Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/27/1995 01:34 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
March 27, 1995
1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice-Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Al Adams
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 53(L&C)
"An Act relating to consumer credit insurance; to regulation of
risk retention or purchasing groups; to preemption of the
regulation of insurance agents and insurance producers; to the
general powers of the director of the division of insurance; to
insurance examination hearings; to insurer certificates of
authority; to annual and quarterly statements, taxes, and
prohibited acts of insurers; to reinsurance credit allowed a
domestic insurer; to risk based capital for insurers; to insurer
assets and liabilities; to insurer investments; to insurance
holding companies; to regulation, licensing, and examination of
insurance producers, managing general agents, third-party
administrators, brokers, independent adjusters, and reinsurance
intermediary managers; to surplus lines insurance; to insurance
trade practices and criminal insurance acts; to premium increases
in automobile insurance; to insurance rating; to assigned risk
pools; to filing and approval of certain insurance policy forms; to
required insurance coverage for acupuncture, nurse midwives'
services, mammography, and phenylketonuria; to health insurance
provided by small employers; to transfer of an insurer's status as
a domestic insurer; to quarterly statements of benevolent
associations, fraternal benefit societies, and health maintenance
organizations; to reciprocal insurers; to the definition of `member
insurer' for purposes of the Alaska Life and Disability Insurance
Guaranty Association; to electronic insurance data transfer and
insurance funds transfer; to the definitions of `managing general
agent' and `person' applicable to insurance law; to automobile
assigned risk plans; placing a person employed by the division of
insurance as an actuary or assistant actuary into the exempt
service; amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 45; and providing
for an effective date."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 188(JUD) am
"An Act creating the crime of indecent viewing or photography."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 87(CRA)
"An Act relating to community local options for control of
alcoholic beverages; relating to the control of alcoholic
beverages; relating to the definition of 'alcoholic beverage';
relating to purchase and sale of alcoholic beverages; relating to
alcohol server education courses; and providing for an effective
date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
CSSB 53(L&C) - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 2/28/95 and
3/2/95.
CSHB 188 (JUD)am - No previous Senate action.
CSSB 87(CRA) - See Community & Regional Affairs minutes dated
3/8/95 & 3/17/95 and Judiciary minutes dated
3/22/95.
WITNESS REGISTER
Joan Brown
Administrative Officer
Division of Insurance
Dept. of Commerce & Economic Development (DCED)
P.O. Box 110805
Juneau, AK 99811-0805
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 53 (L&C)
Gloria Glover
Financial Examiner
Division of Insurance
Dept. of Commerce & Economic Development
P.O. Box 110805
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 53 (L&C)
Jim Clark
Balboa Life & Casualty
3349 Michelson Dr.
Irvine, CA 97115
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 53 (L&C)
Tim Wagner
Central States Indemnity
96th & Western
Omaha, Nebraska 68137
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 53 (L&C)
Mike Medland
CUNA Group
P.O. Box 391
Madison, Wisconsin 53701-0391
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 53 (L&C)
Representative Jerry Mackie
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 188
Jayne Andreen
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 188 (JUD)am
Joe Ambrose
Legislative Aide to Sen. Taylor
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 87 (CRA)
Patrick Sharrock
Alcohol Beverage Control Board
550 W. 7th Ave.
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 87 (CRA)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-15, SIDE A
Number 001
SJUD - 3/27/95
SB 53 OMNIBUS INSURANCE REFORM
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:34 p.m. The first order of business was CSSB 53(L&C).
JOAN BROWN, Administrative Officer of the Division of Insurance,
gave the following overview of CSSB 53 (L&C). CSSB 53 (L&C) is the
successor bill to SB 362 and HB 534, which were introduced last
year at the request of the division, but did not pass. CSSB 53
(L&C) includes language to address new areas of insurance
regulation, adopt new accreditation standards added by the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), and makes needed
corrections to the insurance statutes. These changes will bring
the statutes up to date with the insurance market, and allow the
division to maintain its NAIC accreditation, which was granted in
December of 1992. A zero fiscal note accompanies the bill.
MS. BROWN continued. Several minor changes were made to the bill
between legislative sessions. They include language clean-ups to
reflect the 1992 change in license classes from agent to broker to
producer, and general agent to general managing agent. There was
a revision of language pertaining to the standard valuation law,
replacing a reference to the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance
Corporation with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The
bill adds new fraudulent insurance acts: falsely altering an
insurance document; and knowingly possessing a forged insurance
document; knowingly issuing a forged insurance document; and
establishes penalties for those acts. It also clarifies that a
reciprocal insurer insuring municipalities or nonprofit utilities,
or providing marine insurance, does not have to participate in the
assigned risk plan for motor vehicle coverage. The bill also
includes the division's actuary and assistant actuary in the
statutory provisions on exempt employees.
MS. BROWN reviewed the 22 sections related to continuation of NAIC
accreditation, submitted to committee members' files. Next she
discussed the following changes made by the Senate Labor and
Commerce Committee. A new bill section was added to give the
director discretion to accept an insurer examination report from a
nonaccredited state, and would give the director clear authority to
require extra examination supervision if a state was performing
substandard exams. Sections pertaining to risk retention groups
were revised to avoid conflict with federal law, and the fraudulent
insurance acts revisions were modified to reflect recommendations
from the Department of Law. Language was added to various health
insurance contract statutes to reflect health maintenance
organizations, and a section regarding appointment of independent
counsel was deleted.
MS. BROWN stated two proposed amendments have been submitted to the
committee by the division, dated March 21 and March 23. They are
minor clean-up matters.
Number 150
SENATOR TAYLOR announced the two amendments were incorporated into
the amendment labeled 9-LSO467\F.2, dated 3/27/95. He asked Ms.
Brown to further comment about the modification in law that would
allow insurance carriers to respond more promptly to catastrophic
situations. MS. BROWN explained that provision gives the director
the ability to suspend and shorten the normal processing time for
claims resulting from catastrophic situations. Currently the
director has 15 days to respond to rate items, and 30 days to
respond to form items.
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned what kind of catastrophic situations
would require emergency rates. MS. BROWN clarified Section 5
refers to natural disasters. SENATOR TAYLOR noted it truly would
facilitate a more rapid response to a natural disaster. He
commented he has never seen a situation in which an insurance
company was motivated to come up with a rapid response, in the form
of a check.
Number 190
SENATOR ELLIS asked how the bill originated. MS. BROWN replied the
bill was introduced in both the House and Senate last year at the
request of the division. This year the Senate Labor and Commerce
Committee has sponsored it. SENATOR TAYLOR stated it passed the
Senate last session, and after extensive hearings in the House, was
calendared but was not voted on in the final days of the session.
SENATOR ADAMS asked if consumer rates will be affected by the
passage of CSSB 53 (L&C). MS. BROWN stated she did not believe the
bill contains anything that might specifically affect insurance
rates.
Number 220
SENATOR ADAMS asked how many states have adopted the NAIC model
legislation, such as CSSB 53 (L&C). MS. BROWN replied 44 states.
SENATOR ADAMS asked about the deletion of the independent counsel
provision from the original bill. MS. BROWN indicated the
Department of Law advised that provision was neither necessary nor
consistent with the Alaska Supreme Court decision which it sought
to implement. The case was CHI of Alaska, Inc. vs. Employers
Reinsurance Corporation.
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned the intent of the provision. MS. BROWN
stated if there was a conflict of interest between the insurance
company's counsel and the insured, then a procedure was established
to appoint an independent counsel. SENATOR TAYLOR commented the
insurance companies want that in law so they can get themselves out
of bad faith claims they create when they want to litigate, but the
insured does not. MS. BROWN stated the division supported the
removal of that provision.
Number 267
SENATOR TAYLOR discussed a hypothetical situation that could occur
if that provision had remained in the bill and become law. He
stated his support for its removal.
SENATOR ADAMS asked who requested that provision be removed. MS.
BROWN replied the division made the request.
JIM CLARK, Balboa Life & Casualty Insurance Company, testified.
Balboa writes credit-related insurance nationwide, and is
specifically opposed to those portions of SB 53 which pertain to
consumer credit insurance, Sections 80-95. He noted those sections
are not part of the NAIC accreditation process and are opposed by
the industry.
MR. CLARK reviewed specific problems with the following sections.
Section 81 expands the nature of consumer credit from five years to
cover transactions of unlimited duration. The NAIC offered such a
model several years ago, but not one state adopted this approach.
Section 83 reduces the amount of coverage available to borrowers by
about eight percent. In his experience, most of those who purchase
his insurance do not have other insurance. If life insurance
purchased by a borrower exceeds that amount necessary to pay off a
loan, it is paid to the family or the estate of the borrower.
Section 85 adds additional disclosure requirements which Balboa
does not oppose, but it prohibits transactions by phone, and
subsection (10) alters contract follow-up methods but most loans
become delinquent at some point in time. Subsection (10) also ties
into Section 86, which requires certificates of insurance for
[indis.] life policies and would require the printing of another
disclaimer. Section 87 would prohibit [indisc.] operations because
of the requirements to deliver a policy or certificate when the
insurance is placed. Additionally, it requires that evidence of
insurance refers exclusively to insurance coverage which seems
overly restrictive and unnecessary since this is tied to a loan
transaction. Subsection (c) requires a full refund be made but
does not take into account that a refund might not be due on a
fully paid life insurance claim.
MR. CLARK suggested modifying Section 88 to include reference to
rates being reasonable in relation to the benefits provided, by
taking into account all costs and expenses, and a reasonable
profit. Section 89 does not address the issue of life insurance
refunds when a deceased's estate has already filed a claim.
Furthermore, it ignores the origin of refund methodology. The
penalties in Section 92 are onerous and excessive, and it would
establish the most restrictive penalty provisions adopted in the
United States. Section 94 includes electronic rate charges and
other necessary tools within the definition of "compensation." He
stated the definition has considerable merit, but is so restrictive
that common business practices would be precluded. Subparagraph
(3) of Section 94 redefines consumer credit insurance to include
"credit unemployment insurance." He expressed his objection since
the division has made it a point to promote the regulation of this
coverage using a loss ratio approach as opposed to a component rate
method, in which all expenses and costs are considered when
establishing a rate.
Number 438
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned whether the definition of "compensation"
in Section 94 applies to insurance salespeople. MR. CLARK replied
he feels the definition is too inclusive, and is not required for
NAIC accreditation. He added other states have taken the approach
that these costs should be excluded as part of the cost of doing
business. SENATOR TAYLOR clarified that Mr. Clark does not want a
definition that restricts his ability to compensate those people in
his employ. MR. CLARK disagreed, and stated he believes a
definition is appropriate, but the definition should contain an
exclusion for such things as rate charges and other costs of doing
business.
Number 467
GLORIA GLOVER, financial examiner at the Division of Insurance,
commented the issue of credit insurance at NAIC is contentious.
The language in CSSB 53 (L&C) was taken from the NAIC model and
uses a loss ratio method to set rates. The division is supportive
of the idea of component rating, however it would take time and
effort to make that transition.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Clark to fax his concerns to the committee
for further analysis by the division and the committee. SENATOR
ADAMS requested the division to respond to the comments made
regarding Sections 80 - 95. MR. CLARK noted there is also a minor
change to the title he would address. SENATOR ADAMS requested the
committee discuss the independent counsel provision at a later
date.
Number 500
TIM WAGNER, representing Central States Indemnity (CSI) in Omaha,
Nebraska, testified. CSI provides credit card credit insurance; a
package of life, disability, and unemployment insurance and is
primarily concerned with Section 88. CSI is a direct response
company; it sells insurance by mail and telephone and solicits
customers through brochures sent with bank statements. CSSB 53
(L&C) would require prior approval all advertising, which is not a
standard adopted by any other state. AS 21.36.400 relates to
unfair trade practice and covers false advertising. CSI does not
see the need for prior approval as they deal with 100 financial
institutions in 50 jurisdictions, and could not possibly file every
piece of advertising with the Division of Insurance. CSI would be
prevented from doing business in other parts of the country without
Alaska's approval because CSI could not selectively insert
brochures based on state of residence. He also expressed concern
about the penalty of $10,000 for an inadvertent violation. He
stated a clerical oversight in the filing of thousands of forms
could cost $10,000. Section 85 (c) requires written
acknowledgement and maintenance of records for five years. CSI is
not opposed to written acknowledgement, but feels it is unnecessary
to keep such records for five years. CSI has contacted the
Division of Insurance on this issue.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Wagner to fax his comments to the
committee for further review.
TAPE 95-15, SIDE B
MIKE MEDLAND, CUNA Mutual Insurance Group, expressed concern about
the provisions relating to credit insurance in Sections 85-94 of
CSSB 53 (L&C). CUNA is in favor of fair and concise disclosure,
however the requirements in Section 85 are paper intensive for a
product that is incidental to a loan transaction. A great deal of
the information would be repetitive. The disclosure is required of
the insurer who must keep the records; yet the creditor is the
policy administrator. Subsection (4) would be unnecessary unless
the same statement is made for all insurance sold. Subsection (8)
requires a "brief" description which is unrealistic. Subsection
(10) is particularly problematic because many contingencies can
occur that are impossible to predict when writing the insurance up
front. This item is not in the NAIC model act. Section 86 departs
from the model act, particularly in subsections (2), (3), (6) and
(7). Subsection (2) requires the name of the debtor be identified,
yet frequently a group certificate is tied into loan by identifying
the loan and account numbers. Subsection (3) requires the premium
be paid by the debtor. Technically, the debtor is paying the
insurance charge, not the premium. Also, premium calculations vary
from creditor to creditor, therefore it would be difficult to
specify every calculation on each certificate. Subsection (6)
requires an explanation of how refunds are calculated in the event
of a policy termination, but is unclear as to how that should be
done. Subsection (7) makes no mention of unemployment insurance
and again, there are too many contingencies that can have an effect
that are impossible to predict.
Number 520
SENATOR TAYLOR suggested removing those sections relating to credit
card insurance and unemployment insurance from the bill and
creating a second bill to cover those areas. He asked Mr. Medland
to send a written response to the committee on CSSB 53 (L&C), the
proposed amendments and the possibility of creating a second bill.
He announced the bill would be rescheduled on Wednesday, April 5.
SJUD - 3/27/95
HB 188 INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHY
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE, sponsor of HB 188, stated HB 188 was
introduced in response to an incident that occurred in Klawock, in
which video surveillance cameras were found in the ceiling of the
girls' high school locker room. Community outrage was significant,
however there were no applicable statutes under which to charge a
person for that behavior. The sexual exploitation of minors
statute deals with child pornography and things for sale and
redistribution. The Department of Law helped to draft HB 188, and
the House Judiciary Committee ironed out several problems.
Essentially, HB 188 creates the crime of indecent viewing and
pornography, and would be a class C felony if it involved minors,
and a class A misdemeanor if it involved adults. There is no
opposition to HB 188 at this time, however the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault has submitted a proposed amendment to
lower the age from 13 to 10. REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE had no opinion
on that amendment and asked the committee to review that issue.
SENATOR ADAMS asked Rep. Mackie his opinion of the definition of
"private exposure" in the House Judiciary committee substitute.
REP. MACKIE stated he agreed with the changes made by the House
Judiciary Committee and noted the committee also added subsection
(e) on line 8, page 2, which deals with affirmative defense. That
subsection addresses an affirmative defense for people who have
surveillance systems for security purposes, such as businesses,
that are properly posted. A floor amendment allows such activity
to not be posted if it is for law enforcement or corrections
purposes.
Number 428
SENATOR ELLIS asked if subsection (e) is so broadly written that it
would prevent a prison guard from being prosecuted for videotaping
a prisoner without approval. REP. MACKIE stated he assumed if the
guard was doing it for personal reasons, without approval, he/she
would be in violation of the statute. SENATOR ELLIS commented the
language implies it would not apply to anyone in a correctional
facility. REP. MACKIE noted page 2, line 6, clarifies that the
surveillance must be conducted for a law enforcement purpose.
Number 410
SENATOR ELLIS questioned whether the "reasonably believed standard"
is a well-substantiated test. REP. MACKIE replied he believes it
is; that language was constructed by Laurie Otto and Dean Guaneli
in the Department of Law. He added part of the criteria for
prosecution should include whether the person had a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
SENATOR ELLIS asked about that expectation in dressing rooms in
clothing stores. He commented if the purpose is to apprehend
shoplifters, the purpose would be legitimate, however if an
employee used the tapes for personal use, the distinction would be
unclear. REP. MACKIE replied the House Judiciary Committee went
from one extreme to the other, then took a moderate approach
regarding notification of surveillance. He stated if notice of
surveillance is posted, the customer is aware.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if CSHB 188 (JUD)am requires that a
photographic reproduction of some kind be produced or that a
person, knowingly, views the private body parts of another person.
REP. MACKIE clarified it creates a crime for either/or. Viewing
was added to cover a situation in which a person might not
videotape the locker room, but view it.
Number 335
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the penalty is the same for viewing and for
producing tapes. REP. MACKIE replied affirmatively, and explained
it is constructed to include several criteria for the judge to use
when determining the sentence.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what other states have done to remedy "Peeping
Tom" situations. REP. MACKIE responded he has requested that
information but does not have it. He added his intent was to
remedy the situation that occurred in Klawock, not to create
legislation to deal with all "Peeping Tom" situations. He offered
to get information from other states.
Number 315
SENATOR TAYLOR indicated he understood the concerns addressed by
CSHB 188(JUD)am, but did not believe the bill should be so broad in
scope that several pages of exceptions need to be included. The
bill needs to be targeted to avoid constitutional problems. He
discussed problems with viewing nude beaches, and different
perceptions of privacy. REP. MACKIE replied the nude beach
scenario was discussed at the Dept. of Law, and the attorneys felt
a person cannot expect a reasonable expectation of privacy in such
a situation, therefore such a case would not be prosecuted. The
same situation would hold true if a person stood in front of a
window in a home on a busy street. He reiterated the bill was
drafted as narrowly as possible to avoid the inclusion of all
"peeping Tom" situations.
Number 264
SENATOR TAYLOR noted this bill covers the mental states of both the
viewer and the victim. The court would have to determine the
legitimacy of the victim's expectation of privacy, and whether the
viewer viewing for an appropriate purpose. He suggested those
questions are very subjective. He indicated his desire to review
what other states have done to remedy the problem.
SENATOR ELLIS asked about the relationships between the parties
involved that might exempt them from the crime. REP. MACKIE stated
a party would be exempted if the other party gave permission.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if a couple were married, but one spouse does
not give permission, the viewing or photography would be considered
a crime. REP. MACKIE was unsure.
Number 225
SENATOR ELLIS discussed many famous cases of litigation between
photographers and models over unclear agreements. REP. MACKIE
clarified nothing in CSHB 188 (JUD)am exempts married couples, but
there is every opportunity for a person to give permission. He did
not feel a person should be exempted if the other party was opposed
to the activity; but the court would have to decide whether reason
to believe there was agreement existed. He added he did not intend
to include all types of scenarios in the legislation.
SENATOR TAYLOR discussed the problem with paparazzi-type
photographers, and with serious misunderstandings over knowledge
and consent. He stated the relationship between the parties to be
a serious issue.
Number 164
SENATOR GREEN noted page 2, lines 16 - 18, includes the language
"that the person reasonably believed would not result in the
person's body or body parts being (A) viewed by the defendant; or
(B) produced in a picture;". REP. MACKIE stated that was included
as a key element of prosecution. He added without this
legislation, tabloid photographers could photograph people in the
privacy of their own home without permission.
JAYNE ANDREEN, director of the Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault (CDVSA), stated the Council reviewed the bill and
believes it addresses a hole in the statutes. CDVSA's main concern
is that the age of 13 is too high, and the implications of this
bill in separating out parents and grandparents who photograph
their children in the bathtub, from abusive photographing. The
CDVSA's proposed amendment lowers the age of consent for children
from age 13 to age 10 to give the child rights in such a situation.
Number 103
SENATOR ELLIS asked if "age of consent" is the correct term for
viewing. REP. MACKIE stated the "age of consent" for a minor to
engage in sexual activity is between 13 and 16; the same age limits
used in the bill to provide consistency with current statutes. The
"age of consent" referred to by Ms. Andreen is in Section 1 of the
bill and requires the consent of the parent or guardian and the
consent of the minor between the ages of 13 and 16. He felt the
question to be whether parental permission should be considered
adequate for 10-12 year olds, or whether the minor's permission
should be required also.
Number 073
SENATOR TAYLOR stated by including the age in the bill, the
legislature would be establishing in statute the ability of a
person, 10 years old or above, to give consent to this act. By
deleting the reference to age this activity could not be done
without consent to a person of any age, and minority laws in
statute would come into effect. Under those laws, a minor cannot
give consent. He discussed current laws for sexual activity of
minors that contain an illogical formula of age differences, and
felt those laws assist in the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the
civilized world. He questioned whether the legislature should
establish a policy allowing children to decide who can view or
photograph them.
Number 015
REP. MACKIE believed it would be ludicrous to allow a minor to
consent to sex but not to have his/her picture taken. He noted
line 9, page 1, requires anyone under the age of 16 to have
parental consent to take their picture, but anyone under 13 would
not have to give consent; the parent could consent for them.
Therefore, an 11 or 12 year old could be photographed nude if
parental permission were granted, even though the minor may not
consent. That is the CDVSA's concern.
TAPE 95-16, SIDE A
SENATOR GREEN commented she is not comfortable with nude
photographs being taken of a nine year old. MS. ANDREEN stated
several CDVSA members were uncomfortable with nude photographs of
children over the age of four or five; the age of ten was a
compromise. A second issue was whether or not the child was
capable of giving permission.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted concern about the issue of what children know
and comprehend at different ages. REP. MACKIE stated he believes
a 13, 14, or 15 year old should understand what is going on, and
that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. MS. ANDREEN remarked the
CDVSA chose the age of 10 because that is when children begin to
develop.
Number 050
SENATOR TAYLOR stated there is an entire industry that wants to
photograph children nude under the age of ten, and some parents
cannot be trusted in certain circumstances. He did not want the
bill to become a "dodging" mechanism for those kinds of people to
avoid punishment.
Number 101
REP. MACKIE advised that child pornography laws specifically
address producing films for sale. CSHB 188 (JUD)am covers the
"Peeping Toms" who view and photograph people, and provides a
vehicle for prosecution.
SENATOR TAYLOR announced he would hold the bill in committee to
review what other states do, and to have the attorney general
review the issues raised during the hearing.
SJUD - 3/27/95
SB 87 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES: LOCAL OPTION & MISC.
The committee took up CSSB 87(CRA). SENATOR GREEN moved the
adoption of Amendment #3, by Ford, dated 3/25/95.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained the committee adopted an amendment at the
last meeting to include the word "non-profit" in the definition of
various clubs. The Division of Legal Services has submitted
Amendment #3 to clean up that language.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Sharrock, Chairman of the Alcohol Beverage
Control Board, if he was in opposition to the amendment. Mr.
Sharrock was not.
JOE AMBROSE, staff to Senator Taylor, commented he worked with
Senator Hoffman's staff to develop the amendment, and Senator
Hoffman concurred with the language. Mr. Ambrose noted Amendment
subsection (C), and significantly strengthens local option
decisions by giving the people of the community a greater voice as
to what activities may occur in the community.
There being no objection to Amendment #3, it was adopted.
Number 176
SENATOR ADAMS submitted Amendment #4 at the request of Mayor Don
Long of Barrow. Amendment #4 requires a two year period between
elections be included in the bill. Current statute requires 12 to
18 months between election periods.
SENATOR ADAMS moved the adoption of Amendment #4. SENATOR MILLER
objected. SENATOR GREEN asked if the intent was to prevent the
same issue from being up for vote repeatedly. SENATOR ADAMS
clarified the amendment would require a two year waiting period.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result: Senators
Green, Miller, and Taylor voted "Nay," and Senators Ellis and Adams
voted "Yea." The motion to adopt Amendment #4 failed.
SENATOR ADAMS moved the adoption of Amendment #5, which orders the
transfer of any property forfeited and seized in a municipality to
that municipality.
SENATOR TAYLOR objected for the purpose of further discussion. He
stated he believes it is an excellent idea that provides a strong
incentive for the community to ensure that assets used in the
importation of alcohol are seized. SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr.
Sharrock if the amendment would include instrumentalities used in
the process of bringing such property into the community. MR.
SHARROCK was unable to answer that question. MR. AMBROSE clarified
the amendment does include aircraft.
SENATOR TAYLOR withdrew his objection to Amendment #5. There being
no objection, Amendment #5 was adopted.
SENATOR ADAMS asked if Amendment #2, pertaining to fees, was
adopted. SENATOR TAYLOR replied that Amendment #2 was tabled at
the last meeting. SENATOR MILLER moved to reconsider Amendment #2.
There being no objection, so moved. SENATOR ADAMS asked if the
committee wanted to split the question or vote on the entire
amendment. SENATOR TAYLOR suggested voting on the entire
amendment. There being no objection to the adoption of Amendment
SENATOR TAYLOR commented it was his understanding that the people
wishing to testify via teleconference were primarily interested in
strengthening the local option provision. Because that amendment
was adopted, and because of time constraints, he asked anyone
wishing to testify to contact the Senate Finance Committee.
SENATOR ADAMS asked those who have problems with CSSB 87(JUD) to
contact individual offices for clarification of changes made by the
amendments.
SENATOR GREEN moved CSSB 87(JUD) to the next committee of referral
with individual recommendations. SENATOR TAYLOR objected for the
purpose of discussion.
Theresa Williams, Department of Law, commented she has not seen
Amendment #3, but will address her concerns to the Senate Finance
Committee.
SENATOR TAYLOR withdrew his objection. CSSB 87(JUD) moved out of
committee with individual recommendations.
SENATOR TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|