice tone, and it must be at a
certain level, she related. She mentioned a new unit that has
recently been released in Texas, which takes a photo of the
individual who is blowing into the unit.
8:51:48 AM
MS. MILLER said there are six clients using the device who have
voluntarily chosen to do so after being eligible to have it
removed. She told of one person who could not drive for the
first four months with the device until he/she figured out how
far in advance to stop drinking in order to pass the breath test
and be able to drive to work. Other people, she said can't wait
to get the device off of their vehicle.
8:53:38 AM
MS. MILLER, in response to a question from Chair Lynn, said the
device is manufactured in Texas. In response to follow-up
questions, she said there are other vendors of similar devices;
however, only two vendors have units certified to operate to [a
temperature of] "45 below." Monitoring, she said is done by
downloading the data from the device to be interpreted.
8:55:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what the technology is that allows
someone not under court order to use the device to drive a car
with the device installed.
8:55:40 AM
MS. MILLER said the individual who is assigned the device is
responsible for every breath sample given to the device. She
reiterated that the device uses voice tone recognition and the
testing while the vehicle is in operation occurs randomly.
8:56:59 AM
MS. MILLER, in response to a request for clarification from
Representative Doll, said in the beginning, the Smart Start
people ask that anyone who is going to use the vehicle come in
to the office, watch a video, and be trained in the operation of
the unit. She stated, "Because there is no camera in the car
that can positively identify the individual that is using the
unit, that if they get into the car and blow alcohol, the
individual that is required to have the ignition interlock is
responsible for that breath sample." In response to a follow-up
question, she said Smart Start charges $100 for installation and
$125 a month for operation.
8:58:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG drew attention to AS 33.05.020(d),
which read:
(d) The regulations in (c) of this section must
require that the ignition interlock device operate
reliably over the range of automobile environments,
otherwise known as automobile manufacturing standards,
for the geographic area for which the device is
certified.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that it gets colder in some parts
of the state than in others.
9:00:51 AM
MS. MILLER offered her understanding that statute provides a
blanket statement regarding the temperature.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that is too restrictive. He said
other companies should be allowed to sell their product in
Southeast Alaska.
CHAIR LYNN pointed out that an individual with the device needs
to be able to drive anywhere in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to explore that
issue.
9:02:34 AM
MS. MILLER, in response to questions from Representative
Johnson, listed the areas that Smart Start operates in Alaska.
She said there are a lot of areas in which only one individual
needs the interlock device and Smart Start's competitor
sometimes covers those areas. She talked about the cost of
flying to locations where there are only one or two clients.
9:04:20 AM
MS. MILLER, in response to Representative Roses, clarified that
in Alaska, the device must work in temperatures ranging from
negative 40 Celsius to positive 85 Celsius. She said the units
have never malfunctioned due to cold in Fort Yukon, where it is
very cold.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that negative
40 Celsius and Fahrenheit are the same temperature.
9:05:47 AM
NARDA BUTLER, testifying on behalf of herself, revealed that she
is the citizen advocate who presented Representative Meyer with
the idea for the bill after meeting [Rodney Haybert - testimony
following] who is a recovering alcoholic who had his license
taken away some years ago. Ms. Butler shared a brief personal
history, including the fact that she is a stay-at-home mom who
teaches science to home schooled children. She explained that
she met Mr. Haybert when he was hired to remodel her family's
home and learned that although Mr. Haybert has been sober for
five years, unless the law is changed, he will not be able to
drive for the rest of his life. She emphasized that her intent
in asking for a change in the current law was not to lessen the
consequences of poor decision, but was a result of research that
led her to the discovery of the ignition interlock technology.
She referred to a handout in the committee packet, entitled,
"The Top The Reasons Why Now is the Right Time for an Ignition
Interlock Limited License Program in Alaska."
9:11:31 AM
MS. BUTLER reviewed the handout, which shows that 50-75 percent
of drivers whose driver's licenses have been revoked drive
anyway, and that over the past five years, 14 percent of all the
individuals with DUI arrests have also been charged with driving
with a revoked/suspended license. She said those numbers -
supplied by the Alaska State Troopers - are not decreasing. She
noted that a Maryland study shows a 60 percent reduction in risk
of committing an alcohol-related offense with the use of an
interlock device, while another study in Ohio demonstrates a 65
percent decrease in the probability of a subsequent DUI for
offenders who have the interlock installed in their car. Ms.
Butler opined that since interlock devices do not change
behavior, they should be installed "as soon as possible for as
long as possible." She noted that New Mexico has some of the
most comprehensive ignition interlock laws, and that the state
has done away with mandatory periods of revocation.
Furthermore, New Mexico decided to forego the funds for safety,
transferring that money instead to highway construction. Ms.
Butler said the most current technology is "alcohol-specific,
tamper-resistant, ... and increasingly person-specific."
9:14:01 AM
MS. BUTLER emphasized that an ignition interlock program that
"captures the most number of people" would provide the greatest
safety measure possible. The cost of the program would be borne
by the offenders, she remarked. The administrative program
would allow the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to collect data
to "document performance and make data-driven decisions
regarding reinstatement." She noted that the second page of the
aforementioned handout provides a list of resources for those
interested in researching the issue. Ms. Butler concluded that
she does not want her children driving on the roads with any
more people "driving in a compromised manner," which is why she
supports HB 19.
9:15:32 AM
RODNEY HAYBERT, testifying on behalf of himself, told the
committee that he is the aforementioned person who can never
drive again [without the adoption of the bill and access to the
ignition interlock system]. He said he depends on co-workers or
public transportation to get to and from work, and he is not
able to drive himself to Alcoholics Anonymous. He said the
ability to drive helps people get off of Welfare and back into
society.
9:17:34 AM
CHAIR LYNN expressed his appreciation of Mr. Haybert's candid
testimony. He said it puts a human face on the issue.
9:17:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG thanked Ms. Miller for her efforts
toward this bill.
9:18:38 AM
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration, testified in support of HB 19. He
said DMV believes that HB 19 can make Alaska a safer place to
drive. He noted that currently there is a limited driver's
license law in Alaska, which limits [an individual who has been
convicted with a DUI] to driving to and from work during
predetermined hours. A first time offender has his/her license
revoked for 90 days and, after 30 days of riding public
transportation, that person may apply for a limited license. A
multiple offender has his/her license revoked for a minimum of
one year, must be on the public transportation program for a
minimum of 90 days, and then is eligible to apply for a limited
license to be able to drive to and from work. He noted that the
court has the ability to give greater limited licenses, for
example, to allow the individual to drive to church or to attend
to an ailing loved one. The Division of Motor Vehicles does not
have that authority under the current law.
MR. BANNOCK said the proposed legislation would change the
connotation of the word "limited," because the individual would
be limited to driving a vehicle equipped with an ignition
interlock device. He echoed previous testimony that people
today with limited licenses are probably going outside of the
lines of where and when they can drive. The proposed
legislation will allow the individual willing to have the
ignition interlock device installed on his/her vehicle to drive
where and whenever.
9:22:23 AM
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question from Chair Lynn, offered
his understanding that the device is leased by the company,
thus, it would be returned to that company once the period of
leasing ended.
9:23:11 AM
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question from Representative
Coghill, explained that under current rules, law enforcement can
see "internally" that a license is restricted, and there is a
national standard regarding that "restriction code." If HB 19
passes, he said, the division will be creating a special
driver's license that will be identified as an "ignition
interlock device limited license."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL recommended there be a connection in
identifying both the driver's license and the vehicle license
plate.
MR. BANNOCK said that is a good idea; however, he cautioned that
the division soon will be forwarding a bill asking the
legislature for a lot of money in order to make that connection
electronically, because the division's current technology does
not allow for that.
9:24:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he had suggested to Mr.
Bannock on a previous day that those hearing the driver's
license cases ultimately should be administrative law judges.
He said he thinks that change could be made in phases.
9:25:37 AM
MR. BANNOCK said he has not had the opportunity to carry that
conversation forward, but will do so.
9:26:42 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
9:27:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read as
follows:
Page 2, lines 2 - 3:
Delete all material and insert:
"(f) A court revoking a driver's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license
under AS 28.15.181(c), or the department when revoking
a driver's license, privilege to drive, or privilege
to obtain a license under AS 28.15.165(c), may grant
ignition"
Page 2, line 6, following "by the":
Insert "court or"
Page 2, line 7, following "The":
Insert "court or"
9:27:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to Amendment 1 for discussion
purposes.
9:27:49 AM
MR. PAWLOWSKI explained that Amendment 1 corrects an oversight
in the bill; it would give the court the authority they maintain
under current law.
9:28:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to Amendment 1.
9:28:48 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that there being no objection, Amendment 1
was adopted.
9:29:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read
as follows:
Page 2, Line 8
Delete "or" and add ","
Page 2, Line 9
After "28.35.032;" and "or similar municipal
ordinance;"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 2 would
provide the courts and the Division of Motor Vehicles to grant
ignition interlock limited licenses in cases that are violations
of municipal ordinances in addition to state statute.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he approves of Amendment 2.
9:31:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to Amendment 2.
There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:31:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt] Amendment 3, which
would add the following text from HB 85 into HB 19:
* Sec. 6. AS 28.35.030 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(u) In addition to penalties provided in (a) or
(n) of this section, the court may place a person
convicted under those subsections on probation for a
period of not more than five years following a term of
imprisonment, including any suspended term of
imprisonment. The court may place a limitation on the
person's driver's license during the term of the
probation as provided in AS 28.15.201(d) or (f).
* Sec. 7. AS 28.35.032 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(u) In addition to penalties provided in (a) or
(p) of this section, the court may place a person
convicted under those subsections on probation for a
period of not more than five years following a term of
imprisonment, including any suspended term of
imprisonment. The court may place a limitation on the
person's driver's license during the term of the
probation as provided in AS 28.15.201(f).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that [AS 28.35.030] relates
to driving while intoxicated (DWI) and DUI, while [AS 28.35.032]
addresses refusal to take a breathalyzer test. The amendment,
he said, would extend the court's jurisdiction to ensure that
people don't drive while intoxicated again. In response to
questions from Representative Coghill, he confirmed that the
language is from a bill he and Representative Les Gara are co-
sponsoring and does not extend beyond probation issues.
9:33:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said his gut feeling is that he does not
object to Amendment 3; however, he noted that someone was
available to testify from the court system.
9:33:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL [objected to Amendment 3].
9:33:49 AM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System,
reminded the committee members that the court does not take
positions on a bill. He said, at first glance, he does not see
any problem with Amendment 3 from the court's perspective.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated for the record that he is
offering Amendment 3 with the understanding that if there is a
problem brought to light in the next committee of referral to
the House Judiciary Standing Committee - a committee on which he
sits - he will not hesitate to remove Amendment 3.
9:34:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the court can currently offer
probation of more than five years, and Amendment 3 would limit
that to the five years.
MR. WOOLIVER said he doesn't know, but that would be part of
what he considers if Amendment 3 is adopted.
MR. JOHNSON said he hopes the reverse would also be true - that
if the House State Affairs Standing Committee does not adopt
Amendment 3, Representative Gruenberg would introduce it in the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
9:35:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that it is not his intention
to limit the court's jurisdiction, but to expand it.
9:35:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the language seems like an
expansion, but "not to exceed five years" would seem to put a
limitation on the court. He said, "What I'll be studying is:
If ... you had a lifetime revocation, what would a probationary
period look like once we've changed that law?"
9:36:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended that his co-sponsor in HB
85 be allowed to respond.
9:36:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, said he has
not seen the amendment. Notwithstanding that, he stated that
the current bill would only impose the interlock requirement
during the DMV administrative period of the license suspension.
He explained that there are people who have received DWIs two or
three times for being habitual drinkers who drive under the
influence. He said it would be wise to have the interlock
device requirement during the short period of license
revocation, but also to cover other lengths of sentencing. He
said the court should have the discretion to consider the facts
and decide whether or not to extend the term of interlock use
through the probation period and perhaps for another five years
after that. He reiterated that he had not seen Amendment 3, but
that is how the language was written in HB 85.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG confirmed that he had just taken the
language directly from HB 85.
9:38:37 AM
MR. BANNOCK, in response to Chair Lynn, said he was reviewing
the language from Sections 6 and 7 as Representative Gara was
speaking, and it does not appear that the division would be
affected by using that language in the bill.
9:39:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to Amendment 3.
There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
9:40:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report HB 19, as amended, out of
committee [with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes]. [There being no objection, CSHB 19(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee].
HB 38-IMPROPER CONTRIBUTIONS TO LEGISLATORS
9:40:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 38, "An Act relating to legislators and candidates for
the legislature and to certain campaign contributions made in
exchange for certain agreements."
9:43:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HB
38 as joint prime sponsor. He said the bill is narrow and
aligns with federal law. He explained that currently it is not
a crime in Alaska for someone to be asked to change his/her vote
in exchange for a campaign contribution, and Representative Gara
said it should be. He clarified that it is all right for
someone to give a campaign contribution to a candidate with like
views on issues, because that contributor is not asking the
candidate to change his/her views in order to receive the
contribution.
9:44:31 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if the bill could also include the offer of
giving a fundraiser in exchange for a vote as being illegal.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that would be a good idea.
9:45:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the intent of the proposed
legislation is already written in AS 11.56.130, and he requested
that Representative Gara meet with him to explain why [HB 38]
"tightens it up" more than the existing statute.
9:45:52 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he likes the concept of the bill.
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 38 was heard and held.
HB 58-EXEC. BRANCH ETHICS:INTERESTS & ACTIONS
9:46:13 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 58, "An Act relating to a public officer's taking
official action regarding a matter in which the public officer
has a financial interest; and defining 'official action' under
the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act and related law."
9:46:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB
58 as joint prime sponsor. He said the bill would close the
executive branch ethics loophole discovered after the
investigation of Alaska's former attorney general. He reviewed
that the ethics code exempts unethical conduct if it involves an
insignificant interest in a matter. The attorneys who reviewed
the attorney general's case said they could not state whether
$100,000 interest in a coal company was significant or
insignificant. Both the Personnel Board and investigating
attorneys recommended that the state define the word
"significant."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said Governor Sarah Palin has suggested that
significant is anything more than $5,000; however, he said after
some consideration he decided the longer solution provided in HB
58 is the best answer. He said it is not a violation of the
ethics code just to have an interest in a matter that is being
discussed. He continued:
A separate section of the code that you can't see
inside of any of these bills that exist says there are
all these series of prohibited conducts. And what
they are actions where you intentionally try and
benefit yourself.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said the issue of proving the person tried
to benefit his/her own personal financial interest is already in
the ethics code and no one is trying to change that part of the
language. The second question is whether or not the person
should be exempted from that requirement because "the thing you
tried to benefit was so insignificant it doesn't matter."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA reiterated that Governor Palin's bill would
set the amount at $5,000. He said the problem with that is that
it's not just ownership in a company that matters. He offered
the following example:
What happens if you're the attorney general, you
negotiate a deal involving a coal company that you're
sitting on the board of? You probably don't make very
much money as a board member, but if you try and
benefit that company and you're on the board, that
should be prohibited, even though ... you don't own
$5,000 of an interest.
What happens if ... you have some sort of employment
relationship or contractual relationship with that
company [and] you ... negotiate a deal that is aimed
to benefit the coal company? That should be a
problem, even though you don't own $5,000 of an
interest in the company.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA listed some legislators who have pointed out
the aforementioned example. He said HB 58 would label as
significant anything that is "more than $5,000 or ownership" or
"if you're a board member or employee, have a contractual
relationship with the company," and intend to benefit [from]
that interest.
9:51:24 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 58 was heard and held.
9:51:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL spoke about an upcoming subcommittee
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:52:22 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|