Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/29/1996 09:25 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 29, 1996
9:25 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-96, #100, Side 1 and 2
SFC-96, #101, Side 1 (000-218)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chairman, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:25 a.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chairmen Halford and Frank, Senators
Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, and Zharoff were present. Senator
Donley arrived as the meeting was in progress.
ALSO ATTENDING: Representative Kay Brown; Barbara Craver,
office of the attorney for the City and Borough of Juneau;
Reed Stoops, representing MCI; Ray Gillespie, representing
AT&T/ALASCOM; Ken Erickson, aide to Senate President Pearce;
Tom Wright, aide to Representative Ivan Ivan; and aides to
committee members and other members of the legislature.
ALSO PARTICIPATING VIA TELECONFERENCE FROM ANCHORAGE: Joe
McKinnon, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Section,
Dept. of Law.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 109 - PHONE DIRECTORY LISTING/SOLICITATIONS/ADS
Testimony was presented by Representative Kay
Brown, Joe McKinnon, Reed Stoops, and Ray
Gillespie. Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were
moved. Amendments 1, 2, and 3 were adopted.
Amendment 4 failed, and Amendment 5 was before
committee when the meeting was recessed with
direction from the chairman that the sponsor
develop new language relating to a two-tiered
approach.
HB 493 - INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT:ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE
Tom Wright and Barbara Craver came before
committee to present follow-up information
subsequent to the previous hearing on the bill.
Amendments 1 and 2 were adopted. SCS CSHB 493
(Fin) was then REPORTED OUT of committee with a
$75.4 fiscal note from the Court System, an
indeterminate note from DOA(OPA), and zero notes
from DPS, DH&SS, DOA(PDA), and the Dept. of Law.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 493(JUD) am
An Act relating to treatment for alcoholism or
drug abuse.
Co-chairman Halford directed that CSHB 493(Jud) am be
brought on for discussion. Senator Rieger advised that
discussion with the sponsor indicates that the sponsor has
no problem with amendments relating to the first two issues
raised at yesterday's hearing on the bill. While the
sponsor has no problem with the third item, he pointed out
that language relating to an individual who wilfully
initiates an involuntary commitment petition is very close
to existing law which appears to be working. Senator Rieger
advised that he had prepared an amendment to cover the first
two items.
Co-chairman Halford referenced a pending motion by Senator
Zharoff for adoption of Amendment No. 1. BARBARA CRAVER,
Assistant to the Attorney for the City and Borough of
Juneau, came before committee. She explained that the
amendment would add a new section to allow a public health
facility to take custody and establish an alcohol hold on a
person for a short period of time. It would also allow for
transfer of the individual to a public treatment facility as
soon as the individual is medically stable.
In response to questions from Co-chairman Halford, Ms.
Craver said the amendment would not change time-limit
provisions. The public treatment facility would use a 48-
hour hold (existing law under AS 47.37.180). Under
subsection (c), the facility could ask the court to extend
that hold an additional three days (a total of five days).
That would require court authorization rather than merely an
administrative proceeding. For the initial 48 hours, the
health facility could hold the individual. Hopefully,
within that time the individual could be transferred to the
public treatment facility. If the individual needed to be
held longer at either a public treatment or health facility,
the public treatment administrator would notify a superior
court judge and request that the hold be extended up to
three additional days. That is usually done over the phone.
Within that period of time, the public treatment facility
would have to determine whether to release the individual at
the end of the five days or file a petition with the
superior court for 30-day involuntary alcohol commitment.
Co-chairman Halford inquired regarding the standard that
would apply should an individual file civil charges against
having been held. Ms. Craver guessed that the claim might
be false imprisonment. She said that has never happened.
The individual would have to prove that the application was
made in bad faith or on insufficient grounds. Ms. Craver
stressed that authorization to hold would be provided
through the courts. She noted that in making application to
hold, the administrator of a facility would have to provide
the court with a physician's certificate for extension
beyond 48 hours. The certificate consists of a signed
statement from the physician citing the facts upon which the
physician believes the individual is intoxicated and
incapacitated by alcohol or drugs. While the certificate
does not constitute sworn testimony, it provides the kind of
evidence upon which the court would rely.
Co-chairman Halford called for objections to Amendment No.
1. No objection having been raised, Amendment No. 1 was
ADOPTED.
Senator Rieger moved for adoption of Amendment No. 2. He
explained that the amendment addresses potential for an
unintentional increase in liability. Addition of new
language at page 5, line 9, deleting "shall provide" and
inserting "must be capable of providing," is intended to
ensure that individuals will be assigned to appropriate
facilities.
The second change at page 7, line 18, is intended to ensure
that facility administrators and peace officers will not be
held criminally or civilly liable for detaining, "or failing
to detain," or releasing an individual. Co-chairman Halford
called for objections to Amendment No. 2. No objection
having been raised, Amendment No. 2 was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Halford queried members regarding disposition of
the bill. Senator Sharp MOVED that SCS CSHB 493 (Fin) pass
from committee with accompanying fiscal notes. No objection
having been raised, SCS CSHB 493 (Fin) was REPORTED OUT of
committee with a $75.4 fiscal note from the Court System, an
indeterminate note from the Dept. of Administration (OPA),
and zero notes from the Dept. of Public Safety, Dept. of
Administration (PDA), Dept. of Law, and Dept. of Health and
Social Services.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 109(JUD)
An Act relating to telephone solicitations,
advertisements, and directory listings.
At the direction of Co-chairman Halford, CSHB 109 (Jud) was
brought on for discussion. REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN came
before committee to speak to her bill. She explained that
while telemarketers believe that federal law relating to
telephone soliciting is sufficient, she does not share that
belief and feels that the proposed bill is complementary to
and not in conflict with federal provisions. She
acknowledged that questions had been raised regarding
whether it is possible for Alaska to regulate interstate
calls. Research by the Dept. of Law indicates that two
federal acts govern the issue. The most recent indicates
that states are free to legislate in this area.
Representative Brown noted that Assistant Attorney General
Joe McKinnon was available to testify via teleconference.
She further directed attention to backup information
containing his remarks before the House Judiciary Committee.
The sponsor next referenced an amendment to include language
conforming to legislation sponsored by Senator Rieger as
well as clarification of costs and who will pay them. She
agreed that the list should "be a reasonable charge, an
incremental cost . . . to telemarketers." Representative
Brown noted that she asked that Amendment No. 1 (9-
LS0424\G.1, Cramer, 3/12/96) be drafted at the request of
the Alaska Newspaper Association. It provides that "people
who have a program have a good faith exception or . . . a
good faith defense." She further advised that she had no
objection to Amendment No. 2 proposed by Senator Pearce.
While the second amendment is "a little bit off the subject
of this bill," it fits within the context of the
legislation. She pointed to possible constitutional issues
surrounding establishment of penalties for improper use of
telephone polling. However, the amendment is narrowly
tailored and reflects a reasonable attempt to address the
problem.
Representative Brown voiced lack of support for the GCI
amendment which would not apply proposed state law to
companies regulated under federal 47 CFR, part 64. She
stressed that the amendment would "essentially gut the bill
with respect to interstate regulation" and apply it only to
intrastate calls within Alaska. That application would
drive businesses out of the state. The sponsor said she
would rather "not have the bill than have that amendment
attached to it."
Representative Brown explained that under the proposed bill
a customer could purchase, for a reasonable fee, a marking
in the phone book which says, "Don't call me." It is then
the responsibility of telemarketers to obtain that list and
run it against computerized files. The result will provide
telemarketers with listings of people who are more receptive
to telephone solicitations.
Senator Randy Phillips asked why pollsters are exempt from
the bill. He noted that polling entities are profit-
oriented businesses that directly solicit opinions via
telephone. He then asked why they should be considered
separately from other telemarketers. Representative Brown
voiced support for the exception, advising that polling
plays a role in democracy. Those covered by the bill
solicit money by phone. Senator Phillips stressed that
pollsters are paid to extract opinions via the telephone.
He said that he did not see a clear difference between
polling and other telephone solicitations that generate
profits. Representative Brown noted that pollsters do not
solicit money from people. They ask for an opinion, and
that opinion is aggregated with other opinions to give
groups or policy makers a reading on public opinion. It is
a valuable tool by which policy makers and candidates "find
out what the electorate thinks." It is thus important to
distinguish between that type of phone call and those made
to solicit business or money from people.
Senator Phillips voiced his belief the proposed bill would
appeal to those seeking to guard their privacy to the
utmost. He then questioned whether those individuals would
want to receive phone calls from either telemarketers or
pollsters. Representative Brown noted that those wishing to
avoid all telephone solicitations can presently do so by
obtaining an unlisted number. The proposed bill represents
"a middle ground that allows you to have a listed number but
put solicitors on notice that you don't wish to receive
calls in your home." It would not prohibit friends, family,
and others from easily obtaining your number and calling.
Those who want ultimate privacy will continue to obtain
unlisted numbers.
Senator Rieger voiced his belief that a large segment of
people might not want commercial calls but wish to continue
to express opinions to pollsters. He further suggested that
polling might be less objective, bias, and defeated if the
pool is too restricted.
Co-chairman Halford asked if polling is conducted by random,
numerical dialing and suggested that an unlisted number
would not provide protection from those calls.
Representative Brown acknowledged that unlisted numbers
continue to receive randomly generated calls, but the volume
is much lower than for those with publicly listed numbers.
Co-chairman Halford asked if the bill would prohibit random
numerical selection because of notations in the telephone
book. Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that it would
prohibit random selection since it will be the
responsibility of the telemarketer to obtain the list of "do
not calls" and screen out those numbers. Co-chairman
Halford advised of his hope that unlisted numbers would be
incorporated within the list of "do not calls."
Representative Brown voiced her understanding that unlisted
numbers are not given out. "Do not call" numbers will be
published in the phone book, but they will have an
identifying mark indicating they do not wish to receive
commercial solicitations. The telemarketer can obtain an
electronic copy of "do not call" numbers for the purpose of
matching it against the telemarketer's numbers, so that "do
not calls" are not solicited. Co-chairman Halford asked if
there was a way to ensure that mechanical dialing devices
will treat unlisted numbers as "do not calls." Representa-
tive Brown responded that nothing would prohibit a local
telephone company from asking unlisted customers if they
wish to be included within "do not call" lists for
telemarketers.
Co-chairman Frank advised of difficulties in making
distinctions between polling calls, commercial calls, and
charitable calls. He pointed specifically to the practice
of "push polling." He suggested that there is nothing
"pure" about polling relative to the public process, and he
proposed that perhaps two asterisks could identify those who
wish to receive neither commercial nor polling calls.
Senator Rieger noted that Amendment No. 2 by Senator Pearce
addresses that issue. Co-chairman Frank voiced his belief
that there should be no exception for polling. It should be
"lumped" in with everything else.
Co-chairman Frank further spoke to situations whereby
charities hire a telemarketing firm to conduct polls and/or
solicitations.
Senator Donley asked if legal opinions had been prepared
regarding constitutional free speech implications of
different levels of regulation. Representative Brown said
that the issue had not been researched except in relation to
Amendment No. 2 by Senator Pearce. Review indicates that
regulation should be as narrowly tailored as possible. A
supreme court decision found that anonymous fliers are
permitted. The requirement that "people disclose things is
not a proper regulatory tool." Further discussion of the
decision relating to fliers followed. Representative Brown
stressed that the federal government has regulated
commercial speech over the telephone. There is no question
about state ability to do so in a reasonable manner.
Political speech is highly protected under the constitution.
The proposed amendment is narrowly drafted in terms of
effect and enforcement. Representative Brown directed
specific attention to the four items listed on page 2 of the
amendment, and noted that all have to be present to
constitute telephone campaign misconduct.
Senator Donley referenced page 1, line 19, of Amendment No.
2 and noted lack of a complete sentence following (b).
Senator Rieger suggested that language be added to read:
The court may award damages, including punitive
damages, for a violation of this section.
Senator Donley concurred.
Senator Zharoff pointed to file material entitled "FTC News"
and
referenced information indicating that the new rule which
became effective December 31, 1995, prohibits telemarketers
from calling before 8:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m., and from
calling consumers who have said they do not want to be
called. Representative Brown explained that under federal
law each telemarketer can call a person independently. If
the consumer states he or she does not wish to be called in
the future, each company maintains a separate list. A
consumer could thus receive many calls--each from a
different company. The difference between that approach and
the proposed bill is that unwanted calls could be stopped
with a single act. The proposed bill goes further than
federal law since the federal approach does not effectively
reduce the number of calls.
Senator Donley referenced file material from MCI indicating
that Alaska is prohibited from extending state law to
interstate telephone solicitations. Representative Brown
cited two acts whereby the federal government has regulated
the activity. The most recent states:
Nothing contained therein shall prohibit an
authorized state official from proceeding in state
court on the basis of an alleged violation of any
civil or criminal statute of such state.
JOE McKINNON, Assistant Attorney General, Dept. of Law, next
spoke via teleconference from Anchorage. He acknowledged
that the issue in question represents a "gray area."
Separate federal acts address the issue. The 1991 Act
speaks to automatic dialing devices and artificial, pre-
recorded voice systems. It provides for FCC adoption of
rules regarding "do not call" regulations. Pursuant
thereto, the FCC adopted regulations which require each
company to maintain a list of those who have asked not to be
called. Three years later, Congress enacted the
Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of
1994--a more comprehensive act dealing with telemarketing in
general. It requires disclosures to be made, places
restrictions on hours, sets record keeping requirements,
etc. Regulations adopted by the Federal Trade Commission
also include "do not call" rules which are essentially the
same as the 1991 Act. Gray areas stem from the fact that
each law takes a slightly different approach to state
preemption. The 1991 Act specifically states that it does
not preempt any state law which imposes more restrictive
intrastate requirements. That seems to imply that
interstate jurisdiction is federal. However, the 1994 Act
specifically authorizes state officials to proceed under any
state civil or criminal statute. The National Association
of Attorney Generals interprets that as a statement of non-
preemption as did the Federal Trade Commission in its
regulations. It thus appears that the two federal statutes
conflict on the issue of state preemption. The Alaska Dept.
of Law has concluded that since the 1994 Act is more
detailed, more comprehensive, and more recent in time,
courts would look to it to determine whether or not state
preemption exists. If a court challenge were brought, it
would start with the presumption that Congress did not
intend to preempt state law; that federal jurisdiction is
limited. Based on the interplay of the two statutes, it is
believed that the court would give more weight to the more
recent statement of Congress, given the fact that the 1991
Act is fairly ambiguous. Mr. McKinnon advised that while
this is indeed a gray area, the Dept. of Law has concluded
that the state would more than likely prevail in asserting
jurisdiction.
Senator Donley asked if other states had exercised authority
in the area. Mr. McKinnon voiced his understanding that
Florida and Oregon have enacted statutes similar to that
proposed for Alaska. There have been no court tests of
those statutes.
REED STOOPS came before committee on behalf of MCI. He
distributed correspondence and an attached legal memorandum
from western counsel which speaks to applicability of
proposed legislation to interstate telemarketing. Mr.
Stoops also distributed a summary of the telephone consumer
protection act, FCC regulations adopted pursuant to the act,
and FTC advisory bulletins on the same subject.
Mr. Stoops explained that in addition to the "do not call"
list required to be kept by each individual company,
adherence to hours during which calls are prohibited, and
prohibition against auto-dialers, an industry list is also
purchased by most of the 3,600 major interstate marketers.
While there is a mandatory "do not call" list, there is also
a voluntary industry vehicle by which individuals may be
identified without having to talk with each individual
company.
MCI concerns relate to belief that the state is prohibited
from adopting regulations of this sort in conflict with the
telephone consumer protection act. Testimony before the FCC
focused on the balance between the rights of telemarketers
to conduct interstate commerce versus the right of consumers
to protect their privacy.
END: SFC-96, #100, Side 1
BEGIN: SFC-96, #100, Side 2
If every state was allowed to adopt provisions similar to
those in the proposed bill, national telemarketers would
annually have to consult every phone directory in the United
States to determine who is on the "do not call" list. That
is too burdensome and too expensive. For MCI, telemarketing
was one means by which the company grew to a size where it
could compete with AT&T.
The amendment suggested by MCI would exempt companies
regulated by and in compliance with federal law. Adoption
would not "gut the bill" in that it would continue to apply
to nonprofits, in-state marketing, and out-of-state
companies that are not in compliance with federal
regulations.
In his closing remarks, Mr. Stoops noted that new technology
incorporated within the "caller I.D. service" being
implemented by telephone companies in Alaska will allow
consumers to screen calls coming into their homes.
RAY GILLESPIE next came before committee on behalf of
AT&T/Alascom. He voiced support for consumers who wish to
avoid unwanted phone calls. However, given comprehensive
federal laws and regulations, AT&T/Alascom feels the
proposed bill is unnecessary since it duplicates and goes
beyond federal requirements. It would also be costly and
burdensome. Mr. Gillespie attested to difficulties involved
in dealing with different requirements in 50 different
states.
Existing federal law is tough. Violation can result in a
$10,000 penalty. The federal act specifically empowers each
state attorney general to enforce federal law in each state.
Mr. Gillespie concurred in earlier comments that federal law
would preempt HB 109 provisions which purport to regulate
interstate telemarketing. The FCC rejected use of
specifically marked telephone directories and instead
ordered industry based, company specific "do not call" lists
for the following reasons:
1. It was the most effective and efficient way to
permit telephone subscribers to avoid unwanted
telephone solicitations.
2. Company specific "do not call" lists would impose
the cost of protecting consumer privacy on the
telemarketer rather than on telephone exchanges.
3. Specific "do not call" lists are more likely to be
accurate than a national data base because a
single party is responsible.
The FCC concluded that the option of special marketing
directories combines the disadvantages of maximum costs to
all participants with the minimum potential effectiveness
and is, therefore, not a suitable means of accomplishing the
goals of federal law.
Mr. Gillespie voiced support for the amendment proposed by
GCI and MCI.
Senator Rieger said he had no objection to Amendment No. 1
(9-LS0424\G.1) which he explained creates a duty of care on
a company conducting telephone solicitations but includes
hold harmless provisions if the company has an employee who
inadvertently makes an improper telephone solicitation.
Senator Zharoff raised a question regarding how the
amendment reads. Representative Brown voiced her
understanding that a company would not be in violation of
standard reckless disregard provisions if it complied with
the requirements set forth in subsections (1) through (4).
There is a similar provision in federal law. Telemarketers
indicated they would feel more comfortable with standards
spelled out in state law as well.
Co-chairman Frank attested to need to add language
indicating that "corrective disciplinary action has been
implemented." Senator Donley moved for adoption of the
following new language as an amendment to the amendment:
Between Lines 13 and 14 add a new subsection (5):
(5) the person has taken corrective action to
prevent continued violations.
Co-chairman Frank noted need to indicate that the problem
has been brought to the employer's attention. Co-chairman
Halford concurred in need for the employer to be aware of
the problem before corrective action can be taken.
Senator Rieger suggested that reference to corrective action
be included as additional language within subsection (1).
Senator Donley withdrew his proposed amendment to the
amendment. Senator Rieger then moved to add the following
language to subsection (1) at line 7:
After "section," add:
including corrective actions, where appropriate;
Co-chairman Halford called for objections to the amendment
to Amendment No. 1. No objection having been raised, the
amendment to Amendment No. 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Halford then called for objection to adoption of
Amendment No. 1. No objection having been raised, Amendment
No. 1 was ADOPTED.
Senator Rieger MOVED for adoption of Amendment No. 2
(Senator Pearce's amendment, 9-LS0424\G.3) with the
following change at page 1, line 19:
Following the word "damages," add:
for a violation of this section.
Senator Donley raised a question regarding citation of AS
15.56.110(b) at line 22 of the amendment. KEN ERICKSON,
aide to Senator Pearce, came before committee. He explained
that the citation lists actions of a governing body. If one
is found guilty of violation of this section, it lists what
would happen thereafter. The governing body, in this case
the legislature, would hold a vote, and the individual would
be expelled from his or her seat by a two-thirds vote.
Senator Randy Phillips suggested that provisions within
Amendment No. 2 appear more appropriate to campaign reform
legislation. Co-chairman Halford noted that the amendment
would require a title change for HB 109. He voiced support
for the intent of the amendment but suggested that "a title
amendment may not do this bill any good at this point." He
then asked if the amendment would fit within the title of
legislation dealing with campaign reform. Co-chairman Frank
expressed reluctance to effect a title change that might
jeopardize passage of the bill. Senator Rieger concurred,
advising that he would abide by the wishes of either the
sponsor or the Co-chairman as to whether they wished to add
the amendment to a different vehicle.
Co-chairman Frank voiced support for the thrust of Amendment
No. 2 but raised a question regarding language at page 2,
lines 9 and 10. He suggested that subsection (4) would be
difficult to prove. Ken Erickson explained that the intent
was to make language mirror slander statutes. Co-chairman
Frank raised concern that the language might render the
amendment ineffective in application because it is "so
complicated . . . and vague that it can't be enforced."
Determination should rest merely upon whether statements are
true or false. That is the easier standard to prove. The
damaged candidate should not have to prove that statements
damaged his or her reputation for honesty, integrity, or
qualifications. Proving that statements by an opponent are
false should be sufficient. The Co-chairman suggested that
subsection (4) be removed from the amendment. Mr. Erickson
cautioned that the result of removal would be to "protect
candidates more than the average person." Co-chairman Frank
noted that the situation involves two candidates running for
office rather than private individuals. The integrity of
the electoral process is at stake. The Co-chairman
suggested that the same high test for slander should not
necessarily be applied in this instance since motivation for
private individuals to defame one another is not the same as
in the political arena. He said he was not necessarily
focusing upon damage to the individual candidate so much as
damage to the electoral process through manipulation and
distortion. The process is destroyed if false statements
are allowed to go unchallenged and unprosecuted. If an
individual makes a false statement, he or she should be held
accountable, regardless of whether or not it destroys a
candidate's integrity.
Representative Brown said she could live with the amendment
either way. She voiced support for the higher standard,
noting that the amendment ventures into a gray area in terms
of attempts to regulate political speech which is highly
protected under the constitution. Public officials are not
subject to slander with respect to public records and
reputation. As an example, she cited a school board
association flier which listed numerous people who the flier
indicated voted against education because of final votes on
the budget. What may be true or false is not always clear
cut. While members voted against the bill, it was not a
fair statement to characterize the vote as one against
education.
In developing Amendment No. 2, the drafter attempted to
craft narrowly tailored language that serves the legitimate
interest of the state. Removal of subsection (4) would
broaden language that attempts to achieve a balance.
Ken Erickson cautioned against inclusion of more stringent
protections for candidates that make them appear more
protected than the average citizen.
Co-chairman Frank formally MOVED to delete subsection (4) at
page 2, lines 9 and 10, of Amendment No. 2. Senator Donley
objected, saying that criminal law involves "a whole
different standard of specificity . . . ." It may be
appropriate to include subsection (4) language. Co-chairman
Halford called for a show of hands on adoption of the
amendment to Amendment No. 2. The motion carried on a vote
of 4 to 3, and the amendment to Amendment No. 2 was ADOPTED.
Senator Zharoff referenced application to municipal,
borough, state legislative, and gubernatorial races and
asked why it would not apply to statewide races. Mr.
Erickson responded that federal law would preempt in
congressional races.
Senator Randy Phillips again asked whether the proposed
amendment should be placed within campaign reform
legislation. Co-chairman Halford asked if House support for
HB 109 was sufficient so that a title change would not mean
it would fail to pass. Representative Brown said she saw
both advantages and disadvantages to inclusion of Amendment
No. 2.
Co-chairman Halford called for a show of hands on adoption
of Amendment No. 2 as amended. Amendment No. 2 was ADOPTED
on a vote of 6 to 0 (Senator Sharp was temporarily absent
from the meeting).
Senator Rieger MOVED for adoption of Amendment No. 3 which
he said clarifies that the charge to the consumer for the
cost of identification as a "do not call" will be subject to
review and approval by the Alaska Public Utilities
Commission. No objection having been raised, Amendment No.
3 was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Halford voiced a preference for a two-tiered
system which identifies those who do not want commercial
calls and those who wish to avoid all solicitations.
Co-chairman Frank directed attention to page 3, lines 2 and
3, of CSHB 109(Jud) and suggested that subsection (iii) be
deleted so that polling is "lumped in with solicitations
that a person can choose not to receive." He voiced his
belief that polling should not remain an exception, saying
that if people are not interested in receiving
solicitations, they are probably not interested in opinion
polls as well. He then formally MOVED to delete subsection
(iii). Representative Brown voiced opposition to removal.
She reiterated her view that failing to provide an exception
for polling would make it impossible to get an unbiased
sample since fewer people would be included. She added that
language relating to soliciting the expression of ideas or
opinions or votes goes beyond polling. The Representative
noted that she had called individuals in her district to ask
for their vote and evaluate opinions. That is an important
part of an elected representative's ability to reach out to
his or her constituency. Representative Brown voiced a
preference for the approach embodied within an amendment by
Senator Sharp which would "take the nonprofits . . . [and]
put them into the category that are not covered, as well,"
rather than removing the exception for polling.
Co-chairman Halford noted that subsection (iii) does not
merely relate to polling. It includes solicitation of the
expression of ideas or opinions as well. He suggested that
"polling" and "or votes" could be removed from the language
so as to retain ability for legislators to call constituents
and ask opinions, etc. Co-chairman Frank agreed that it was
not his intent to limit a legislator's ability to contact
constituents and seek opinions. He further noted, however,
that those who do not wish to be solicited also seek relief
from pollsters.
END: SFC-96, #100, Side 2
BEGIN: SFC-96, #101, Side 1
Co-chairman Halford voiced his belief that there should be
two levels of identification. One for those who see to
avoid all solicitations and another for those who do not
mind calls from pollsters and charities. The two standards
are: marketing versus information and charities. The
public should have the right to say no to both if it chooses
to do so.
Senator Phillips reiterated his view that both pollsters and
telemarketers receive payment for calls they place. He
advised that he did not see the distinction between the two.
Co-chairman Halford voiced support for elimination of the
polling portion of subsection (iii). Discussion followed
between Co-chairmen Halford and Frank regarding the
difference between polling and soliciting ideas and
opinions. Co-chairman Halford called for a show of hands on
the motion for deletion of subsection (iii). The motion
(Amendment No. 4) failed on a vote of three to four.
Co-chairman Frank moved that language within subsection
(iii) be amended (Amendment No. 5) by removing "polling or"
and "or votes" so the subsection would read:
calls limited to soliciting the expression of
ideas or opinions.
In the course of subsequent discussion, Co-chairman Frank
concurred in need for a two-tiered identification system.
He then asked that the sponsor develop that language.
Representative Brown expressed a preference for the bill in
its present form but agreed to work with the drafter on new
language.
Speaking to the suggested change within subsection (iii),
the sponsor stressed that polling is different than
soliciting votes by telephone. She noted that solicitation
of votes by phone is much less intrusive than going door to
door. She further attested to the positive reception her
past phone solicitations had received. Co-chairman Frank
said he had no objection to calls from candidates. Problems
stem from calls from volunteers of charitable or political
organizations.
Co-chairman Halford noted the approaching Senate floor
session and asked that the sponsor work on the issue within
subsection (iii) as well as two-tiered provisions. He
raised concern that it would appear to be "very self-serving
to leave in the ability to poll and take out the ability for
charities to fund raise, unless we're going to separate the
categories." The sponsor voiced support for withdrawal of
Amendment No. 5 and adoption of a proposed amendment by
Senator Sharp, instead. The bill would then apply to
commercial calls and not attempt to limit other calls.
Senator Rieger noted that charitable organization language
within the bill is narrower than most people realize in that
charitable staff or volunteers could only call members of
the organization or others if they have made a contribution
in the last 24 months. It is intended to apply only to
those who are certain to be favorably disposed to the call.
Senator Randy Phillips suggested that the diminishing nature
of the list, as people move or die, would render it
unworkable. He voiced support for the amendment by Senator
Sharp which would widen opportunities for non-profit,
charitable organizations. Co-chairman Halford reiterated
the inconsistency involved in protecting a political tool
while not protecting charitable fund raising. He again
stressed need for a two-tiered system. Senator Sharp said
that language in subsection (ii) would allow professional
solicitors "to hustle charitable organizations to get a
piece of the action." He noted that he was attempting to
curtail that activity.
Senator Zharoff cautioned that senior citizen, veterans'
groups, and political organizations which encourage people
to vote should not be impacted by narrow language.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:05 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|