Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/04/1996 03:00 PM 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
May 4, 1996
3:00 p.m.
TAPES
SFC-96, #109, Sides 1 (500 - 575)
SFC-96, #109, Side 2 (575 - end)
SFC-96, #110, Side 1 (000 - 360)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chairman, reconvened the meeting at
approximately 3:00 p.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chairman Halford, Senators Donley,
Phillips, Sharp, and Zharoff were present. Co-chairman
Frank and Senator Rieger arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
ALSO ATTENDING: Laurie Otto, Deputy Attorney General,
Criminal Division, Dept. of Law; Marie Sansone, Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Division, Legislation and
Regulations Section, Dept. of Law; Juanita Hensley, Chief,
Driver Services, Dept. of Public Safety; Mike Burns, Section
Chief, Municipal Grants Section, Division of Facility
Construction & Operation, Dept. of Environmental
Conservation; Diane Shriner, Division of Elections, Office
of the Lt. Governor; Julie Tauriainen, aide to
Representative Gary Davis; Patti Swenson, aide to
Representative Bunde; Richard Vitale, aide to Representative
Parnell; and aides to committee members and other members of
the legislature.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 211 - VOTER REGISTRATION & ELECTIONS
Discussion was had with Patti Swenson and Diane
Shriner. Amendment No. 1 was adopted and
incorporated within SCS CSHB 211 (Fin)
which was subsequently REPORTED OUT of
committee with a $32.2 fiscal note from
the Office of the Governor/Division of
Elections.
HB 314 - VIOLATING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDERS
Work draft SCS CSHB 314 "J" version, dated 5/4/96,
was adopted as the mark-up vehicle. Richard Vitale
and Laurie Otto testified. Ms. Otto commenced a
sectional review of the bill, progressing from
Sec. 1 through 22 prior to recess of the meeting.
HB 401 - REVENUE BONDS: WATER AND WASTE PROJECTS
Co-chairman Halford explained the purpose of the
bill. CSHB 401 (Res) was subsequently REPORTED OUT
of committee with zero fiscal notes from the
Dept. of Environmental Conservation and the
Dept. of Revenue.
HB 517 - MOTOR VEHICLES: REGULATION AND INSURANCE
Julie Tauriainen and Juanita Hensley testified.
An amendment by Senator Donley was adopted for
incorporation within a SCS CSHB 517 (Fin) which
was REPORTED OUT of committee with zero fiscal
notes from the Dept. of Public Safety and the
Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 517(TRA)(title am)
An Act relating to motor vehicle records and hearings
of the Department of Public Safety; increasing the
period under which a person may drive a motor vehicle
under a temporary permit; relating to ownership of
certain abandoned motor vehicles; relating to
suspension or revocation of a motor vehicle
registration or special permit; relating to renewal of
a driver's license by mail; relating to procedures
applicable to administrative revocation of a driver's
license; relating to commercial driver training
schools; increasing the property damage amounts for
proof of financial responsibility and proof of motor
vehicle eligibility in order to lawfully operate a
motor vehicle in the state; amending the definition of
`commercial motor vehicle'; relating to prohibited
operation of a commercial motor vehicle and to
disqualification from driving a commercial motor
vehicle; relating to certain notifications in accidents
involving property damage; relating to motor vehicle
registration procedures; and providing for an effective
date.
Co-chairman Halford directed that CSHB 517 (TRA)(title am)
be brought on for discussion. JULIE TAURIAINEN, aide to
Representative Gary Davis, came before committee. She
explained that the legislation was requested by the Dept. of
Public Safety. It addresses two areas:
1. The first relates to federal mandates required to
gain compliance with federal regulations relating
to federal motor carrier safety act programs,
grant requirements, and the commercial
vehicle safety act. Failure to adopt these
provisions may result in sanctions of 5
percent of federal ISTEA moneys and funding
from the motor carrier safety assistance
grant. The state may cumulatively lose $20
million.
2. Housekeeping measures which will increase
efficiency within Dept. of Public Safety
operations, save costs, and expedite
services to the public.
Senator Donley directed attention to Amendment No. 1 and
explained that it applies to the housekeeping portion of the
bill. He referenced the current financial responsibility
act. He then explained that in accidents incurring over
$500 in damages for which an individual does not have
insurance coverage or fails to pay for damages, the
individual's license is subject to suspension. The proposed
bill would raise the level of damage to $1,500. Senator
Donley suggested that was bad public policy. The amendment
establishes the threshold at $501.
Current law requires that accidents with damages totaling
over $500 must be reported. The bill proposes to raise that
amount to $1,500. That is reasonable. The second portion
of the amendment would increase that threshold to $2,000
simply to reduce the amount of paperwork in instances where
no one was injured and there was no problem surrounding the
accident.
Senator Donley spoke against raising both of the foregoing
thresholds equally. While increase of one merely reduces
paperwork, the other has the substantive effect of allowing
individuals to drive without insurance or avoid paying for
damages in automobile accidents.
END: SFC-96, #109, Side 1
BEGIN: SFC-96, #109, Side 2
Senator Donley noted that the proposed amendment resets the
financial responsibility threshold at $501 rather than the
statutory $500 in order to remain within title language and
avoid need for the resolution and vote accompanying a title
change. He then MOVED for adoption of Amendment No. 1. Co-
chairman Halford OBJECTED.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Dept. of Public
Safety, came before committee in support of the bill. Mrs.
Hensley pointed to budgetary reductions over a number of
years and explained that the proposed increase of the
financial responsibility threshold from $500 to $1,500 would
be the first since 1977. Prior to that time, the limit of
reportable damage was $200. The increase does not mean that
individuals do not have to carry insurance. Prior to
registering a vehicle, the department requires certification
(on the vehicle registration application) that the vehicle
is covered by insurance for liability limits required by
law. Failure to maintain insurance following application
would result in unsworn falsification for which prosecution
may occur. Mrs. Hensley said she did not have a problem
with the latter portion of Amendment No. 1 (Page 2, lines 8
through 16). She expressed a preference for maintaining the
limitation at which a driver license would be suspended at
$1,500 to provide more efficient operation of the
department. She attested to the fact that $500 in damage
could be merely "a little ding in a door." She then
distributed photos evidencing $2,800 in vehicle damage.
Mrs. Hensley next attested to impact of the present $500
limit on the Dept. of Law, the Court System, and Dept. of
Corrections.
The proposed $1,500 threshold has nothing to do with whether
or not an individual has insurance. The department would
continue to suspend the driver license if an individual
fails to submit proof of insurance at the $1,500 limit. The
affidavit of insurance would also continue to be a
requirement at the time of registration.
Senator Donley suggested that the real issue is, "At what
level or amount of damage do we want somebody to be able to
escape any sanction for, without paying for, and without
having insurance for?" The amount of the accident damage is
irrelevant. The Senator further spoke to enforcement
problems associated with the higher threshold.
Senator Donley mentioned that fiscal notes do not reflect
cost savings from increased thresholds. He reiterated that
the bill would have a detrimental impact on constituents who
are hit by an uninsured driver and sustain $1,400 in damage
for which there is no state enforcement of statutory
violations. Mrs. Hensley again attested to efficiencies to
be gained by the increase. Police departments often do not
respond to an accident unless there is $1,500 to $2,500 in
damage. Many accidents are presently unreported. Senator
Donley acknowledged that reporting is not mandatory. He
reiterated that the proposed amendment would provide the
option of reporting an accident when an individual has
broken the law.
Mrs. Hensley noted that the financial responsibility section
(four positions) in driver services was deleted from the
Governor's budget. The budget also indicates that the
division of motor vehicles, driver services section, was
eliminating the financial responsibility section that
suspends the at-fault driver in motor vehicle accidents. It
also states that the division would continue to process
suspensions for failure to have insurance, but that it would
do so at the $1,500 limit.
Discussion followed regarding a determination of damage at
the point of accident.
Senator Donley cautioned that if the bill passes as
presently drafted, "Everybody out there . . . will know that
you don't have to have auto insurance as long as you don't
do more than $1,500 worth of damage." There will be
absolutely no enforcement of insurance requirements.
In response to a question from Senator Randy Phillips, Mrs.
Hensley said that department opposition to Amendment No. 1
is based on the amount of paperwork involved in the license
suspension process when damage is not substantial. The
division of insurance reports the average claim in Alaska,
three years ago, was $1,600.
Senator Donley said that increasing the mandatory reporting
level to $2,000 would save considerable paperwork when there
is no problem. The increase to $1,500 focuses on problem
damages. The issue is compliance with the law which
requires two things:
1. Insurance coverage
2. Payment for damage.
He suggested that an individual who does only $10.00 worth
of damage should not be excused from auto insurance
requirements.
Co-chairman Halford asked if an accident report would have
to be filed if the accident resulted in $2,000 but the
individual at fault paid for repairs. Mrs Hensley responded
affirmatively. She explained that two separate statutes are
involved:
1. The financial responsibility act.
2. Mandatory insurance law.
The financial responsibility act says that an individual who
causes $500 or more in damages in an accident and does not
have insurance will have his or her license suspended by the
department. There is parallel suspension. One suspension
requires the individual to pay for damages. The other
requires everyone to have insurance. A driver can be
suspended for being at fault and causing the damage. He or
she can also be suspended for not having liability
insurance. If the damage is paid, the issue of lack of
insurance remains. The individual will have to deal with
suspension for that violation and will have to "file SR 22
at $500." Senator Donley said the question is, At what
level does enforcement occur?. Under the proposed bill, the
department would, in effect, no longer enforce financial
responsibility. Enforcement of mandatory auto insurance
would continue.
Co-chairman Halford voiced concurrence with the department's
goal of reaching to $1,500, except for cases in which an
individual responsible for the accident does not pay. That
threshold should remain at $500. Senator Donley advised
that Amendment No. 1 would accomplish that goal. It raises
the mandatory report level to $2,000. Mrs. Hensley stressed
that the department would continue to require individuals to
sign the affidavit of insurance at the time of vehicle
registration. Approximately 11 percent of those involved in
motor vehicle crashes in Alaska are uninsured. The
department does not have the budget to implement and suspend
drivers at $501--the threshold set forth in Amendment No. 1.
The department will not be processing any financial
responsibility suspensions. The department will only
suspend drivers for not having required insurance. The only
recourse damaged drivers will have is to file suit in small
claims court for compensation for damages. Senator Donley
noted that the proposed bill would also impact enforcement
of mandatory insurance provisions by increasing the
threshold from the existing $500 to $1,500. The proposed
amendment sets the threshold at $501. Mrs. Hensley
referenced earlier attempts by the department to increase
the threshold to $1,500 and ultimate inclusion of a
negotiated $1,000 limit within an omnibus fees bill.
[Co-chairman Frank and Senator Rieger arrived at this time.]
Further discussion and examples of provisions of current law
versus changes proposed in both the present version of the
bill and Amendment No. 1 followed. Mrs. Hensley referenced
a situation wherein the injured driver had no insurance, and
the driver causing the damage failed to pay and also had no
insurance. She advised that three suspensions would issue.
Two to the driver causing the damage for failure to pay and
lack of insurance, and the third to the uninsured driver
whose vehicle sustained damage. She further advised that
the department receives approximately 20,000 accident
reports per year. Senator Donley said that the proposed
amendment should significantly reduce the number. Reports
that are received will be focused on problem accidents.
In response to a question from Senator Zharoff, Senator
Donley explained that a decrease in reporting would occur
because reporting would be optional up to $2,000. At the
present time, everything over $500 is mandated.
Co-chairman Halford called for a show of hands on Amendment
No. 1. Amendment No. 1 was ADOPTED on a vote of 4 to 3
(Senators Donley, Frank, Rieger, and Sharp were in support).
Senator Donley MOVED that SCS CSHB 517 (Fin) pass from
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes. No objection having been raised, SCS CSHB 517
(Fin) was REPORTED OUT of committee with zero fiscal notes
from the Dept. of Public Safety and Dept. of Transportation
and Public Facilities. Co-chairman Frank and Senators
Donley, Rieger, and Sharp signed the committee report with a
"do pass" recommendation. Co-chairman Halford and Senators
Phillips and Zharoff signed "no recommendation."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 211(FIN)
An Act relating to voter registration and to state
election administration.
Co-chairman Halford directed that CSHB 211 (Fin) be brought
on for discussion. PATTI SWENSON, aide to Representative
Con Bunde, came before committee. She explained that the
purpose of the bill is to meet the requirements of the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It allows
individuals to register to vote by fax, and it removes the
requirement to sign an oath at the time of voter
registration. That also applies to voters re-registering
after a period of inactivity by voting a questioned or
absentee ballot.
The legislation also changes the composition of the master
register and requires prompt removal of deceased voters and
those convicted of a felony. It improves procedures for
absentee and questioned ballot use, and clarifies ballot and
envelope descriptions. It prevents the possible perception
of a less than impartial data review board by excluding
state employees, and it broadens who can serve on district
counting boards. The bill further clarifies tabulation and
security when counting votes and reflects the increased cost
of providing voters with printed election materials.
CSHB 211 (Fin) is a combination of HB 349 and SB 182, both
of which had committee hearings and passed from committee,
without amendments, accompanied by zero fiscal notes.
Senator Sharp MOVED for adoption of SCS CSHB 211 (9-
LS0616\Z, Chenoweth, 4/22/96), No objection having been
raised, SCS CSHB 211 (Fin) was ADOPTED.
Ms. Swenson addressed three changes to be made in the
adopted draft. She directed attention to a proposed
amendment and noted need to change terminology from "voter
registration lists" to "master register" at Page 4, line 2.
She explained that the master register would contain both
active and inactive voters.
DIANE SHRINER, Division of Elections, Office of the Lt.
Governor, spoke to the second item of the proposed
amendment. She explained that when Alaska gains compliance
with federal law, the state will not purge voters until they
have been inactive for four years. At that point, the
individuals will receive notice which allows them time to
reactivate, if they wish to do so. Thereafter, they will be
removed from the rolls four years from the date of the
notice if they do not initiate reactivation.
Ms. Swenson referenced the third area for correction (Page
9, Line 3) and advised of need to delete "oath" and insert
"declaration."
Senator Randy Phillips MOVED for adoption of the three-item
amendment. No objection having been raised, the Amendment
was ADOPTED. Senator Sharp MOVED for passage of SCS CSHB
211 (Fin) with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes. No objection having been raised, SCS CSHB 211
(Fin) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a $32.2 fiscal note
from the Division of Elections. Co-chairman Frank and
Senators Phillips, Rieger, and Sharp signed the committee
report with a "do pass" recommendation. Co-chairman Halford
and Senators Donley and Zharoff signed "no recommendation."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 401(RES)
An Act authorizing the issuance and sale of revenue
bonds to fund public wastewater systems, nonpoint
source water pollution control projects, including
solid waste management systems, and estuary
conservation and management projects; authorizing the
use of the Alaska clean water fund to pay and secure
the bonds and to pay costs related to issuance and
administration of the bonds; authorizing certain
measures to secure payment of the bonds; and amending
Rule 3, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure.
Co-chairman Halford directed that CSHB 401 (RES) be brought
on for discussion and noted that the committee had
previously reviewed the Senate version (SB 207). The
proposed bill allows for bonding based on the Alaska clean
water fund. Bonding would occur at a loss but would spread
the benefits of the clean water fund for a considerable
period of time.
Senator Zharoff MOVED for passage of CSHB 401 (Res) with
individual recommendations. No objection having been
raised, CSHB 401 (RES) was REPORTED OUT of committee with
zero fiscal notes from the Dept. of Revenue and Dept. of
Environmental Conservation. Co-chairman Halford signed the
committee report with a "do pass" recommendation. Co-
chairman Frank and Senators Donley, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp,
and Zharoff signed "no recommendation."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 314(JUD) am
An Act relating to domestic violence and to crime
victims and witnesses; and amending Rule 613, Alaska
Rules of Evidence.
Co-chairman Halford directed that CSHB 314 (Jud)am be
brought on for discussion, referenced a draft SCS CSHB 314
(9-LS1090\J, Luckhaupt, 5/4/96), and asked that staff from
the sponsor address differences between the draft and the
House bill.
RICHARD VITALE, aide to Representative Parnell, came before
committee. Senator Sharp MOVED for adoption of SCS CSHB 314
("J" version) as the mark-up bill. No objection having been
raised, SCS CSHB 314 (Fin) was ADOPTED. Mr. Vitale
requested that staff from the Dept. of Law assist in
providing a sectional analysis.
LAURIE OTTO, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Dept. of Law, came before committee and provided the
following explanation:
Sec. 1. Names the bill.
Sec. 2. Adds domestic violence to the definition of
"serious criminal offense." That allows a person to
receive full attorney fees if the individual
sues someone who hurt them.
END: SFC-96, #109, Side 2
BEGIN: SFC-96, #110, Side 1
Sec. 3. Contains a conforming amendment. It amends
stalking in the first degree so that it refers to protective
orders issued under AS 18.66 and former AS 25.35.
Sec. 4. Contains a conforming amendment which changes the
definition of "enter or remain unlawfully," in
burglary and criminal trespass statutes, to refer
to protective orders.
Sec. 5. Rewrites the crime of violating a domestic
violence protective order so that it is an A
misdemeanor to knowingly violate a condition
of a protective order by committing further
domestic violence, communicating with the
victim, etc. It contains a clarification of
current law, with references to the proposed
bill.
Sec. 6. The proposed draft deletes the previous Sec. 6
which said it is not a defense to violation of a
domestic violence restraining order that
the victim initiated the contact with
the defendant. Existing law thus
remains in place. Sec. 6 within the
draft is a conforming section relating
to "protective order."
Co-chairman Halford asked if the protective order is a new
order or a general term that includes previous orders
relating to domestic violence. Ms. Otto advised that the
term "protective order" replaces "domestic violence
restraining order" language in current law. The idea is the
same; the terminology is simply different.
Sec. 7. Contains a conforming amendment necessary as a
result of movement of protective orders from Title
25 to Title 18.
Sec. 8. Amends the statute providing grounds for arrest
without a warrant to include the mandatory arrest
provided for in Sec. 28. The significant
amendment is within the latter section.
Sec. 9. Ties into mandatory arrest in Sec. 28 and
prohibits an officer from merely issuing a citation
for crimes involving domestic violence.
Sec. 10. Recites current law relating to stalking.
Conditions for release before trial in domestic
violence cases are contained in
sections specifically related
thereto.
Sec. 11. Addresses release before trial pending sentencing
and pending appeal of a person charged or convicted of
a domestic violence offense. It requires the
court to consider the safety of the victim and the
victim's family in addition to the safety of the
public, prior to release. It also contains
additional conditions of release that may be
imposed on a defendant and requires the arresting
authority to make reasonable efforts to notify the
victim when a domestic violence defendant is
released from custody. It also requires an
individual arrested for domestic violence to
appear personally or telephonically before a
judicial officer prior to being released.
Co-chairman Halford requested an explanation of the
following language at Page 6, subsection (f):
A person may not bring a civil action for damages
for a failure to comply with the provisions of
this section.
Ms. Otto said that because the proposed bill would impose
new duties on police officers to make mandatory arrests and
for the prosecutor and correctional facility to notify the
victim before the offender is released, the above language
would allow the victim to sue for enforcement of the law,
but the victim may not sue for money damages.
Sec. 12. Requires forfeiture of weapons used in commission
of domestic violence crimes. An earlier version of
the bill also covered threatened use of a weapon
or weapons. That has been removed from this
draft. Court cases relating to actual possession
are very clear.
Sec. 13. Adds a new section to sentencing provisions to
require the court to consider the safety of the
victim before ordering probation for domestic
violence offenders. It also provides
additional conditions of probation in these
cases, including a rehabilitation program for
the offender (Page 7. lines 15 through 19) if
one is available in the community in which
the offender resides.
Sec. 14. Contains a conforming amendment per the change
from Title 25 to Title 18.
Co-chairman Halford inquired concerning assault in the
fourth degree. Ms. Otto explained that it involves causing
physical injury to a person by means other than with a
dangerous instrument. It includes placing someone in fear
of physical injury by words or physical conduct.
Sec. 15. Contains a conforming amendment.
Sec. 16. Adds a requirement (Page 8. Lines 23-24) that
prosecutors confer with victims of domestic violence
before entering a plea agreement with
the defendant.
Senator Zharoff asked what would happen in instances where
the victim has left the area. Ms. Otto referenced language
at Page 8, line 6, and noted that the prosecutor has to make
a reasonable effort to confer. If the victim is no longer
available, the department must show that it made an effort
to make contact.
Sec. 17. Adds domestic violence to offenses where the court
may decide that the threat to the victim should
prohibit the defendant, when representing him or
herself, from obtaining the address and telephone
number of the victim.
Sec. 18. Clarifies the duties of defendants and their
representatives to identify themselves to victims
and extends to victims of offenses with which the
defendant is not yet but could be charged.
Language covers situations where investigations
are ongoing, but charges have not yet been filed.
Sec. 19. Requires a defendant or his or her representative
to inform the victim if they are tape recording a
statement.
The foregoing has been law until approximately six months
ago when the Alaska Bar Association passed an ethics opinion
saying it is unethical for any lawyer, such as one
representing a victim, to secretly tape-record a statement.
However, the Association opinion says it is ethical for a
lawyer representing a criminal defendant to secretly tape-
record a statement. The bar association took that action
against the unanimous recommendation of its own ethics
committee. Sec. 19 is part of Representative Parnell's
original bill, specifically written to overturn the latter
opinion.
Sec. 20. Prohibits defendants charged with sex crimes from
contacting victims or witnesses if the victim or
witness tells the defendant, in writing, that he
or she does not wish to be contacted by the
defense. It further requires that, for those who
consent to contact, permission for recording a
statement must be audible on the tape or in
written form. Statements that violate statutes
are presumed inadmissible in court.
In response to a question from Senator Rieger, Ms. Otto said
it would be against the law to contact the victim if
notification prohibiting such contract has been provided.
In instances where contact is nonetheless made, the result
of that contract is presumed to be inadmissible. Ms. Otto
further advised that the presumption of inadmissibility
could be overcome. That is spelled out in statute. The
victim could sue if the illegal activity occurred.
Sec. 21. Sets out definitions that apply to Secs. 18 to 20.
Sec. 22. Under current law, employers who employ
individuals who have supervisory or disciplinary
power over children or dependant
adults can receive criminal records
of sex crimes and other serious
offenses from the Dept. of Public
Safety. Sec. 22 adds domestic
violence to the list of offenses
for which criminal records may be
released.
Co-chairman Halford voiced need to adjourn the present
meeting for attendance at another. He thus directed that
SCS CSHB 341 (Fin) be held for continued review.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|