Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/21/1995 01:15 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 21, 1995
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gary Davis, Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Bill Williams
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Eileen MacLean
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HJR 42: Relating to regulation of water carriers serving Alaska.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 161: "An Act relating to civil liability for guest
passengers on an aircraft or watercraft: and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 210: "An Act relating to issuance of motor vehicle
registrations and titles, and to licenses and permits to
operate a motor vehicle."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
GORDON EVANS, Lobbyist
Totem Ocean Trailer Express
318 4th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3210
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HJR 42
FRANK DILLION, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association
3443 Minnesota Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 276-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HJR 42
PATTY SWENSON, Legislative Assistant
Representative Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 161
RAY BROWN, Attorney
Alaska's Academy of Trial Lawyers
510 L Street, Suite 603
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-5400
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSHB 161
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 216
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3719
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor for HB 210
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief of Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 465-2650
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided technical information on HB 210
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 42
SHORT TITLE: WATER CARRIERS SERVING ALASKA
SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/07/95 1173 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/07/95 1173 (H) TRANSPORTATION
04/19/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/21/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 161
SHORT TITLE: AIRCRAFT/WATERCRAFT GUEST PASSENGER LAW
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE,Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/08/95 271 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/08/95 272 (H) TRA, JUD
03/06/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/08/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/08/95 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/13/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/15/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/15/95 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/21/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 210
SHORT TITLE: PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSING/TESTING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 529 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 529 (H) TRANSPORTATION, STATE AFFAIRS
03/17/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/20/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/20/95 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/19/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/21/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
Tape 95-16, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Transportation Committee was called to order by Chairman
Gary Davis at 1:15 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Davis, James, Masek, Williams, Sanders, MacLean and
Brice.
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS announced the agenda was to hear testimony on
House Joint Resolution (HJR) 42, and review HB 161 and HB 210 in
that order. He indicated the meeting is on teleconference with
Anchorage.
HJR 42- WATER CARRIERS SERVING ALASKA
Number 014
GORDON EVANS, Lobbyist, Totem Ocean Trailer Express (TOTE)
explained TOTE provides services from the port of Anchorage, Alaska
to the port of Tacoma, Washington. Between TOTE and Sea-Land, they
bring in the majority of the products that are used in Alaska,
particularly the Interior of Alaska. TOTE supports HJR 42. Mr.
Evans stated it was his belief that HJR 42 was self-explanatory.
He felt it would be a serious mistake for Congress to repeal all
regulations of the Alaska water trade. He referred to a bill
currently under consideration in Congress which would repeal
regulations, not only the Alaska water trade, but in Hawaii and
Puerto Rico, as well. These are the only three areas that are
currently regulated. He explained that the legislative bodies of
these areas are being asked to ensure that an amendment is added to
the bill in Congress allowing the people in the Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC) who are currently responsible for the regulating,
that they and their duties would be transferred to the Department
of Transportation (DOT). He explained it was to companies, such as
TOTE and Sea-Land's, advantage to be regulated. One reason is the
potential problems with anti-trust issues, or if an oligopoly,
where there are several carriers serving a particular trade, the
carriers could get together and raise rates and there would be no
one to oversee them. TOTE feels as long as there is someone
regulating the traffic, there is no potential of someone to
institute new or higher tariffs and gouge the shippers involved.
Mr. Evans said they have discussed this with Alaska's Congressional
Delegation. They have indicated they would support this amendment
in Congress, if they could show there was sufficient support in the
state for it.
MR. EVANS indicated the committee members should have in their bill
packets, numerous letters of support from various companies, the
municipality of Anchorage, the Alaska Railroad Corporation,
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce and others. Mr. Evans indicated that
Congressman Don Young was in Anchorage recently and met with the
representatives of TOTE and the Alaska Truckers Association.
Congressman Young indicated he was pleased with the letters and
planned to push the amendment in Congress. Mr. Evans said the
current problem is in timing and the mark-up in Congress is
scheduled for around May 6, 1995; the first initial adjournment
date for this year's Alaska Legislative session. He asked if there
were any questions.
Number 105
CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated for the record that Representative Eileen
MacLean arrived at 1:17 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK said she was in support of getting the
federal government out of the state's affairs and supported HJR 42.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS said he would take testimony via teleconference from
Mr. Frank Dillion in Anchorage.
Number 107
FRANK DILLION, Executive Director of Alaska Trucking Association,
stated they were large customers of the steamship industry. They
handle the deliveries of the majority of freight that travels
through the railbelt of Alaska. The Alaska trucking industry
supports HJR 42 and requests that it be promptly moved forward to
the floor. Mr. Dillion attended a meeting with Congressman Young
and a TOTE representative and Congressman Young indicated that he
has already drafted a letter to Chairman Shuster who has
jurisdiction in Congress on this particular issue. This letter
supported the continued oversight at the DOT of the Alaska water
trade steamship (indisc.). He explained the oversight provides
stability in the market place. This is an extremely important
issue for the businesses in Alaska to understand what the shipping
costs will be. He emphasized the importance of having stable and
dependable services. He added there was no question regarding the
dependability of TOTE and Sea-Land services.
MR. DILLION continued to explain even in difficult situations, well
beyond their control such as labor difficulties, they have
maintained ships in operation and freight moving to Alaska. He
indicated the stability should be maintained, and there should be
a mechanism to prevent a situation where they may be treated
unjustly and they have someone who can arbitrate or at least
enforce TOTE and Sea-Land to justify the rates they are proposing.
He did not feel that "unbridled" competition in this particular
type of market would be in the best interest of anyone in Alaska.
He expressed concern that not only would prices go too high, but
conversely, of prices going too low. He said a good example of
what happens to a transportation entity when it does not price
itself compensatorily is the Mark Air situation. Simply by having
market share and giving the customers and the shipping public a
break, does not necessarily make for a good transportation system.
He stated they would be afraid to see other steamship lines move
into the market for a short term benefit, using a ship that might
not be allowed elsewhere and hauling freight at a cut rate deal,
establishing that pattern for awhile and then disappearing. He
reiterated his eagerness on passing HJR 42. He asked if there were
any questions.
Number 160
CHAIRMAN DAVIS said a number of these resolutions have been
scrutinized closely when reaching the floor, and he wanted to
review some of the details in this particular resolution. Chairman
Davis referred to line 9, page 1, stating "Whereas the citizens of
the State of Alaska have expressed their desire to preserve tariff
filing and the other essential elements..." and expressed concern
regarding the letters of support that were drafted by groups and
companies. He inquired as to the ways to defend the argument that
where have the citizens of the state of Alaska expressed their
desire.
Number 172
MR. DILLION interjected and reminded the committee of the fact that
there are thousands of employees who work for those organizations,
and they are all citizens. At times, we defer to the judgment that
people who we work for or elect make the decisions that, hopefully,
are in the best interest of the majority of people. He did not
feel this was the type of issue that you are going to see the rank
and file person off the street take much interest in. People are
interested in the prices they pay and the dependability of service.
He felt this serves well the interests of all the citizens of
Alaska that have continued oversight on this particular area of
transportation.
Number 184
MR. EVANS referred to the letters of support which included such
entities as the municipality of Anchorage, the Alaska Railroad
Corporation, Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, the General Teamsters
Local Union, and the Anchorage Independent Longshoreman's
Association and stated they were all consumers as well as groups.
He indicated it will come out of their pockets in the end of what
they pay at the local stores. He referred to Alaska Matanuska Maid
Dairy, Alaska Fish and Farm products and others. He agreed with
Mr. Dillon's comments.
MR. DILLION added due to the fact that TOTE and Sea-Land are
intensely competitive, they want someone watching over them so
someone does not make an error in judgment that would impose costs
to the state or hurt themselves. He indicated the reason that TOTE
and Sea-Land want someone to continue to look over their shoulder
is to make sure someone is looking over the other guy's shoulder.
He felt this might explain some of the motivation for the support
behind this particular issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES asked Chairman Davis if he was
interested in a motion to move HJR 42 out of committee.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to pass HJR 42 out of the House
Transportation Committee.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection. Hearing none, HJR 42
was passed out of the House Transportation Committee.
HB 161 - AIRCRAFT/WATERCRAFT GUEST PASSENGER LAW
Number 218
CHAIRMAN DAVIS announced the next order of business was to hear
testimony on CSHB 161 and asked the prime sponsor's legislative
assistant, Ms. Patty Swenson to present her testimony on the
committee substitute (CS) for HB 161.
PATTY SWENSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Con Bunde,
indicated the only change they have made to the committee
substitute before the committee is on page 2, Section (B). This
includes the addition of limiting aircraft or watercraft owners'
liability, if they posted notice that they did not have insurance.
People would then have some warning before they rode with the pilot
of the boat or plane. This was the only change Representative
Bunde made to the bill.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS reminded the committee that a second version added
the wording "simple negligence" and this was then deleted, because
it would have made the whole bill unnecessary. He said the effect
of the new wording...
MS. SWENSON interjected that it would just limit the aircraft or
watercraft owner's liability, when they posted notice. She
explained it would then be similar to a person not having insurance
and that it would compensate a person being transported, as is
described in the first section of the bill under Section (a). They
would have the same lack of liability in cases other than gross
negligence acts.
Number 234
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked for confirmation that this was just a notice
to the passengers.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked if the form of notice was verbal
or written?
MS. SWENSON said it stated it was to provide notice to the person
being transported. It does not specify the type of notice.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if it was a verbal notification and
not some kind of label on the door or display on the aircraft,
couldn't we get into a situation of "I said, he said, or you didn't
tell me" situation.
MS. SWENSON explained it was her understanding that if something
were to happen and a notice was posted, then something happened to
the notice, there would still be the same problems.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said this situation would occur more
frequently if the notice was not posted. He said he supported the
amendment to this bill and encouraged it from the beginning, but it
did not seem to be definitive enough.
Number 269
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded to Representative Sanders' comment
that she has experienced similar situations. She presented an
example of entering a mining area, where the people in charge
require their guests to sign a piece of paper stating that the
guest understands any risks that might be involved. She thought
that people will want to insure themselves, so they will put it in
writing that they are not responsible.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS presented a scenario where a pilot took someone for
a ride in their airplane, they crashed, and the passenger was
killed. Previous to the flight, the passenger was notified that
the pilot did not have insurance. Chairman Davis indicated "he
can't give his word, I told him" so this type of situation seemed
to be a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS concurred with Chairman Davis and stated if
it was incorporated in this bill that there had to be in writing,
the terms of liability, he would then feel more comfortable with
it. However, at this time it does not state this and he has no
reason to assume this would be carried out by the pilots.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS indicated he would take testimony from Mr. Ray Brown
via teleconference from Anchorage.
Number 293
RAY BROWN, Attorney, Alaska's Academy of Trial Lawyers indicated he
did not hear the first part of the presentation and didn't know who
the speaker was who was talking about the amendments to the bill.
He said he didn't know if they added back language, but he knew
from the last time he testified on this bill, Mr. Bunde included
under Section B, the wording "negligent conduct." He asked if that
had been taken out.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS said yes.
MR. BROWN continued to explain that HB 161 is creating a litigation
nightmare. He referred to the issue of a notice requirement as
being problematic in and of itself. He inquired as to who will
make the determination of whether or not notice was given as well
as determining whether or not someone was negligent, grossly
negligent or reckless or intentional, after an aircraft has
crashed. He remarked this type of bill seems to carve out a
special class of people that are being immunized from exposure,
based upon their conduct. He said he was not aware of any other
class, other than attempting to do this in the medical field, where
there is an elite group of people, basically immunizing them from
negligent conduct. He explained HB 161 when read in its entirety,
and without some sort of clarification, would probably immunize
people to some extent from reckless or grossly negligent conduct.
It potentially leaves the care of victims, their families and their
children, who if in the event both parents were killed without an
income provider, the state of Alaska and the federal government
could be responsible for covering the negligent acts of the pilots.
If a person is catastrophically injured, it leaves their health
care to the state and federal government because of the negligent
or reckless conduct of another person. He said not only from an
attorney's standpoint, but from a citizen's standpoint, and in a
state where we have the highest per capita number of pilot error-
type crashes, he was amazed that a bill such as this would be
passed, to immunize those persons. He referred to Representative
Bunde's explanation that this bill was designed to protect pilots
from acts of God. Mr. Brown stated if this was really the purpose
of the bill, there would be no need to pass it because under the
torte liability law, if there is no negligence and it is an act of
God, then there is no breach in the duty of care and no resulting
liability to begin with. He indicated this is not the intent of
this bill, particularly with the deletion of the negligence wording
and it is not for the acts of God, but actually to protect
negligent people for their conduct. He referred to Section 2(b)
and said it was difficult for him to figure out from the bill
itself, whether or not the language in subsection 2 (a) also
applies to subsection 1(a). If it does, then there are some
obvious problems. He mentioned it would encourage the property
owner to purchase the minimum of coverage.
MR. BROWN presented an example where someone with $3 million or $4
million in assets could engage in grossly negligent or reckless or
intentional misconduct and only be liable for the minimum amount of
coverage. He stated he would assume that people would elect to
purchase the minimal amount of coverage, because for any amount
over that they would be immunized for regardless of their conduct.
He concluded it has the potential to work a great injustice on
innocent victims. He felt that based on the wording of the
statute, a person would be better off to be involved in an accident
with people who would be grossly negligent or intentional with no
insurance, so long as they had sufficient assets to cover an injury
or death. He felt the statute discouraged adequate insurance and
is a boondoggle for a select few people who are pilots and aircraft
owners. He added it will work a great injustice on innocent
victims who happen to ride in an aircraft.
Number 363
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS asked Mr. Brown if he is an attorney.
MR. BROWN responded, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said he was under the impression that this
bill catered to private parties who wanted to take their friends
along for a ride. The way he viewed it and from what the attorney
said, is that we would be providing for an open season in the court
system. That may be true if the operator of the boat or plane was
not going to take his friend for a ride. He presented an example
where a friend of his goes for a ride with him in his boat and he
tells the passenger that he does not have insurance and he can ride
at his own risk. The passenger has the choice to stay or go. He
felt that was the intent of this bill.
MS. SWENSON stated Representative Williams is correct. The purpose
of the bill was to be able to take friends and acquaintances on a
boat or plane...
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS interjected and stated the pilots are not
looking to make money...
MS. SWENSON interjected that was specifically excluded, if it's a
nonpaying passenger, common carriers are excluded as well.
Currently the majority of aircraft owners do not have passenger
insurance because of the high costs. The friends that ride with
the pilots are traveling at their own risk.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said he had a friend who occasionally would
take him for a ride in his airplane, and he was under the
impression the pilot had insurance. Representative Williams said
this would bring to his attention, the concern that the pilot could
say I do not have any insurance and it is the passenger's choice to
ride along and the pilot would be covered. He reiterated his
comments on the fact the passenger has the choice to go or stay.
MS. SWENSON said this was correct.
Number 409
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS stated there was more to this than just the
friends going along for rides. He presented a scenario where
Representative Williams was a pilot and took him flying.
Representative Williams told Representative Sanders that he did not
have insurance. He said he understood this and agreed not to sue
him in the event of a crash. They then go flying, the plane
crashes and Representative Sanders is killed, and his wife is left
without an income. She would look to sue someone and deserves to.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES disagreed with Representative Sanders'
statement. If a person was paying for a ride, that person would
expect that the beneficiary would receive compensation for the
incident. She felt if it was a commercial flight, the company
would be required to cover all passengers. This bill addresses the
issue of people going for rides for the fun of it and do not pay
for the rides. She felt that the pilots would get someone to sign.
She proposed the situation where a waiver was signed, but both
family members were killed in a plane crash and everyone dies and
other people are not a party to that. She felt that if someone did
sign the waiver, this would be seen as evidence of the fact the
passenger was informed. She said the issue is taking passengers
for a free ride and of the passenger's will. She explained the
insurance was expensive and it is a toy in many cases. She
indicated she did not have a problem with people having toys even
though they kill themselves with toys. She commented anytime
someone is negligent, they should be held responsible.
Number 434
MR. BROWN stated the problem, as he understood it, was that we are
immunizing people for negligence. He stated when he gets into an
airplane, car or boat, he hopes that the operator will not act in
a negligent manner. He understands that he has no control over the
operator of the boat, plane or car. He questioned why we would
want to isolate one pocket of society. Whether it is called a toy
or not, he did not understand why someone would want to protect a
person from negligent conduct? He remarked this is exactly what
this bill would be doing just by the mere recitation of a person
stating they do not have insurance. He questioned who would be
responsible for the negligent conduct of an uninsured pilot even if
they gave notice, and added more than likely it would be the state
of Alaska. He said fortunately we are in a state that does not
have a large tax base, but someone will pay for the negligent acts.
He commented on Representative Sanders' astute observations that
there will be family members that will suffer because of this
conduct. He reiterated his concerns for people wanting to immunize
a person that caused the negligent act at the expense of everyone
else. He added he did not understand what the problem was with
requiring people to carry insurance to operate these toys.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated the way he saw it, people can
protect themselves to the hilt. He said the subject of torte
reform had come up and said this sounds similar. He made the
analogy of pedestrians crossing the street and assuming everyone in
a car has liability insurance. He said the pedestrians are not
aware of who has insurance and who does not, but if they cross the
street, and are hit by a car...maybe this bill should include motor
vehicles as well.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS said he had neglected to adopt the Committee
Substitute, and asked if he could have a motion to adopt the
Version /F, CSHB 161.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES motioned to adopt CSHB 161, Version /F.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was any objection. Hearing none,
CSHB 161, Version /F was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS commented on the distinction between cars
and boats, and said with cars there is no law saying you do not
need insurance and the same applies to boats. Representative
Sanders said he did not see why airplanes should be different. He
felt a person should have insurance. He was not going to be party
to making a law that states that insurance is not needed.
Number 499
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE added to Representative Sanders' comments
that this was the intent of HB 161. It does not imply "my good
friend, Jerry, come on my boat with me and we'll have fun," rather
HB 161 indicates a person won't buy insurance because, if they do,
they will be held liable, but if they don't buy the insurance, then
they are off the hook. This was his concern with the fact it is a
negative incentive to obtain insurance to help out in the situation
where simple negligence is a factor. A person is still liable if
they commit a grossly negligent act, but a person is not liable if
they commit a negligent act. He suggested the possibility of
lowering the standard to ease some of the concerns among members of
the committee. As the bill is written, it says "don't buy
insurance because it is a waste of time and money. The people that
get hurt will be taken care of by the state." Representative Brice
said that was his concern.
REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN stated she had similar concerns, but
added this should not be exclusive to air and watercraft guest
passengers. She asked to make it all inclusive of other modes of
transportation.
Number 522
CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated it was his intent to address a motion on the
CS for HB 161 to move it out of the House Transportation Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move CSHB 161(TRA) out of
Committee.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN objected for discussion on CSHB 161(TRA).
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE proposed an amendment on page 1, line 13,
delete the word "gross" and negligence or reckless or intentional
misconduct are not exempt under this.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected to Representative Brice's proposed
amendment.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS questioned the legal definition of the wording
"reckless misconduct." He expressed concern for the legal
interpretation of this. He would interpret this as being similar
to simple negligence, but was not sure. He then announced there
was a motion to delete the word "gross" on page 1, line 13, that
had been objected to for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained her objection was with the wording
"negligence." She stated it was not possible for anyone to live
without it. She said we are not perfect and any time someone does
something that injures someone else, it can be construed as
negligent. If someone does do something and nothing happens, it is
not negligent. She explained there has to be some admittance to
the fact that there is an inherent risk of living and people cannot
be held responsible for everything people do that can be addressed
as negligent. If people could place negligence in terms of degrees
of a negligent act that a person did something intentionally....
She then presented an example of someone driving into a ditch and
saying "I could have avoided that by doing this or this or this"
and the person admits that they were negligent. It is not possible
to go through life without having some sort of negligent accidents.
She stated she would feel very vulnerable if every negligent action
that she has is subject to a lawsuit. She reiterated her concerns
on addressing the issue of an inherent risk of living. This is why
she objected to the term negligent.
Number 558
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE disagreed and explained that before this would
happen there should be testimony from attorneys who understand the
term negligence. He felt the immediate discussions were stretching
the term way beyond its intent. He presented an example where he
was just involved in a car accident on March 1, 1995. The driver
crossed the yellow line and ran into him. As far as he is
concerned, the other driver was negligent. Unfortunately, the
lawyers are blaming the icy roads so she was found not to be
negligent. He suggested that before every mishap that occurs is
deemed a negligent act, there should be an understanding of a
legally recognized and defined term for negligence. He reiterated
his concerns on having someone from Legislative Legal Services
confront this issue. He concluded by saying it would ease the
concerns of a lot of people because unlike driving, snow mobiling
or unlike any other type of activity, the operation of aircraft and
watercraft are probably the two most unforgiving forms of
transportation. Not only unforgiving in case of accidents, but
also unforgiving in terms of various conditions of the outdoor
elements. The potential for serious injuries is much higher than
driving or walking.
MS. SWENSON asked the maker of the amendment if his intent was to
delete the term gross negligence and add negligence?
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said yes.
MS. SWENSON asked for confirmation on adding the word negligence to
the bill and not holding people liable for gross negligence acts...
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE interjected that it would be lowering the
standard to "negligence."
CHAIRMAN DAVIS said he would speak in favor of the motion and
suggested to move the bill to the Judiciary Committee, where
further legal action could be discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reminded the committee that these passengers
are riding for free and for the fun of it. The passengers in this
case should assume some portion of the responsibility.
Number 612
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said she viewed it differently and presented
an example of someone needing to be transported out of a village
for medical reasons. The pilot is not being paid to transport the
person out of the village. She asked how would this impact the
passenger.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS said the pilot would be contracted to transport the
passenger. This would be seen as a business transaction through
whatever company the pilot is affiliated with. He questioned
whether a private pilot using his own plane to medivac someone out,
would not be covered and the passenger may not be covered.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN stated she was referring to a situation
where someone from Hoonah or Petersburg ws going to be transported
in an emergency situation and they were not paying, how would this
legislation impact this particular situation.
Number 617
MS. SWENSON explained if there was an accident while transporting
this person, the pilot would not be held liable. Many people would
not be able to be transported if a pilot did not have passenger
insurance. Pilots would be afraid that something might happen to
them in flight that was beyond their control. As a result, the
pilot may choose not to transport the person that needed to be
transported.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked to vote on the motion. He reminded the
committee the motion was to move the amendment to delete the word
"gross" on page 1, line 13. He then asked for a roll call on
Representative Brice's amendment. Representatives Brice, Masek,
Davis, Sanders, Williams and MacLean voted in favor of the
amendment. Representative James opposed the amendment. Chairman
Davis asked if there was further discussion. Hearing none, the
amendment passed.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS made a motion to move CSHB 161(TRA) as
amended out of the House Transportation Committee with zero fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS objected.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Brice,
James, Davis, Masek and Williams voted in favor. Representatives
Sanders and MacLean voted no. Chairman Davis announced that CSHB
161(TRA), as amended was moved out of the House Transportation
Committee.
HB 210 - PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSING/TESTING
Number 645
CHAIRMAN DAVIS announced the next item on the agenda was HB 210.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked for a motion to adopt the CS for HB 210
Version R, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS made a motion to adopt the CS for HB 210,
Version R, as the working document.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection. Hearing none, the CS
Version R, was adopted as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY noted there has been previous discussion
and a small subcommittee working with the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) on HB 210. He said a number of changes were made
which were reflected in the committee substitute before the
committee members. He asked if there were any questions. He then
indicated there were proposed amendments before the committee.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS said he, too, discussed the amendments with the DMV.
He indicated that with the consent of the prime sponsor, the
Administration and the committee, he would like to discuss and vote
on each amendment individually. He suggested that Ms. Juanita
Hensley with the Department of Public Safety could present details
of previous meetings that she and the prime sponsor had regarding
this issue.
TAPE 95-16, SIDE B
Number 000
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief of Driver Services, Division of Motor
Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, asked if Chairman Davis
wanted her to speak directly to the amendments. She stated she
worked directly with the sponsor of this bill to come up with the
draft that was before the committee. She indicated that she had
reviewed the draft and coordinated information with the Department
of Law. The amendments presented were the concerns that they have.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS suggested they make a motion for each particular
amendment and have discussion and debate as each amendment was
presented.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move Amendment 1.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected to Amendment 1.
MS. HENSLEY explained Amendment 1 on page 4, lines 24-25, Section
(F) states "felonious attempt to commit an offense..." She said it
had been the advice of the Department of Law that a felonious
attempt is a felony. Section (F) would not be needed because
"felony" is already covered in Section (E).
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked Representative Vezey if he would care to
comment on this.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he did not have any strong feelings on
this particular amendment. He stated the intent was to try and
create a contract relationship between an entity of the state and
the private sector. He indicated a person does not have to break
the law to have grounds under normal commercial law to terminate a
contract. Crimes of moral turpitude are usually considered
sufficient reasons to dissolve a contract. He explained this is
what he was attempting to do here. He said they were trying to
give the state more reasons for terminating a contract, but the
state is indicating that they do not want more reasons.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS indicated he communicated with the Department of Law
in a meeting and said it's true that Section (E) is covered by
Section (F). He then asked if the objection was still maintained
on Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE withdrew his objection.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was any other objection to Amendment
1. Hearing none, Amendment 1 passed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES motioned to move Amendment 2.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection on Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected to Amendment 2, for the purpose of
discussion.
Number 095
MS. HENSLEY explained the department feels that to take a person to
arbitration, the due process must still be carried out. This would
not allow for full due process with superior court oversight as to
a decision being made. Ms. Hensley said the department would
propose changes on lines 18-21, deleting the language "shall submit
the issue to arbitration as provided under AS 09.43; the department
may not cancel or suspend a certificate or card under this
paragraph unless the cancellation or suspension is supported by the
decision of the arbitrator." Ms. Hensley suggested that language
be deleted and insert after examiner, "notice and hearing as
provided under AS 28.05.141."
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked for confirmation that this was the
department's current administrative hearing procedures.
MS. HENSLEY said yes, the administrative procedures that are not
covered under the Administrator Procedures Act. However, the
person still may, if they feel they are aggrieved after the
administrative hearing, file an appeal in superior court based on
the record itself and not on (indisc.) hearing.
Number 120
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the basic difference with this issue is
the state is accustomed to operating under a certain set of
statutes and procedures for adjudicating complaints or differences.
What we are trying to establish is a contract. The standard in the
state of Alaska and across the country for contract -- commercial
law -- is that contract disputes are arbitrated. People are
voluntarily entering into contracts that stipulate that any dispute
on that contract will be solved by arbitration. Representative
Vezey felt there were advantages to the state. Some of those
advantages are: Under a contract relationship, any methods of
dispute resolution can be used, providing both parties of the
contract agree to it. It is when an agreement cannot be reached
that they have to go to mandatory procedures, such as an
administrative hearing procedure that the state and the DMV is
accustomed to using. However, this is subject to appeal in the
trial courts. He explained the advantage of arbitration is it does
not cost the state anything. Both parties are required to pay for
the cost of the arbitration. They are not using the court system,
rather they are using an arbitration system. The courts have
traditionally refused to review or overturn the findings of an
arbitrator, because they respect the arbitration process and the
right of parties to agree to arbitration. In commercial law, it is
unusual for a court to take up a case that has been decided by an
arbitration tribunal, unless there is some sign of clear abuse.
Representative Vezey proposed arbitration will give the state
greater flexibility than what they are currently bound to. He
indicated it was a judgment value and either system achieves
justice. It is a question of how are we willing to look at going
to a new system.
Number 174
MS. HENSLEY asked to address Representative Vezey's comments and
stated if we had to go through the provision of setting up an
arbitration section or to deal with arbitrators, it would cost the
department to contract with an arbitrator and pay the cost of hotel
accommodations for that individual, if they had to come in from out
of town. Presently, the department already has administrative
hearing officers on staff and the Department of Law already handles
their appeals through the superior court. The mechanism is already
set up. With the arbitrations area, they would have to set up a
separate procedure for that, which would be costly to the
department. Ms. Hensley did not feel the department would be able
to absorb the cost, because the DMV does not have the budget in
order to establish a program without receiving that cost of that
program.
Number 189
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if the arbitration was to continue as is,
would the department establish a fiscal note for this bill?
MS. HENSLEY said they would have to indicate what the cost of the
arbitration would be, because they do not have the necessary
process set up in their department at this time. In order to do
that, they would have to develop whatever costs would be associated
with that contract or the arbitrator. In most cases, when using
arbitrators you do pay for all their expenses. Whereas, currently
the department has hearing officers on staff.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated the arbitration language is in statute so
there would be no need for the regulations.
MS. HENSLEY stated there would be no regulations.
Number 196
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she visualized an arbitrator to be more
neutral and fair than someone who is on staff with the department.
She presented an example of arbitrators having to come to Juneau if
that is where they had to work out of, or, if there was a
contractor in Fairbanks, they would deal with an arbitrator from
Fairbanks. To attach a fiscal note would be to presume that there
are going to be disputes. She stated if there was any value to
this legislation, it should be placed that this would be an
infrequent occurrence where there would be arbitration issues such
as this. Based on that position, she supported the idea of an
arbitrator because of the fairness issue of not having someone
within the staff of the Department of Public Safety.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Ms. Hensley if snow machines and all
terrain vehicles (ATV) were included under the category of motor
vehicles.
MS. HENSLEY explained it is a requirement with the DMV that snow
machines be registered through Title 5. This is not the case with
ATVs. The federal government determined years ago that ATVs were
unsafe vehicles.
Number 238
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he appreciated the department's
position. Unless he was mistaken about the Alaskan Uniform
Arbitration law, he thought that both parties have to pay, up-
front, the anticipated costs of an arbitration proceeding.
Typically, arbitration panels are not bound by Rule 82 that the
court proceedings are. The prevailing party would be awarded full
costs and fees. He indicated arbitration encourages mediation,
where both parties agree to pay the costs of mediation. There are
very few limits placed on how an arbitrator is selected. There is
a proposed panel that is organized and people are given the chance
to veto, or agree on an arbitrator or a mediator. He added that
there were other means to settling disputes, but they are trying to
create the atmosphere of a commercial relationship between the
state and a contractor.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was still objection to Amendment 2?
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated he objected to the amendment.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked for a role call vote. Representatives Davis,
Brice, Williams and James opposed the Amendment. Representative
MacLean voted in favor of Amendment 2. Chairman Davis indicated
Amendment 2 failed to pass the committee. He then announced
Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN made a motion to move Amendment 3.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she objected to Amendment 3.
Number 292
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked Ms. Hensley to address Amendment 3.
MS. HENSLEY explained that the DMV and the Department of Revenue
reviewed this amendment and both departments expressed concern for
Amendment 3. She explained in order to have some type of an audit
trail on the contractors, the department would propose changes to
page 7, lines 8-13, by deleting the existing language and inserting
on line 8 after department, "as determined by contract." She
explained if they have a business which only processes 20
transactions per month, then they might want the option to say, on
a monthly basis they can make the deposits. She added it would
give the department more control of a business and the ability to
monitor that particular area more closely. She commented this is
a good piece of legislation, but the department is just trying to
obtain the maximum out of it. They are currently developing
private indices; it's like a contract with government, privatizing
out. They are trying to privatize areas such as the IM
(inspection/maintenance) stations in Anchorage which are processing
approximately 100 registrations per day. She noted there are
currently 13 commission agents they are working with. She said
this amendment just gives the department and the Department of
Revenue more control over the amount of money being collected and
when it is to be deposited, as well as the interest the state
collects off that money.
Number 303
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he did not have strong opposition to
Amendment 3. His intent was to provide for a reasonable commercial
relationship between an agent and a proprietor (indisc). He said
they modeled this after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and
their manner of collecting payroll taxes. Whenever an agent
collects a sum of money that exceeds $5,000, it is due that week,
just as the payroll taxes are with the IRS. If $5,000 is not
collected during the course of the quarter, then they still have to
submit quarterly. He felt it was a reasonable standard.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS supported the amendment. He stated it was hard to
imagine what the outcome of this might be. He referred to the 13
contract agents and stated there are communities where there may be
five transactions per day, yet another contractor could do much
more, so different contracts are going to have different needs. If
there is the flexibility such as what the department is requesting
in the amendment, it would be beneficial because no one method is
going to fit each contract. He asked if there were further
discussions on Amendment 3, and was the objection still maintained?
Hearing none, Amendment 3 passed. He then offered Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move Amendment 4.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was any objection.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN objected for purposes of discussion. She
expressed concern for the section on the commercial drivers
licenses CDL) program.
MS. HENSLEY explained that 49 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) of
the Commercial Driver License Act allowed an individual to be
grandfathered in until April 1, 1992. She explained that this
stated if an employer certified that the person met the
qualifications up until April 1, 1992, then the employer could
certify that individual had met those requirements and they had
been employed, and the individual would not be required to take a
skills test - a driving test. After April 1, 1992, federal law
requires a skills test to be administered to an individual applying
for a commercial drivers license. This section would place the DMV
out of compliance with the Commercial Driver License Safety Act of
1986, and it is subject to a 10 percent loss of federal highway
funds, if they are found in noncompliance of that program. She
mentioned that a couple of years ago, 10 percent of the federal
highway fund equalled approximately $25 million.
Number 359
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referenced the loss of funding and asked if
the funds are diverted, or does the state not get it.
MS. HENSLEY explained it was part of the Intermodal System
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funds and would not be
diverted, as the "helmet money" was diverted; it would be totally
sanctioned against the state.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY disagreed with the DMV on this particular
issue because the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for
that particular type of certification through private channels.
The intent here was to allow for the program to be up by the state.
He noted they were not mentioning anything regarding grandfathering
people in after April 1, 1992, but they were only saying that a
program will be set up. He mentioned that currently, there is a
program in Alaska that is providing professional driver training
which has received a number of accolades. However, they do not
have the authority at this time to issue driver licenses.
Representative Vezey indicated it would not take a great deal to
bring them into compliance. He stated he disagreed with the
characterization that this would put the state out of compliance
with the federal regulations.
Number 375
MS. HENSLEY explained that under this bill, the DMV would have the
authority to contract or conduct third party testing, if the
individual met all the requirements. The third party testing would
be comprised of a commercial company, if the DMV chose to do a
third party testing. The federal government requires extensive
monitoring of those third party testers, of which the DMV has never
had the budget to monitor, so they have never allowed a third party
tester to do commercial driver licensing. However, the safety
regulations dealing with the employer responsibility with the
single license requirement, implies that within this requirement it
states, "effective April 1, 1992, no person shall operate a
commercial vehicle unless such person has taken and passed written
and driving tests which meet the federal standards contained in
subparts (f), (g) and (h) of this part, for commercial vehicles
that a person operates." The department feels the remainder of the
bill would provide the department with the opportunity, if they
chose, to initiate a third party contract. She stated currently,
they have the opportunity to do this, they've never been able to do
the monitoring that the federal government requires of third party
testers. She said they were interested in the fact an employer can
say that an individual does meet the required standards without the
required skills testing which may be completed and maintained by
the employer, certifying that the person has passed all the skills
requirements.
Number 440
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY withdrew his objection to Amendment 4. He
stated it was not his intent to be in conflict with the federal
regulations.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated if Amendment 4 had not passed, his intent was
to request that a note follow the bill to ensure the legality of it
was carried out. He asked for objection on Amendment 4. Hearing
none, Amendment 4 was passed.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS made a motion to move Amendment 5.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was any objection.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK objected to Amendment 5.
MS. HENSLEY acknowledged that Amendment 5 may be somewhat
controversial. Amendment 5 was drafted by the Department of Law,
proposing to delete on page 19, lines 18 and 19 in their entirety.
She referred to the DMV regulations and stated that they preferred
having as much as possible put into statute. She added she has to
write the regulations and does not enjoy doing this, so if it can
be placed in statute and have everything spelled out as to the
desires of the department, then the department would like to not
have to have regulations. However, the DMV and the Department of
Law feels there possibly could be some requirements that they would
have to have, particularly when dealing with some of the contract
issues, instead of having to come back to the legislature every
year and with those contracts in statute. If the Occupational
Safety Hazard Administration (OSHA) requirement change or if the
insurance requirements change, then they would have to return every
year to the legislature and have all the statutes changed annually.
The DMV feels this was an area they wanted to leave open so they
would have the leeway. She said the DMV has always had legislative
input on all of their regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained the purpose of that particular
section was twofold. First, they wanted to construct a bill that
was thorough and understandable. The goal of privatization of a
service currently provided by the government, is something that has
not been met with much success in the state of Alaska. He has
observed numerous attempts over the years, and they have all
failed. He explained they started out with the goal that the
entire program would have to be placed in statute, so they would
know exactly what they were getting into and how it would work.
For that reason, he started off with the premise that there would
not be any regulations; the statutes would have to be complete and
functional. The other aspect of this section is the realization
that this particular program may not work. It is somewhat of an
experiment. He explained other states are trying it, most notably
California. He felt it was important that the legislature does
come back after a year or two of experience with this. He did not
feel that the adoption of Amendment 5 would cause this program not
to work, but he did feel it would cause the legislature to take a
somewhat laissez faire attitude towards the statute. He stated it
seems there is the tendency to say "well, we will let them work
that problem out in regulation, and let it go." He remarked that
it forces us to take what is in the amendment very seriously.
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated with all due respect to his good
colleague from district 32 and his abilities, he felt it would be
impossible to be so thorough to plan every contingency for the
possible success of a piece of legislation. He indicated because
of that, by not adopting Amendment 5, we are tying hands on
possibly even insignificant issues that cause such projects to
fail. He added these were his concerns, when that type of language
is inserted.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES disagreed with Representative Brice and stated
she supported the idea of coming back and making a legislative
decision on anything that does not work. She inquired as to the
three levels of decisions that affect the way state business is
run. There is a statute, which is the underlining law, then there
are regulations which also are law, and policies as well. If any
of those things that you mentioned would arise, that you would be
able to have a policy until there could be a legislative change.
She said she was uncomfortable with writing a statute, within the
length of time that we write statutes, that would encompass
absolutely everything. She stated she had mixed feelings about
this issue because the regulation process we have currently does
not seem to be working. She noted she was not directing that
comment specifically to the Department of Public Safety, but in
general. She stated in her evaluation, writing regulations are
what the Administration does. This is where most of the time and
energy is spent. She added this is also where most of the laws are
being made.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS noted he had been watching legislation go
through the process, which is a very timely process, where a lot of
egos get in the way and games are played. He expressed concern
that the public will hurt, if we have to wait a legislative session
to get this changed to where it will work, rather than have to call
in experts. He stated he was not always in agreement with the
regulations, but will work with them. He said he would like to see
the bill go and have it worked on. He suggested that the
Administration should construct the regulations.
MS. HENSLEY stated it has always been the department's intent, as
well as the DMV's intent, to work with the legislators on
regulations. The DMV would include legislative input on any
regulations that would be adopted as a result of this legislation
passing.
Number 529
CHAIRMAN DAVIS indicated his support for the inclusion of Amendment
5. He stated he was is support of eliminating regulations and
incorporating things into statute. He asked Ms. Hensley, "on a
scale from 1 to 10, how inclusive is this piece of legislation as
far as not needing regulations."
MS. HENSLEY stated it is just about where we (indisc.) she was not
sure if the DMV would even have to adopt a regulation. Policies
may then have to become a regulation, if the department can't get
statute change. If they came back for a statute change to
implement that, then the regulation is a moot point. However,
unless they do that, there may be some problems. Based on
everything the department has looked at, this piece of legislation
is quite intensive, as well as extensive. From her viewpoint, the
department would not have to adopt many, if any, regulations to
implement this program.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS referred to the contract formats in the bill, and
asked if there is any availability in the contract formats to make
changes, should the federal government pass down some mandates
relating to this. He questioned whether or not it is within the
contract to make changes.
MS. HENSLEY said no, there is not. The contracts are set in
statute and law. These will be the contracts that they have to
abide by. Any changes that are requested, would require the DMV to
return to the legislature and request a change, unless a regulation
could be adopted to include that into the contract.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS said, "that would be my major concern, because this
division...the business being taken care of in this legislation...
has the federal government dealing with it to a certain degree also
and we can't control the changes that they make that may require
changes on our part."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she did not think if we have those
contracts in statute, that they can be changed by regulation. By
deleting this section we have not said that regulations can change
the contracts. She felt the statute will dictate.
MS. HENSLEY stated Representative James was correct. She commented
that the DMV has decided that they would not work on it with this
committee, but would take it up in the House State Affairs
Committee, regarding the contracts. The Department of Law has some
problems with the contracts being in statute, due to the changes
that are always being made, especially with the DMV and the federal
hand that they have over them. She suggested putting in statute
what the legislature would like for the DMV to have in a contract,
but the contract, itself, not be in the statute, because of all the
changes being made.
Number 546
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referenced the various sections throughout the
bill that reflect back to statements such as "as required by the
department," "provided for by the department", etc. He indicated
the department has to have the ability to form the more intricate
statements. He suggested this is what happens in regulations. He
felt that type of language might cause the department some
inability to work the various mandates of the bill.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS commented that was a good point. He asked if there
was further debate on Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she still objected.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked for a roll call vote on Amendment 5.
Representatives MacLean, Williams and Brice were in support.
Representative James and Davis were opposed to Amendment 5.
He announced Amendment 5 passed. He asked Ms. Hensley to address
the issue of why there was no fiscal note with the bill.
Number 595
MS. HENSLEY explained when the DMV first reviewed this bill, it was
their understanding they would have a mandate where they would have
no option as to whether they could look at an area and determine
whether or not it would be cost effective for them to contract with
an agent, or whether it would be cost effective for the state to
continue with the DMV services that are provided. She indicated in
some areas there may be both. The first initial fiscal note they
prepared was "unbelievable" because of the oversight they would be
required to have. It was not going to be a cost savings to the
state to contract with individuals. She said that is why we have
worked with the sponsor in deleting the word "shall" and inserting
the word "may" so they would have some leeway and would not be a
mandate that this will be done.
MS. HENSLEY added with this particular draft that was before the
committee, the fiscal note would be zero. However, Ms. Hensley
said she did want to go on record and say "that as we develop these
contracts with the various agents, and if we see that it is costing
for us to have the oversight and have the audit trails that we must
have, especially when you're looking at the division bringing in
$34 million or $36 million a year, those audit trails and that
accounting needs to be there. There needs to be some training
done. So, if we see and as those contracts increase, and we cannot
absorb it within the existing staff that we have, we would like to
go on record and say we will be coming back for an increment in the
budget to address those issues, but right now the fiscal note would
be zero." She indicated she would provide a fiscal note to the
committee the following day.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated the fiscal note will be accepted as a verbal
statement that it would be a zero fiscal note and will look for a
written statement in the near future.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referenced Version R of the bill, which
contains the word "shall." He thought there was another version
that read "may."
MS. HENSLEY explained that was one of the recommendations the DMV
had made. She thought it was an oversight when this went to the
drafter after their conversation. She recommended that on page 1,
line 7, the word "shall" be deleted and insert the word "may."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move Amendment 6.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection. Hearing none,
Amendment 6 passed. He said he would entertain a motion to move
CSHB 210(TRA) as amended out of the House Transportation Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move CSHB 210(TRA), Version
R, as amended out of the House Transportation Committee with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection. Hearing none, CSHB
210 (TRA) as amended was passed out of the House Transportation
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Transportation Committee, Chairman Davis adjourned the meeting at
2:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|