Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/15/1999 12:27 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
May 15, 1999
12:27 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator John Torgerson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 225(JUD)
"An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics; and
providing for an effective date."
-MOVED SCSHB 225(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 82(JUD) am
"An Act relating to certain claims arising out of or in connection
with the year 2000 date change; amending Rule 23, Alaska Rules of
Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
-MOVED SCSHB 83(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 83(JUD)(title am)
"An Act relating to certain securities occupations and investment
pools; relating, with regard to the Alaska Securities Act, to
federal covered securities, the registration of securities, the
general exemptions for securities and transactions, Internet offers
of securities and transactions, file confidentiality, petitions to
superior court by the administrator to reduce civil penalties to
judgment, time limits for bringing court actions for violations,
administrator-established fees and administrator-required
reimbursements, consent to service, title, sales, purchases, offers
to sell, and offers to purchase; exempting certain violations of
the Alaska Securities Act from criminal penalties; amending or
repealing certain current definitions in the Alaska Securities Act;
providing new Alaska Securities Act definitions for certain
securities occupations, for certain federal statutes, and for the
terms 'advisory client,' 'advisory fee,' 'advisory services,'
'clients who are natural persons,' 'federal covered security,'
'investment advisory business,' 'investment advisory contract,'
'NASDAQ,' 'notice filing,' 'place of business,' 'principal place of
business,' 'securities business,' 'substantial portion of the
business,' and 'supervised person'; and providing for an effective
date."
-MOVED HB 83 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 151(JUD) am
"An Act relating to revocation and reinstatement of the driver's
license of a person at least 14 but not yet 21 years of age."
-MOVED SCSHB 151(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 33(JUD)
"An Act relating to arrests."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 79
"An Act relating to letters of credit under the Uniform Commercial
Code; and providing for an effective date."
-MOVED HB 79 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 225 - See Judiciary minutes dated 5/14/99.
HB 151 - See Judiciary Committee minutes dated 5/14/99.
HB 33 - No previous Senate action.
HB 79 - See Labor and Commerce Committee minutes dated 5/6/99.
HB 82 - No previous Senate action.
HB 83 - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 4/20/99 and Judiciary
minutes dated 5/3/99.
WITNESS REGISTER
Pat Harmon
Staff to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for the sponsor of HB 151
Tom Findley
Dylan & Findley
350 North Franklin St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 151
Juanita Hensley
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 151
Anne Carpeneti
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 151
Jim Hyde
Soldotna, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 151
Robert Buttcane
Department of Health and Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99811-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 151
Representative Norm Rokeberg
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 82 and presented HB 83
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-36, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 12:27 p.m. Present were Senators Halford, Donley, Ellis
and Chairman Taylor.
HB 225-CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced a new Senate Judiciary Committee
substitute was prepared based on the changes made at the previous
committee hearing. He also informed committee members that he
asked the Division of Legal Services whether Amendment 9 was
contrary to the bill title and was told a resolution will be
necessary to amend the title. Amendment 9 prevents legislators
from having spouses or significant others employed as lobbyists.
He asked for a motion to adopt SCSHB 225(JUD), Version V, Kurtz,
5/15/99.
SENATOR DONLEY moved to adopt SCSHB 225(JUD) as the working vehicle
of the committee. There being no objection, SCSHB 225(JUD) was
adopted.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved to delete all material on page 12, lines 11-
13, and to insert "AS 15.13.011(16)(b) and AS 24.45.021(b)(7)" on
page 16, line 25, following "Sec. 21," and to renumber all sections
accordingly (Amendment 10). He explained the amendment would
delete Amendment 9, related to lobbying by spouses of legislators,
and it cleans up the change made to the close economic association
disclosure requirement.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the existing provision related to disclosure
of a close economic association is unharmed by Amendment 10.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that is his understanding.
SENATOR ELLIS objected to the motion to adopt Amendment 10. The
motion carried with Senators Donley, Halford and Taylor voting
"yea," and Senator Ellis voting "nay."
SENATOR ELLIS asked for a copy of the memo from the Division of
Legal Services. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he would provide one to
committee members. He noted he, like Senator Ellis, would like to
keep the provision on lobbyists in the bill however he did not want
to do too much damage to the process in the last few days.
SENATOR HALFORD said spousal lobbying makes a mockery of all of the
"little piddly stuff in the bill."
SENATOR DONLEY moved SCSHB 225(JUD) as amended from committee with
individual recommendations.
SENATOR ELLIS objected and stated that although several people have
put effort into this bill to clean up some of the ambiguities
involved, this bill will be perceived, somewhat accurately, as
self-serving to legislators. He said it is contrary to the spirit
of the citizen initiative on campaign finance reform and the
citizen drive for improved legislative ethics. He agreed with
Senator Halford's comment that the little points in this
legislation are completely overshadowed by the bigger issues that
go unaddressed. He noted his opposition to the bill.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he feels much as Senator Ellis does because he
believes the perception that this bill is self serving and is a
major change to the initiative will be conveyed to the public. He
stated from his perspective, he does not believe this bill does
anything more than clean up a few "nits and lice" within the
process. It is a bit more user friendly for someone who may want
to run for office, but he agreed that it fails to address the major
problems. He maintained that the bill does not address the fact
that no one is willing to enforce the laws on the books, nor does
it address how an average Alaskan could ever possibly run against
a multimillionaire in this State with a level playing field, nor
does it address the violations that occurred during the last
campaign. He said, in his opinion, justice delayed is a total
denial of justice, and as a consequence most of this bill is
superficial. He wagered there will be a campaign against this bill
by the public based on the premise that HB 225 makes draconian
changes. He stated he will support the bill because it cleans up
a few things but it does not go as far as he would prefer.
The motion to pass SCSHB 225(JUD) from committee with individual
recommendations carried with Senators Halford, Donley, and Taylor
voting "yea," and Senator Ellis voting "nay."
Number 150
HB 151-REVOCATION OF MINOR DRIVER'S LICENSE
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR informed committee members a new committee
substitute (Version Q, 5/15/99) was prepared.
PAT HARMON, legislative aide to Representative Pete Kott, informed
committee members that Representative Kott is in agreement with the
contents of the new committee substitute.
TOM FINDLEY, a Juneau attorney, informed committee members he has
been working on this legislation because he is interested in the
subject. He explained that minor consuming penalties were
increased in Section 1. Under current law the offense is an
infraction; under this bill the third offense is a misdemeanor. He
suggested the following changes. The first offense should not
result in a license suspension; currently the suspension time is 10
days, DMV would like to see that increased to 30 days. Section 3,
which criminalizes alcohol consumption, should also criminalize
drug use. Alcohol consumption or drug use, while driving, will be
a class B misdemeanor and the minor's license will be suspended for
180 days for a first offense and one year for a second offense.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR clarified the penalty for that offense was already
increased to emphasize a zero tolerance policy for drivers under
the age of 21.
MR. FINDLEY added that a minor who has been caught for a third time
probably has a serious drinking problem and should have to appear
in court. He noted some minors have been arrested as many as 18
times, but the violations are turned over to DMV so they never
appear in court.
Number 215
JUANITA HENSLEY, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of
Administration, stated that a 10 day revocation is not enough to
get anyone's attention. DMV prefers a 30 day revocation because no
revocation time for a first offense is not going to get the minor's
attention and result in change.
SENATOR DONLEY suggested using revocation periods of 30 days for a
first offense, 60 days for a second offense, and 90 days for a
third offense, which is already in the bill.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was any objection to adopting
version Q as the Senate Judiciary committee substitute. There
being no objection, the motion carried.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved to increase the revocation time from 10 to 30
days, on page 3, line 29, and from 30 to 60 days on page 3, line 30
(Amendment 1). There being no objection, the motion carried.
Number 249
ANNE CARPENETI, Department of Law, stated she believes the Senate
Judiciary Committee version contains good compromises. She pointed
out that increasing a third time offense to a misdemeanor creates
fiscal implications. MS. CARPENETI suggested amending AS 28.15.185
because last year the court held that an offense must have a
significant enough penalty to require a jury trial and court-
appointed counsel. As a result, AS 28.15.185 was amended and minor
consuming offenses were removed. That statute will need to be
amended again to include the misdemeanor offenses in HB 151.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if a new section would have to be added.
MS. CARPENETI said she believes so.
SENATOR DONLEY moved a conceptual amendment (Amendment 2) to
incorporate a new section to do what Ms. Carpeneti recommended.
SENATOR HALFORD said he has no objection to that motion, however he
would like to know how the administrative and court revocations are
related, and whether the same violation can cause an action at both
levels.
MS. CARPENETI said the offenses are generally concurrent with each
other.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR agreed they must be concurrent as far as the effect
of the sentence. He clarified that the only difference is that the
bill contains a provision, that the Administration opposes, that
provides if a person is dismissed or found not guilty from the
criminal suit, the dismissal acts to also remove the administrative
revocation that was imposed so that one does not have to go to
court twice.
SENATOR HALFORD questioned whether different standards of proof
apply to an administrative proceeding versus a court proceeding.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said yes, the standard of proof for an
administrative hearing is a preponderance of evidence, and for the
court hearing it is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He explained
that this provision will prevent a person who is found not guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt from having his/her license revoked under
the civil aspects which come out of the administrative system.
Number 291
MS. CARPENETI added the Department of Law is also concerned with
the provision in paragraph 2 on page 5 because it wants to keep the
administrative and court revocations as separate as possible. The
Department of Law believes its position in litigating
constitutionality of the "use it-lose it" law is that it is a
remedial aspect, not a punitive one.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was any objection to adopting
Amendment 2. There being no objection, the motion carried.
MR. FINDLEY suggested amending AS 28.35.280 to add controlled
substances to cover driving under the influence of drugs. He
clarified that Section 8 on page 5 would need to be amended.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if there is a term of art that excludes
prescription drugs from controlled substances.
SENATOR DONLEY moved to adopt a conceptual amendment (Amendment 3)
to add a violation for driving while under the influence of a
controlled substance into the appropriate section of the bill.
SENATOR HALFORD objected and asked for an answer to his question
about the definition of controlled substances.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if prescription drugs fall under the
definition of controlled drugs.
SENATOR HALFORD explained the general term, "controlled drugs"
includes prescription drugs.
MS. CARPENETI informed committee members AS 28.35.280(a) would need
to be amended to exclude prescription drugs.
SENATOR HALFORD said he agrees with the amendment but wants to make
sure that it refers to contraband drugs only, not prescription
drugs.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Carpeneti to work with the legal drafter
to make sure that intent is accomplished. MS. CARPENETI agreed to
do so. There being no objection to Amendment 3, it was adopted.
Number 349
MR. JOHN HYDE made the following comments via teleconference from
his home in Soldotna. He informed committee members he does not
have a copy of version Q. His primary concern is that the
administrative hearings will be used for the first two offenses.
Administrative hearings under AS 28.15.183 are not evidentiary
hearings and rightly so. The hearing officers at DMV are not
qualified to hold evidentiary hearings. Due to increasing pressure
from the public, and legislative activities, DMV has expanded its
role and has created a situation in which its hearings are becoming
evidentiary and it hears evidence arbitrarily. The arbitrary and
capricious application of the law is unconstitutional.
MR. HYDE gave an example of how evidence, obtained in an illegal
entry, was used in a case and was the basis for a ruling in an
administrative hearing. He believes DMV is vigorously trying to
preserve its position in this law, and it is trying to strenuously
convict young people of violating a law when it is violating the
law it is trying to preserve.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR told Mr. Hyde that is why the bill takes the
violations out of the administrative process after the first two
offenses and places the violator before a judge who understands the
term, "capricious and arbitrary."
MR. HYDE commended the committee on its efforts but said he would
prefer that the all offenses get court hearings rather than
administrative hearings.
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
commented on two issues. If minor consuming and minor possession
of alcohol are recriminalized through HB 151, it would be
appropriate to support the court in providing it with some type of
an assessment process. He asked the committee to fund the Kiddie
ASAP program enacted by the Legislature last year. Approximately
$100,000 for administrative costs and $400,000 for community grant
programs would be an adequate amount to take care of this
population. His second point was that an estimated 1,000 young
people will be subject to a misdemeanor offense and jail time if HB
151 passes. Those youth will be placed in youth facilities which
are already full. DHSS might have to request a supplemental
appropriation to pay for overtime for detention staff if the court
takes an aggressive stance toward jail time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said both issues are unrelated to this bill because
an appropriation cannot be attached to it, but the Senate Judiciary
Committee supported the Kiddie ASAP concept last year, so if DHSS
needs a supplemental as a result of the court system's actions, he
will argue in favor of it.
SENATOR HALFORD moved SCSHB 151(JUD) as amended from committee with
individual recommendations. Without objection, the bill moved from
committee.
Number 445
HB 82-IMMUNITY:CLAIMS ARISING FROM Y2K PROBLEMS
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Representative Rokeberg for working with
his staff in creating a new committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG, sponsor of HB 82, explained the bill
as follows. The proposed committee substitute provides limited
immunity against claims arising out of the Y2K date change. The
bill is patterned after S.96, introduced in Congress by Senator
John McCane. The committee substitute excludes all personal injury
and wrongful death claims on page 4, subsection (e). It further
removes the mediation provision. The House version had three steps
to resolution: the first was mediation. The bill still contains
the curative aspects because attempting to cure a problem before
litigating is a sensible approach. The proposed committee
substitute also changes the standard under which the cause of
action is a contract [indiscernible] and it provides limited
immunity for those businesses that take the steps on page 3.
Subsection (1) acts as a template by outlining six fundamental
steps to creating a compliance program. Subsection (2) is a catch-
all clause that sets reasonable care standards. The original
version of the bill contained due diligence standards. He said
that language on page 4, subsection (e) means that a Y2K provision
of a contract must be enforceable on the contract; it would seem
disingenuous to use a Y2K defense to defend oneself against an
agreement to perform a Y2K related fix. He recommended the
committee adopt a conceptual amendment to page 4, line 21, to add
"year 2000 date change" after "a" and before "provision."
Number 513
SENATOR ELLIS questioned, asked what happens to actions worth less
than $25,000 according to language on page 5, section 4.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said those actions would have to be
individually litigated.
SENATOR ELLIS stated that gives class action protection to cases of
larger amounts only.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted he shares Senator Ellis' concern.
SENATOR ELLIS moved to adopt the Senate Judiciary Committee
substitute as the working document of the committee. There being
no objection, the motion carried.
SENATOR ELLIS asked the sponsor to respond to the concern he
expressed about no protection for the little guy.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the threshold was lowered on the
House side from $50,000 to $25,000 for that reason. He noted the
intent was to prevent a class action suit from being filed unless
a major problem occurred. He added that this provision was
requested by the State Chamber of Commerce.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if the application of this limitation depends
on meeting all other conditions set out in the bill, or whether the
limitation is applicable in regard to Y2K damages regardless of the
other conditions of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the limitation would apply regardless
of the other conditions because the limitation applies to the
formation of a class action by the opponent.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR disagreed because the standards specifically
require the damaged party to write a letter, send notice to the
business, and give the business an opportunity to fix the problem.
He thought those businesses, who might have a claim against another
business, would have to have incurred $25,000 in damages before
they could form a class action suit.
MR. ROKEBERG said his understanding is that they would have to meet
that criteria in the formation of the class action only. The
defense provided in the bill will not provide for a class action
alone.
Number 564
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR maintained the standards that have to be met to
fulfill the prerequisites to bring the claim remain the same,
regardless of whether there is one claimant or 200. Those standards
might be met by writing one letter instead of 200 on behalf of the
entire class but the standards would have to be met to become a
member of the class qualifying to bring suit around the exemptions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he understands it to mean a business
would have to have damages exceeding $25,000 to become a member of
a class action.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR indicated that is the way the law currently reads.
He maintained that Senator Ellis's question is whether a business
with a claim below $25,000 will be prevented from joining a class
action suit.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the answer is yes.
SENATOR HALFORD said the effect of that is separate from the effect
of the other provisions of the bill that require all kinds of
protections.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained the other steps must be taken but
they are not relevant to the formation of a class action.
Number 568
SENATOR ELLIS commented the easiest way to address his concern is
to eliminate Section 4 altogether.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the intent is to prevent an attorney
from "running around, getting a bunch of people together to file a
cause of action so that you get a legal fee if there was minor
damages." He noted under that scenario, a substantial action could
be filed if 100,000 people lost power for one day. He added HB 82
is a business protection bill, not a consumer protection bill. The
intent is to minimize the effect on the business community and to
ensure that it meets the standards.
TAPE 99-36, SIDE B
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed concern that the bill amends a strict
court rule about how a class action can occur. He noted the general
concern with class action suits comprised of "those similarly
situated" is that the defendant cannot be reimbursed for attorney's
fees if he/she wins because the plaintiff is nameless, however if
HB 82 refers to primitive contracts, a clearly definable class
exists. He said customers of an electric utility have a contract
with the utility and could file a class action suit if they were
without power for 24 hours and their economic losses were $25,000
each. If they do file a class action suit they are identifiable,
and they are responsible for attorney's fees if they lose. He
noted HB 82 only applies to people with a contractual relationship
with a business.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented the thrust of the bill shifted
from an individual member of a class to an aggregate amount, unless
the totality of damages were a significant amount which would
negate the need to form a class.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said class actions sometimes consist of small
groups of 15 or 20 people.
Number 557
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG repeated the thrust of the bill is to
encourage people to fix the problem rather than to put their
resources into litigation. He believes it is the Legislature's
responsibility to set the hurdles that one must jump over before
filing a class action. He thought eliminating that section would
be irresponsible because the purpose of the legislation is to avoid
litigation. He suggested placing a hurdle on the class aggregate
amount, perhaps $250,000.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested requiring the class to have an aggregate
claim in excess of $25,000.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned whether one could get a class
together and pay a legal fee for that amount.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said one benefit is that using the aggregate amount
would avoid the two-thirds vote on the Senate floor necessary for
a court rule change. He repeated at this point, with the changes
made to the bill, it will apply to a primitive contract group which
is definable so if the defendant wins, he/she will be able to
recover attorney's fees.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he is not pleased with deleting
Section 4 but he will defer to the committee's judgement. He noted
he would be more comfortable adopting the amendment discussed
earlier.
Number 490
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the bills that limit liability for the state
and municipalities could be combined with HB 82, and whether
Chairman Taylor planned to hold a hearing on those bills.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he was curious about whether the bills
interrelate, and if so, why three separate bills were introduced.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied the Governor introduced HB 57.
Many of the changes to HB 82 were added to HB 57, however the issue
of the level of immunity to be granted to the state vis a vis the
municipal governments remains. He believed HB 57 is now similar to
HB 82 in that both the state and the municipalities have to prove
a level of due diligence. He said it might be feasible at this
juncture to combine the bills but he would prefer to keep them
separate as it would take a substantial redrafting effort.
SENATOR ELLIS asked Chairman Taylor to bring HB 57 before the
committee for a hearing.
Number 462
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the difficulty with combining the bills is
that the Legislature does not want to pass legislation that is a
disincentive to action; the state immunity bill covers everything.
Personal injury and wrongful death have been removed from HB 82.
He noted that everyone agrees that people and businesses will be
hurt by Y2K, the question is should government entities assume no
liability. The bottom line is that the same amount of people will
get hurt but they will be told that they can't get help from
anyone.
SENATOR ELLIS again requested that HB 57 be scheduled for a hearing
in committee.
Number 432
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the Legislature has been
assured by the private sector infrastructure companies in Alaska
that they will be in compliance. He said the biggest concern about
Y2K is our perceived threat of a problem. If people start hoarding
things in the fourth quarter of 1999, normal buying habits will be
disrupted and affect the first quarter of 2000.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted the likelihood of getting a quorum before the
Senate floor session was not good. He recessed the meeting subject
to the call of the Chair.
TAPE 99-37, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR reconvened the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting.
SENATOR ELLIS suggested changing the $25,000 floor to an aggregate
claim of $150,000.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would agree to making the shift
from the individual amount to an aggregate amount but he would
prefer to set the limit at $250,000 because he envisions a large
number of people being affected.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested the following language change on page 4,
line 3: replace the language after the word "unless" with, "the
aggregate claim of all members of the class for economic loss
exceeds $150,000."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG repeated he disagrees with the amount. He
noted the same change will need to be made to lines 11 and 12 on
page 5.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested changing lines 11 and 12 on page 5 by
striking the word "each" and inserting "the aggregate claim of all
members of the class for economic loss," and striking the word
"that" and inserting "exceeds $150,000."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested inserting "year 2000 date change"
after "a" and before "provision" on line 21, page 4. He noted the
drafter felt that language to be redundant but he believes it
clarifies the provision for the average person reading it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thought a change was also necessary on line 15. A
civil action may not proceed to trial until the person bringing the
action provides written notice to the business that describes the
failure of the electronic computing device. He asked how the
victim gets the information until the discovery process occurs.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that is a cure provision to give the
business a chance to fix the problem before a lawsuit is filed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR agreed once the letter is written, the business
must be given time to fix the problem, but he asked how an injured
party would know what caused the problem to occur in the first
place.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied the business would have to
troubleshoot to find the problem. He suggested changing the word
"failure" to "problem with."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how a person in Sleetmute, whose package did
not arrive on time and was told by the carrier that the cause was
a Y2K problem down the line, would know what to do.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated manufacturers are exempt from the
bill. The bill will apply to the computer consultant who should
have fixed a computer code.
Number 192
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR repeated that requiring the victimized business
owner to notify the computer consultant of what the consultant's
problem was is probably beyond the capacity of most injured
parties.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there should be demonstrable and
empirical evidence of failure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR clarified that he is concerned about a third party
experiencing a problem with a business and not knowing where the
problem is.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested modifying that provision with the
phrase, "under the appropriate circumstances."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR repeated his suggestion to add the following words
to line 15: "provides, if able to do so, written notice to the
business."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested a conceptual amendment that
reads, "if able to do so or if circumstances provide."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested requiring the victim to describe the
damages rather than the failure of the computing device, and to
give the business to opportunity to fix the problem.
Number 283
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the intent is to put the responsible
party on notice that a failure of a computing device occurred, not
to require the victimized party to describe the root cause of the
problem. He said he would agree to a conceptual amendment to
clarify the intent.
SENATOR ELLIS so moved.
The committee took a recess until 5:12 p.m.
Number 329
SENATOR ELLIS moved to amend (Amendment 1) page 4, lines 3 and 4,
to read, "unless the aggregate claim of all members of the class
for economic loss exceeds $150,000" and to amend page 5, Section 4,
lines 11 and 12 to read, "to the year 2000 date change, that the
aggregate claim of all members of the class for economic loss
exceeds $150,000."
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR ELLIS moved Amendment 2, to insert on page 4, line 21,
after the words, "a provision of this section that conflicts with
a" the words "year 2000 date change."
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 369
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved to amend (Amendment 3) line 14, page 4, to
insert the words, ", if appropriate," and to change line 15, to
read, "provide, if able to do, written notice to the business that
describes the failure of the mechanism which contains an electronic
computing device arising from the year 2000 date change;"
There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
SENATOR ELLIS moved SCSHB 82(JUD) as amended from committee with
individual recommendations. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
Number 400
HB 83-ALASKA SECURITIES ACT
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed committee members that this bill,
sponsored by the House Labor and Commerce Committee, was prompted
by a change in federal law. Without passage of this legislation,
the state will lose $4 to $5 million in fees from the mutual fund
industry. He noted staff from the Division of Banking, Securities
and Administration are available to answer any technical questions
about this legislation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that he received significant written
testimony, in anticipation of a proposed amendment, from people who
waited to testify yesterday. He announced that amendment was not
offered.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
SENATOR ELLIS moved HB 83 with individual recommendations. There
being no objection, HB 83 moved from committee.
HB 79-UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE:LETTERS OF CREDIT
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted the committee already received a presentation
by the person representing HB 79, as well as Art Peterson, Uniform
Commercial Code Commissioner.
SENATOR ELLIS moved HB 79 from committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried.
There being no further business the come before the committee,
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 5:22 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|