Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/06/1994 01:40 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
April 6, 1994
1:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator George Jacko
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
OTHERS PRESENT
Senator Bert Sharp
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 293
"An Act relating to the authority of the commissioner of natural
resources to reconvey, or relinquish an interest in, land to the
United States if that land or interest being reconveyed or
relinquished is identified in an amended application for a land
allotment under federal law."
SENATE BILL NO. 370
"An Act providing an exemption from gambling laws for gambling
conducted by cruise ships for their ticketed passengers in the
offshore water of the state outside of ports; defining `cruise
ship'; and providing for the licensing of certain cruise ships
before they can conduct gambling in the offshore water of the
state."
HOUSE BILL NO. 373
"An Act relating to investments of the permanent fund involving
equity interests in and debt obligations secured by mortgages on
real estate; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 333
"An Act relating to disclosure of close economic associations by
certain state employees and to the prohibition against nepotism in
the executive branch of state government; and providing for an
effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 342
"An Act relating to risk based capital for insurers; and providing
for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 127
"An Act authorizing capital punishment, classifying murder in the
first degree as a capital felony, and establishing sentencing
procedures for capital felonies; authorizing an advisory vote on
instituting capital punishment; and providing for an effective
date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 293 - See Resources minutes dated 3/23/94.
SB 370 - No previous action to record.
HB 373 - No previous action to record.
SB 333 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/16/94.
SB 342 - See Labor & Commerce minutes dated 3/15/94.
SB 127 - See Judiciary minutes dated 11/16/93 and 2/7/94.
WITNESS REGISTER
Bryce Edgmon, Aide
Senator George Jacko
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 293.
Tom Hawkins, Senior Vice-President
Bristol Bay Native Corporation
P.O. Box 100220
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 293.
Don Stolworthy, Director
Charitable Gaming Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110440
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0440
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 370.
Tom Dow
Princess Tours
2815 2nd Ave., Suite 400
Seattle, Washington 98119
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 370.
Bill Scott, Executive Director
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 25500
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5500
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 373.
Randy Welker, Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
P.O. Box 11330
Juneau, Alaska 99811-3300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 333.
Kevin Richie, Director
Division of Personnel/EEO
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110201
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 333.
Dave Walsh, Director
Division of Insurance
Dept. of Commerce & Economic Development
P.O. Box 110805
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 342.
Jerry Reinwand
2 Marine Way #219
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 370.
Susan Burke, Attorney
Gross & Burke
424 North Franklin
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 370.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-30, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:40 p.m.
(Due to a malfunction in the taping of the first tape of the
committee meeting, the minutes for SB 293 have been compiled from
the log notes, a newspaper article from the December 24, 1993 issue
of THE BRISTOL BAY TIMES, the ANCSA Technical Amendment Package,
and correspondence from BBNA-Realty and the Bristol Bay Native
Corporation.)
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SB 293 (NATIVE ALLOTMENTS ON STATE LAND)
and invited the sponsor, SENATOR GEORGE JACKO, to review the bill.
SENATOR JACKO explained the bill would resolve long-standing Native
allotment applications in Wood-tikchik State Park, the state is
proposing two options that will circumvent federal adjudication and
quicken the process. The state Department of Natural Resources is
offering to relocate allotments in the state park to unencumbered
parcels of equal size anywhere in the state.
There was a discussion between SENATOR TAYLOR and SENATOR JACKO
about which state lands would be exchanged, the value basis of the
exchanged land, and whether it would be an acre for acre exchange.
SENATOR JACKO explained it would be on an acre for acre exchange.
SENATOR JACKO said it would provide an opportunity for an allotment
applicant with a valid application as of December 18, 1971 and
whose application remains pending as of October 14, 1992, to amend
the applicants land description. He said the exchange is purely
voluntary on the part of the allottee. This legislation resolves
allottee/State conflicts over land primarily in State park areas.
SENATOR DONLEY asked about a clear title to the exchanged land, and
SENATOR JACKO said there would be clear titles.
SENATOR JACKO directed his aide, BRYCE EDGMON, to continue the
testimony.
"The allotments originally came under the Native Allotment Act of
1906, which was sunsetted in 1991 with the passage of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act. As a result, many applications for
allotments were filed in 1971. But in 1961 the State had selected
land that is now Wood-Tikchik State Park as part of its statehood
entitlement.
The park itself was created in 1978 with the mandate to protect the
area's fish and wildlife breeding and support systems, and to
preserve the continued use of the area for subsistence and
recreation.
Applicants for allotments in the state park must prove use and
occupancy of their parcel to the potential exclusion of others
prior to 1961."
SENATORS JACKO, LITTLE, and DONLEY discussed with MR. EDGMON as to
who makes the selections, the 1971 claims, customary use and
trapping, the role of the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, protected
areas, and no-net loss. SENATOR LITTLE asked about the amount of
land involved, and SENATOR JACKO answered it was 1.6 million acres.
SENATORS TAYLOR and HALFORD discussed possible claims, where the
land was located within the state parks, the number of acres, trust
land, replacement land, BLM land, tax advantages, and the manner in
which the lands were to be swapped.
TOM HAWKINS, of the Bristol Bay Native Corporation was brought into
the discussion, and his remarks are quoted from the BRISTOL BAY
TIMES:
"This past summer, on the urging of TOM HAWKINS, chief executive
officer of the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, a meeting was held
with representatives of the state DNR, the federal BLM, BBNC and
BBNA.
Out of that came an agreement that BLM would work on 10 case files
a month during the winter, meaning that it would send out 90-day
letters for ten applicants each month. The letters give notice of
interested parties that they have 90 days to make comments for or
against the application.
Last year, REPRESENTATIVE DON YOUNG sponsored an amendment to ANCSA
that allows valid alotees to relocate their parcel of state land to
other state land. The relocation must be voluntary. The state DNR
and REPRESENTATIVE LYMAN HOFFMAN are seeking a similar amendment to
state law."
The was considerably more discussion on natural resources, the
Statehood Act, the BLM, state park land, trespassing, title
problems, and many options.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to pass SENATE BILL NO. 293 (NATIVE
ALLOTMENTS ON STATE LAND) from committee with individual
recommendations. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SB 370 (ALLOW GAMBLING ON CRUISE SHIPS)
sponsored by the Senate Transportation Committee and asked SENATOR
SHARP to review the bill.
(Due to a malfunction in the taping of the first tape of the
committee meeting, the minutes for SB 370 have been compiled from
the log notes, Sponsor Statement, the Sectional Summary, and
correspondence from Princess Tours, Royal Cruise Line, Regency
Cruises, Cunard, and Crystal Cruises, all in support of SB 370.)
SPONSOR STATEMENT: "Senate Bill 370 authorizes to the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development to license cruise ships to
conduct gambling outside of three nautical miles of state ports.
Casino gambling on cruise ships has been a well established
practice for over twenty years, but state laws prohibit the
practice on waters under state jurisdiction. By allowing limited
gambling activities in these waters, the state benefits from the
collection of annual licensing fees of $5,000 to $15,000 depending
on the size of the ship. Casino gambling on cruise ships has no
impact whatsoever on Alaskan communities, and polled residents have
approved of the established cruise ship gambling by a significant
majority (more than 5 to 1). In the interest of taking advantage
of this potential resource of revenue, I urge your support of SB
370.
SENATOR SHARP disputed the fiscal note from the Charitable Gaming
Division which projected the need for two additional positions with
operating expenses of $140.4 thousand. In addition, the analysis
was, "Based upon the licensing fee structure in SB 370 and the
scheduled number of vessels sailing in Alaska waters in 1994, total
program receipts should equal $295.0 thousand."
There was some discussion as to whether it would exclude the state
ferries, and SENATOR SHARP said it would.
DON STOLWORTHY, Director of the Charitable Gaming Division defended
the fiscal note for the Department of Revenue, and he referenced
subsection (d) on page 2, lines 8 through 11.
There was general discussion among the committee members about the
administration of the provisions, the amount of money involved,
taxing provisions, and exemptions.
TOM DOW, Vice-President of Princess Tours read his letter of
support for SB 370: (Somewhat abbreviated) "This letter is offered
in support of SB 370. This legislation would allow gambling aboard
cruise ships within Alaskan waters for ticketed cruise passengers.
Cruise ships within Alaskan waters would be required to pay a fee
to the state for a license prior to conducting gambling under this
legislation.
Cruise ships have offered gambling as an ancillary entertainment
activity for their passengers in Alaska for over twenty years.
Alaska Competes in the international marketplace. Onboard gambling
has become generally accepted as one of the variety of activities
offered by cruise lines in all the major cruising destinations.
The public policy concerns related to gambling are not compromised
by the passage of SB 370. There is no impact to Alaskan families
or communities or to the "peace and tranquility" of any area of
Alaska as a result of these activities aboard cruise ships.
Research clearly shows that Alaskans appreciate the importance of
tourism to the economy of the state. It also shows that Alaskans
don't favor prohibiting the traditional operation of casinos aboard
and never have.
Although gambling has never been a primary reason to choose an
Alaskan cruise, both passengers and travel agents have come to
expect gambling as a part of the package of activities, which they
would find in a world class cruise vacation. Eliminating gambling
within Alaskan waters would mean that Alaskan cruises would offer
something less than that which is available to passengers on the
same ships when they are sailing in other locations. ... "
SENATOR TAYLOR decided to hold the bill for now.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced HB 373 (PERMANENT FUND INVESTMENTS IN
REAL ESTATE) by Request of the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee, and invited BILL SCOTT, Executive Director for the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation to testify on the legislation.
(Due to a malfunction in the taping of the first tape of the
committee meeting, the minutes for HB 373 have been compiled from
the log notes, and selected parts of the Memorandum from the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation as presented by MR. SCOTT.)
MR. SCOTT: "HB 373 and SB 245 were originally identical bills
introduced by the Legislative Budget & Audit Committee at the
request of the Board of Trustees. The Trustee's goal is to amend
the Permanent Fund's list of authorized investments to provide for
up to 100 percent ownership in real estate investments.
HB 373 - which would accomplish the Trustee's goal - passed the
House nearly unanimously with only one vote in opposition. ... The
Board of Trustees requests that you move the House Bill, HB 373 as
originally introduced, from your committee, and here are the
reasons why the Corporation supports this version over
CSSB245(L&C).
Existing Investments - The fund currently owns approximately 10
investments with a market value in excess of $100 million. If for
some reason, the Fund determines that it would be in our best
interest to buy out our partners, even if only on a temporary basis
in order to find new partners, the $100 million limitation would
prevent that opportunity.
New Investments - Real estate is an increasingly competitive
market, and finding good new investments is getting harder all the
time. for example, the Fund has made now new purchases in the
first quarter of this calendar year and there are no closings
scheduled for the second quarter either.
Safety - Although $100 million is a great deal of money it is only y
two-thirds of one percent of a $15 billion Fund, and in the past,
the Fund has made investments larger than this. For example, it
has not been uncommon for the Fund to own as much as $400 million
of a single issue of U.S. Treasury bonds.
The primary reasons your Fund managers are seeking changes in the
existing real estate statute are: (1) to gain increased management
control over the Fund's real estate investments; and (2) to help
the Board of Trustees reach their real estate asset allocation
target. We have been trying to reach that 10 percent target for
about ten years and have never come much closer than we are today.
It is our view that the Fund will be unable to reach its desired
real estate asset allocation until there is relief provided from
the 40% ownership rule.
Besides the control issue and the need to make larger investments
to reach the asset allocation targets, there are other reasons to
allow your Permanent Fund to purchase up to 100 percent ownership
in properties. The first is that the Fund sometimes loses
excellent investment opportunities simply because sellers are
unwilling or unable to wait for the Fund to identify co-investment
partner, or because our co-investment partner ultimately decides to
take the entire investment.
The Fund invests in real estate to maximize the risk and return
benefits of diversification. There is nothing in the bill which
would hinder that, and much that would enhance it. On behalf of
the Board of Trustees, I request that you give their concerns
serious consideration." (Thus ends MR. SCOTT'S prepared testimony.)
There was a short question and answer session among the committee
members and MR. SCOTT.
SENATOR LITTLE moved to pass HOUSE BILL NO. 373 (PERMANENT FUND
INVESTMENTS IN REAL ESTATE) from committee with individual
recommendations. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SB 333 (DISCLOSURE OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH
CLOSE ASSOCIATIONS) at the request of the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee, and asked RANDY WELKER, Legislative Auditor, to
review the legislation.
(Due to a malfunction in the taping of the first tape of the
committee meeting, the minutes for SB 333 have been compiled from
the log notes, and selected parts of the Memorandum from RANDY
WELKER, the Legislative Auditor for the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee.)
MR. WELKER: "This memorandum is provided to briefly summarize the
contents of Senate Bill 333. The bill introduced by the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee is in response to an audit
released last year.
The impetus for the suggested changes comes primarily from our
audit of the Department of Public Safety's Division of Fish and
Wildlife Protection (FWP). However, the problem identified is not
limited to only FWP. Other public officials with discretionary
authority could also be placed in a conflict of interest position.
Section 1 of the bill establishes a requirement for disclosure of
the formation or maintenance of a close economic association
similar to that contained in the Legislative Ethics Act.
The bill also requires a public officer, if it appears feasible and
in the best interests of the state, to refrain from taking or with-
holding official action in a matter that directly involves a person
with whom the public officer has a close economic association.
However, if taking or withholding official action is not avoidable,
the public officer shall immediately disclose the action to the
public officer's designated supervisor.
The bill requires a supervisor, to whom a public officer has made
a disclosure, to make a written determination of whether the
officer's involvement could constitute a conflict of interest. The
supervisor could reassign duties to avoid the conflict or the
supervisor may direct the divestiture or removal by the officer of
the financial interest given rise to the conflict.
Section 2 of the bill is a change to the nepotism prohibition in
statute. As the result of an isolated circumstance we found at the
Alaska Psychiatric Institute, we are recommending that the statute
be expanded. Currently the only relationship that is prohibited is
that a person may not be employed in the same department or agency
if they are the spouse of, or related by blood to, the executive
head of a principal state department agency.
We are recommending that the statute be expanded to include all
supervisory/subordinate relationships (not just a relationship to
the commissioner) and that the definition of relationship is
expended to include a regular member of the officer's household.
I appreciate the Committee's consideration of this legislation. If
enacted, this legislation will help improve the public perception
and clarify the legislature's disapproval of close economic
associations by public officials who have discretion in taking or
withholding official action that may affect the public officer or
a person with whom the public officer has an economic association."
MR. WELKER presented some recommendations for suggested changes in
AS 39.90.020, AS 24.60.090, and AS 39.52.960.
There was some discussion among the committee members about close
economic ties, first and second cousins, and how disclosures should
be determined.
KEVIN RICHIE, Director for the Division of Personnel/EEO, Dept. of
Administration, answered questions by SENATOR LITTLE on class
action suits, infringements, and adverse actions.
SENATOR JACKO moved to pass SENATE BILL NO. 333 (DISCLOSURE OF
EXECUTIVE BRANCH CLOSE ASSOCIATIONS) from committee with individual
recommendations. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SB 342 (RISK BASED CAPITAL FOR INSURERS)
and invited DAVE WALSH, Director of the Division of Insurance, for
the Department of Commerce and Economic Development, to explain the
legislation.
(Due to a malfunction in the taping of the first tape of the
committee meeting, the minutes for SB 342 have been compiled from
the log notes, and selected parts from the Bill Analysis as
presented by MR. WALSH.)
RISK BASED CAPITAL - "Risk based capital is an amount of capital
and surplus calculated by an insurer using a formula derived by the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), that will
be used for determining whether regulatory action is needed and if
regulatory action is needed, of what type. All insurers will use
the same formula to calculate their risk based capital levels but
the actual levels resulting from the formula will vary by insurer
based upon the risks associated with that insurer's operations.
For life and health insurers, the formula for risk based capital
incorporates risks associated with the insurer's assets, adverse
mortality and morbidity, changes in interest rates, and other
business risks. For property and casualty insurers \, the formula
incorporates asset or default risk, credit risk, underwriting risk,
and other business risks.
The formula uses asset, reserve, reinsurance, and premium amounts
in the insurer's annual financial statement to calculate a level of
risk based capital levels are "authorized control level risk based
capital." Three other risk based capital levels are determined by
applying percentages to the "authorized control level risk based
capital": 200% for a "company action level risk based capital",
150% for a "regulatory action level risk based capital" and a
factor of 70% for a "mandatory control level risk based capital."
Depending on where an insurer's actual capital and surplus falls
within these different risk based capital levels, the director will
take the actions outlined in the proposed legislation.
Unlike current Alaska law that requires insurers to maintain a
single minimum amount of capital and surplus that is identical for
each class of insurer, requiring each insurer to calculate and
report its risk based capital to the director will:
1. Require insurers to take actions that would provide greater
safety from insolvency, thereby providing greater protection
to consumers.
2. Provide guidance and assistance to regulators in
identifying weak insurers.
3. Provide the legal authority for the director to intervene
before insolvency occurs or before an insurer's capital and
surplus falls below a level appropriate for that insurer.
Risk based capital will more accurately reflect an insurer's
solvency. Alaskan insurers fair well under this proposed risk
based capital legislation and currently have capital and surplus
levels higher than the amount indicated in the risk based capital
formula.
The proposed risk based capital legislation is based on the NAIC
risk based capital model law that has been adopted as a minimum
standard for state accreditation under the NAIC Accreditation
Program. The NAIC Accreditation Program establishes minimum
standards of regulation through adoption of statues and procedures.
State accreditation is granted by the NAIC after on-site review
verifying that these minimum standards are met. The alaska
Division of Insurance received its accreditation in December 1992
and is committed to maintaining the standards of the NAIC
Accreditation Program.
SENATOR JACKO moved to pass CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 342(L&C) (RISK
BASED CAPITAL FOR INSURERS) from committee with individual
recommendations. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR returned CSSB 127 (CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER)
for the purposes of moving the bill from committee. SENATOR LITTLE
objected and moved to rescind the committee substitute for SB 127.
SENATOR HALFORD objected, and SENATOR TAYLOR said the bill would
continue to be held.
SENATOR TAYLOR returned SB 370 (ALLOW GAMBLING ON CRUISE SHIPS) to
committee to hear testimony from JERRY REINWAND, owner of the
Alaska Peddler gift shops, protesting the practice by the Costa
Cruises of promoting gift shops that have participated in the
promotion of their shops for a fee to cruise lines.
MR. REINWAND explained the cruise lecturers reinforce their
recommendations by handing out copies of the shopping maps showing
the location of local participating stores, and he had copies of
the 1993 Juneau, Alaska recommended stores. He also presented an
article about the practice in Nassau, the Bahamas, from the May 23,
1993 issue of the FORT LAUDERDALE SUN-SENTINEL outlining the
problems between the Nassau's Bay Street merchants and the cruise
lines.
SENATOR LITTLE asked how the shops were selected and how much was
paid for the promotion. MR. REINWAND indicated it was a "hefty"
amount.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved the following Amendment #1:
Page 1, line 3, after " ports; ":
Insert " requiring certain disclosures in connection with promotions s
on board cruise ships and making violation of that provision an
unfair trade practice; "
Page 1, line 12:
Delete " and"
Insert " (2) the operator of the cruise ship agrees to comply
with all state laws, including those related to unfair trade
practices; and "
Renumber following paragraph accordingly.
Page 3, after line 1:
Insert the new bill sections to read:
" *Sec. 3. AS 45.50.471(b) is amended by adding a new paragraph to
read:
(37) violating AS 45.50.474 (on board promotion).
*Sec. 4. AS 45.50 is amended by adding a new section to read:
Sec. 45.50.474. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES IN PROMOTIONS ON BOARD
CRUISE SHIPS. A person may not conduct a promotion on board a
cruise ship that mentions or features a business in a state port
that has paid something of value for the purpose of having the
business mentioned or featured, unless the person conducting the
promotion clearly and fully discloses orally and in all written
materials used in the promotion that the featured businesses have
paid to be included in the promotion. A violation of this section
constitutes an unfair trade practice under AS 45.50.471. In this
section, "cruise ship" has the meaning given in AS 11.66.275."
After some discussion among the committee members with MR. REINWAND
the motion was passed.
Next, SENATOR TAYLOR invited SUSAN BURKE, representing the Princess
Tours to testify, and she suggested some solutions.
TAPE 94-31, SIDE A
Number 001
MS. BURKE suggested the title should be CRUISE SHIP EXEMPTION.
Line 8, page 1, delete " LICENSING " and insert "EXEMPTION " in the the
title of the statute.
Line 8 and 9, page 1, delete "The department shall license" and
begin the sentence with "A cruise ship ..." Delete the word "to"
and insert the word "may", and she explained the changes including
paying their money.
On page 2, line 1, instead of calling it the "licensing fee" you
would call it the "exemption fee".
Finally, she said to address the concerns about enforcement,
inspectors, and administrative regulation simply delete subsection
(d) lines 8 through 11 on page 2. MS. BURKE explained she had
conceived of the bill as being along the lines conceptually that
SENATOR HALFORD indicated, but it will also address the concerns
from the Department of Revenue.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the committee understood the amendments,
but SENATOR LITTLE expressed a concern about problems with the
cruise ships and the recourse by the State of Alaska.
MS. BURKE answered that any of the actual conditions for the
exemptions are set out in Section 2 which is part of the criminal
code, and the permission to conduct gambling activities applies
only if the cruise ships conform to the paragraphs in Section 2.
She explained this was supported by criminal authority.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked about several problems in state interest that
might arise. MS. BURKE said no one has a fundamental right to
gamble, and she explained the lest amount of connection between the
purpose and the achievement of the purpose. She thought it was
easy to demonstrate that an inability to open the casinos during
Alaska cruises outside of port creates a competitive disadvantage
for the Alaska cruise market. She suggested there was a potential
for Alaska to lose out in visitor destination competition and
should be limited to exemptions to cruise ships in a constitutional
sense.
SENATOR HALFORD offered the testimony from MS. BURKE as a
conceptual amendment. SENATOR LITTLE questioned whether or not
this was doable under our constitution and regulations. SENATOR
TAYLOR thought it was, but probably unique.
SENATOR DONLEY suggested the conceptual committee substitute be
drafted and shown to the legal department for comment. SENATOR
LITTLE it could be addressed in the Finance Committee.
There were no further objections to the conceptual amendment, the
amendment was passed.
SENATOR DONLEY asked about some concerns from the Department of
Revenue, and MR. STOLWORTHY described a visit last summer from the
IRS on the taxation of the activity. He said there was no way to
know how much money is gambled in Alaska waters. He thought the
payoffs in the casinos are not as high as those in Los Vegas so the
overhead is not nearly as high, and he explained the adjusted gross
income. He indicated there was no real way to conjecture on the
amount of taxes that might be due.
SENATOR TAYLOR suggested these concerns should be discussed in the
Finance Committee. SENATOR DONLEY asked MR. STOLWORTHY about his
recommendation on taxes on the gross, and the discussion indicated
it would be a complicated process.
SENATOR LITTLE moved to pass CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 370(JUD) as
amended (ALLOW GAMBLING ON CRUISE SHIPS) from committee with
individual recommendations. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR said there was a motion pending on SB 127 (CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER) to rescind actions in adopting a committee
substitute. He checked with SENATOR HALFORD for objections, and he
had none.
SENATOR TAYLOR said there being no objection to the motion to
rescind, motion is granted. He explained the committee has now
rescinded the adoption of the committee substitute, placing the
motion back before the committee. SENATOR TAYLOR then withdrew the
motion to adopt the committee substitute.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to pass SB 127 (CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR
MURDER) from committee with individual recommendations. Both
SENATORS JACKO and LITTLE objected.
SENATOR DONLEY, on the substance of the main bill, expressed his
concerns the constitutional questions have not been addressed. He
said this is the appropriate committee to examine whether or not,
under our state constitution, we can do this or not. He said it
was important to have this testimony on the record, and he said it
was a huge question.
SENATOR DONLEY opined there were different levels within this bill,
such as specific levels of homicide to which it should apply. He
thought the bill was inconsistent in its present form and affords
the opportunity for the death penalty in many more circumstances
than is provided for life without parole. He also thought this
inconsistency also makes it constitutionally suspect, because the
difficulty should be the maximum penalty, and it should be in
ascending penalty up to that point, and not have more death penalty
crimes than you have life without parole crimes. He reiterated his
belief there were problems with the bill as presented.
There was some raillery by SENATOR HALFORD to change the title.
SENATOR TAYLOR called for a vote on Senate Bill No. 127. The roll
was taken with the following results: SENATORS TAYLOR and HALFORD
voted "yea," and SENATORS JACKO, LITTLE, AND DONLEY voted "nay."
SENATOR TAYLOR to SENATOR LITTLE: "Am I missing something; you
said you wanted to vote on the bill. You said we should be voting
on the bill."
SENATOR LITTLE: "That doesn't mean I wanted it to go out of
committee."
SENATOR DONLEY: "You understand where I'm coming from. If we're
going to have a hearing, we need to examine those questions, I
think."
SENATOR TAYLOR: "I'm sorry I wasted my time, and yours."
There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:30 by SENATOR TAYLOR.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|