Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/14/2005 08:00 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB140 | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Attorney General: Mr. David Marquez | |
| SB135 | |
| SB132 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 140 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 14, 2005
8:54 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Hollis French
Senator Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 140
"An Act relating to spyware and unsolicited Internet
advertising."
MOVED CSSB 140(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARING:
Attorney General Confirmation Hearing: Mr. David Marquez
CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
SENATE BILL NO. 135
"An Act relating to the crimes of assault and custodial
interference; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 135(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 132
"An Act relating to complaints filed with, investigations,
hearings, and orders of, and the interest rate on awards of the
State Commission for Human Rights; making conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date."
MOVED SB 132 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 140
SHORT TITLE: BAN INTERNET SPYWARE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THERRIAULT
03/10/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/05 (S) L&C, JUD
03/22/05 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/22/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/05 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/24/05 (S) L&C AT 2:00 PM BELTZ 211
03/24/05 (S) Moved SB 140 Out of Committee
03/24/05 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/29/05 (S) L&C RPT 3DP
03/29/05 (S) DP: BUNDE, DAVIS, STEVENS B
04/07/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/08/05 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
04/08/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/13/05 (H) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/13/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/13/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
CONFIRMATION HEARING:
Attorney General Confirmation Hearing: Mr. David Marquez - See
Senate Judiciary minutes 04/13/05.
BILL: SB 135
SHORT TITLE: ASSAULT & CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DYSON
03/08/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/05 (S) JUD, FIN
04/06/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/06/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/14/05 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 132
SHORT TITLE: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/04/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/05 (S) STA, JUD
03/17/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/17/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/17/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/29/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/29/05 (S) Moved SB 132 Out of Committee
03/29/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/05 (S) STA RPT 3NR 1AM
03/30/05 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, WAGONER, HUGGINS
03/30/05 (S) AM: DAVIS
04/07/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/08/05 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
04/08/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/14/05 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Dean Guaneli, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 135
Mr. Scott Nordstrand, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 132
Ms. Paula Haley, Executive Director
Human Rights Commission
800 A St. STE 204
Anchorage, AK 99501-3669
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 132
Ms. Grace Merkes, Commissioner
Human Rights Commission
800 A St. STE 204
Anchorage, AK 99501-3669
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 132
Mr. David Stancliff
Staff to Senator Therriault
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 140.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:54:04 AM. Present were Senators
Hollis French, Charlie Huggins, Gene Therriault, Gretchen Guess,
and Chair Ralph Seekins.
SB 140-BAN INTERNET SPYWARE
8:54:21 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 140 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT moved to use Version \F as the working
document. Hearing no objections, the motion carried.
8:55:34 AM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked the remedies and consequences of
violating SB 140.
SENATOR THERRIAULT deferred the question to Mr. David Stancliff.
8:56:03 AM
MR. DAVID STANCLIFF, staff to Senator Therriault, provided
committee members the section of statute that would apply under
the trade and commerce provisions of Alaska law.
8:58:16 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved CSSB 140(JUD) from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). There
being no objection, the motion carried.
^Confirmation Hearing: Attorney General: Mr. David Marquez
8:59:55 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced that the next order of business
was the report on the recommendation to appoint Mr. David W.
Marquez as Attorney General of Alaska. He asked if there was
discussion and recognized Senator Therriault. [Hearing continued
from 4/13/05 joint Senate and House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting]
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT motioned to advance the nomination of
David W. Marquez as appointee to the position of Attorney
General for the State of Alaska.
CHAIR SEEKINS stated that forwarding the name does not reflect
the intent by any members to vote for or against the individual
during any further session.
Hearing no objection, Chair Seekins announced that the name
would be forwarded to the joint legislative body.
SB 135-ASSAULT & CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE
9:00:55 AM
MR. JASON HOOLEY, staff to Senator Dyson introduced SB 135,
which focuses on assault and custodial interference. SB 135
amends AS 11.41.220(C)(i) to read, "would cause a reasonable
caregiver to seek medical attention from a health care
professional in the form of diagnosis, treatment, or care." SB
135 also limits the defense of necessity for non-custodial
parents who kidnap their children. The limit would be set at 24
hours or the time it takes to contact the authorities.
9:04:13 AM
MR. DEAN GUANELI, chief assistant attorney general, Department
of Law (DOL), said in many parent/child relationships there are
custodial disputes where the court has to intercede. One parent
is often unhappy with the result.
9:07:13 AM
MR. GUANELI stated what SB 135 does is mandate the non-custodial
parent to report suspected harm to the proper authorities as
opposed to forcibly taking the child from the custodial parent.
9:10:00 AM
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked the consequences of a non-custodial
parent who does not comply with Section 2, subsection (c).
MR. GUANELI responded it cuts off the defense of necessity for
the parent who takes their child out of state. It does not allow
the argument that they kidnapped the child for his or her own
safety.
SENATOR GUESS asked how people would be alerted to the change in
the law.
MR. GUANELI answered the DOL presumes that people understand the
law.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked Mr. Guaneli the consequences where
there is no custodial court order.
9:13:31 AM
MR. GUANELI responded in the case of no custody order where the
parent takes the child out of state, the other parent normally
obtains a temporary custody order. Because the custodial order
is a continuing offense, the parent could be charged at that
point.
9:14:29 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked the notice requirements to an absent parent
with respect to obtaining a temporary custody order.
MR. GUANELI said the orders could be obtained without the parent
being present.
SENATOR FRENCH asked whether they were similar to domestic
violence restraining orders.
MR. GUANELI advised the parent would not be charged with a crime
unless they had been notified. The temporary custody order is
valid in terms of getting the child back but the parent could
not be charged with a crime unless they ignored a notice from
the court.
9:16:30 AM
SENATOR GUESS asked whether SB 135 would extend to other family
members.
MR. GUANELI said the custodial interference statutes are
designed to treat what would otherwise be a kidnapping. It is
treated as a less serious offense if done by a relative.
9:18:13 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Guaneli to describe the court of
appeals decision that brought about Section 1 of SB 135.
MR. GUANELI explained a series of assaults against children many
years ago spurned the Legislature to raise the charge of
assaults against children under 10 to felony assault. SB 135 is
designed to protect children. There is a problem in Alaska with
assaults to children such as shaken baby syndrome. A person
cannot be charged under AS 11.41.220 for shaking a baby if the
medical diagnosis did not require medical treatment. He gave an
example of a recent case.
9:21:57 AM
MR. GUANELI continued, AS 11.41.220 does not adequately reflect
the Legislature's intent. Broader terms are necessary to
establish the felony-level offense.
9:22:46 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Guaneli whether someone would have to
seek medical care for the event to qualify as a felony.
MR. GUANELI said no. Injuries may arise in a circumstance where
the parent doesn't seek medical attention and someone else
discovers the injuries at a later time. There would be medical
attention and expert testimony of the injuries sustained at some
point.
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS clarified SB 135 would not require the
caregiver to immediately seek medical attention.
MR. GUANELI answered correct.
SENATOR FRENCH expressed concern that SB 135 didn't completely
cover all the circumstances that could arise with child abuse.
9:26:04 AM
MR. GUANELI said a more culpable offender who doesn't allow a
mother to take her child for treatment should still fall under
AS 11.41.220.
9:27:22 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked the reason the individual who coerces a
caregiver against taking the child for medical treatment
shouldn't be charged under Section 1(C)(ii)
MR. GUANELI responded it might have been just a single assault.
9:29:25 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked the reason for adding the words, "or care"
on Page 1, line 15.
MR. GUANELI answered the language was intentionally broad for
situations where a doctor, hospital or health aide may put a
child under observation for 12 hours. There may be no formal
diagnostic testing but care would be provided. Given the wide
variety of healthcare in Alaska, it seems appropriate to have
some latitude.
9:31:31 AM
SENATOR FRENCH expressed "care" could be misconstrued to mean
administering ice or taking a temperature. SB 135 could lead
into a felony charge for very minor injuries.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT asked whether 24 hours of observation
would be defined as diagnosis.
MR. GUANELI admitted that was possible. He said if the observed
injuries are such that a reasonable person would feel the child
should receive medical attention that would be enough for the
DOL to start an investigation.
9:36:26 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT sided with Senator French's concern of the
word "care."
9:38:48 AM
SENATOR FRENCH moved Amendment 1. Page 1, line 15, after
"diagnosis" add the word "or." Hearing no objections, the motion
carried.
9:40:16 AM
SENATOR GUESS moved CSSB 135(JUD) from committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). There being no
objection, the motion carried.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced a brief recess at 9:42:17 AM.
CHAIR SEEKINS reconvened the meeting at 9:44:52 AM.
SB 132-HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
9:45:03 AM
MR. SCOTT NORDSTRAND, deputy attorney general, Department of Law
(DOL) presented SB 132. He explained SB 132 is similar to a bill
that passed out of the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee in
2004. SB 132 would allow the Human Rights Commission to evaluate
complaints of unlawful discrimination and allocate its resources
to prosecuting those complaints that best serve the goal of
eliminating unlawful discrimination. SB 132 improves the
Commission procedures and enhances fairness. It clarifies
remedies the Commission may award to remedy unlawful
discrimination. Any person who believes they have been subjected
to unlawful discrimination can file a complaint with the Human
Rights Commission. If substantial evidence of unlawful
discrimination is found, the case proceeds to conciliation. If
that is unsuccessful the case evolves into a more formal
adjudication process.
9:47:28 AM
The case would go forward into a litigation-type process. SB 132
would put the process into a central panel. The hearing officer
would make a recommended decision to the Commission to resolve
the case. SB 132 addresses a problem created by the Department
of Fish and Game in 1995. The Alaska Supreme Court said a case
has to be completely lacking in merit otherwise it has to be
heard. This created a workload problem for the Commission.
9:49:31 AM
Most cases are subject to judicial review and are regularly
overturned by the Superior Court. SB 132 provides some basis for
the executive director to dismiss cases. Page 3 lists the basis
the executive director can dismiss. This is putting the
Commission in a more similar position with the Equal Opportunity
Commission. They have the power to review the most egregious
cases with the resources they have.
9:51:06 AM
SB 132 also clarifies some of the processes. It allows employers
to have a better understanding of what is being charged.
Oftentimes complaints are very ambiguous and general. The
complaint does not necessarily identify all areas of
discrimination. Currently there is no requirement the Human
Rights Commission inform either party they are changing the
complaint to address other issues that have come up during the
investigation.
9:52:44 AM
SB 132 also gives the parties the opportunity to go through the
conciliation process with benefit of all the information. If
evidence reveals there is greater discrimination, it may be much
easier to bring the parties to resolution.
9:53:47 AM
At the point of failed conciliation a formal accusation by the
Commission must be drafted against the charged party. SB 132
improves procedures because it allows agreements during the pre-
hearing phase and it allows the compromise of damage claims.
There has been past confusion regarding whether the Commission
could compromise claims at the conciliation stage. The
Administrative Procedure Act would now apply except as otherwise
provided in statute AS 18.80. It allows summary judgment.
9:56:21 AM
SB 132 clarifies the remedies section of the act and provides a
list of remedies available. It also includes a prohibition of
non-economic damages. It defines pay for the purposes of back
pay and front pay and it also limits front pay to one year.
9:58:46 AM
SB 132 specifically says people have an obligation in an
employment discrimination case to use reasonably diligent
efforts to find other employment. In terms of housekeeping, the
regulatory statute of limitations (180 days) is put in the
statute. This makes it consistent with federal law. It also
incorporates the federal fund rate plus 3 percent as an interest
rate.
10:00:02 AM
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT said there was concern from the
Commission regarding the verbiage on Page 2 lines 27-31. People
from the Commission have expressed they did not want the
discretion. He asked Mr. Nordstrand whether he has discussed
that with them.
MR. NORDSTRAND responded they have had discussions. Their
concern was it would require the Commission to review all of the
cases. SB 132 uses the word "may" for the specific reason that
it allows them to implement discretion if they want. However it
is enough discretion that they could pass a regulation saying,
"we won't". He said as a matter of public policy, there should
be some review by the actual Commission that is charged with the
responsibility. There may be the case where an investigator
interviews people to determine whether there is substantial
evidence of discrimination and that is reviewed by the executive
director.
10:02:45 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT stated part of the concern expressed by the
Commission is in their effort to focus their attention to
resources they are going to have to review all of the cases to
see which ones they need to take up.
MR. NORDSTRAND said it does not need to be more complicated than
an executive investigation. If there is a close call case, the
Human Rights Commission should consider it.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked how the Commission gets notice of
case dismissals.
MR. NORDSTRAND replied he does not know.
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS advised two people from the Human Rights
Commission were online waiting to testify.
10:05:09 AM
MS. GRACE MERKES, commissioner, Alaska State Commission for
Human Rights, answered Senator French's question. She said
summaries of cases are given to the Commission during the
regular quarterly meetings. She is not sure whether the
Commission gets a summary of every complaint.
MS. PAULA HALEY, executive director, Alaska State Commission for
Human Rights, answered Senator French's question regarding how
the Commission informs the commissioner on the "no substantial
evidence findings" (NSE) cases. She said they do not provide
them with a list. They are involved in cases where there is a
substantial evidence finding. Until a repeal of the regulation
regarding review and reconsideration, there is no other format
to review the NSE findings.
10:06:50 AM
MS. HALEY continued the decision was the threshold prosecutorial
decision whether the Commission goes further to conciliation and
ultimately to the public hearing that Mr. Nordstrand was
describing.
SENATOR FRENCH asked Ms. Haley how the Commission would in its
discretion review the executive director's order of dismissal.
MS. HALEY responded it was the commissioner's belief that
perceived errors would create petitions from individuals or
their attorneys. The Commission would need to devise regulations
to look at them. Concern has been expressed that in time there
would be limited resources and low return on investment.
10:09:03 AM
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked Mr. Nordstrand to explain how the
limitations on front and back pay work. She expressed concern
over whether a person could readily find other employment.
MR. NORDSTRAND said it was essentially a description of the
current legal standard of a requirement that anyone who claims
damages in an employment discrimination case has an obligation
to attempt to mitigate their damages. This is continuing along
the line of full disclosure for people who are in the process.
People know this is a requirement. There is no doubt that
mitigation is required for those who seek damages. However, if a
person is shown not to have searched hard enough for other
employment, they may not get all of their front pay.
10:11:27 AM
SENATOR GUESS advised Mr. Nordstrand that Page 5, line 15 says
"must be reduced" and not "may".
MR. NORDSTRAND responded SB 132 was talking about the
intangible. The "must" is there because under current law, it
must be reduced. If through reasonably diligent efforts, a
person could have earned some money, then it must be reduced.
That is not optional under the law.
CHAIR SEEKINS stated when no reasonable effort is put forth
damages could be reduced.
MR. NORDSTRAND answered correct.
CHAIR SEEKINS commented a person who has shown a reasonably
diligent effort would not be penalized.
10:14:05 AM
SENATOR GUESS asked Mr. Nordstrand the reason the Legislature
was not tackling the definition of substantial.
MR. NORDSTRAND said it would be a much more difficult and
dangerous thing to do in terms of protecting the rights of the
people suffering from discrimination. He said there are cases
where witnesses are not credible, or where the case is not
enough money to worry about. Tinkering with substantial evidence
is like tinkering with air. It is a legal standard known when
seen. The Supreme Court determined any factual disputes could
not be settled without a hearing. The ultimate outcome would
create an opportunity for abuse. There are cases that are not
worth the time and money. At the end of the day everybody still
has a right to take the case to court.
10:17:22 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS commented currently a factual dispute has to go to
hearing.
MR. NORDSTRAND agreed.
CHAIR SEEKINS commented SB 132 was now giving the executive
director prosecutorial discretion.
MR. NORDSTRAND added SB 132 allows the use of state resources to
achieve a very important government purpose. The question is how
to best use the resources. There will be marginal cases that do
not merit pursuing. For those cases a person can hire a lawyer
or file a complaint on their own. The remedies are still there;
the question is whether to use government resources when there
are more important cases to deal with.
10:18:49 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS commented currently an employer gets dragged into
a hearing simply based on allegations.
MR. NORDSTRAND agreed. He said the government essentially
provides a lawyer to a claimant while requiring an employer or
landlord to respond. There is no provision for the employer to
recoup money spent on unnecessary legal representation.
CHAIR SEEKINS commented a disingenuous employee has the
advantage.
MR. NORDSTRAND agreed and stated currently the Human Rights
Commission is without power to stop unfounded claims. The Alaska
Superior Court forces a hearing and it puts financial pressure
on the person bearing the burden.
10:21:10 AM
MR. NORDSTRAND added employers often choose to settle the case
because the cost to settle would be substantially less than the
cost to challenge the claim.
SENATOR GUESS said she believes there is a better way to
structure the language because SB 132 as currently written gives
the executive director an incredible amount of power.
CHAIR SEEKINS commented district attorneys are given an
incredible amount of power.
SENATOR GUESS agreed but stated she has issues with Section 4,
paragraphs 1,5,6 & 7, which are all very subjective decisions.
She expressed concern about the breadth of the language and
offered there should be another way to deal with the situation.
10:24:00 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said he has seen cases where an investigator does
not agree with the person's claim and yet it goes to public
hearing. He pondered the level the state should go to protect an
innocent employer when an investigator agrees there is no
substantial evidence. An employer is put in the position of
being publicly accused of discrimination whether or not it is
substantiated. He expressed support for SB 132. He said he is
willing to give discretion to the attorney, but currently the
system is weighted so heavily in favor of the complainant that
it creates abuse of the system.
10:26:00 AM
SENATOR GUESS suggested unfounded claims should be dismissed up
front. She said the problem should be fixed on the front end.
MR. NORDSTRAND said the elements in Section 4 subsection (b) are
an attempt to fix the problem on the front end. SB 132 would
represent the best use of resources. Some employers carry on
with the hearing on the basis of principle, which costs the
state much money. Section 4, paragraph 1 addresses a refusal to
compromise could be unreasonable. The Commission on the behalf
of the aggrieved person brings the cases. The discretion and
resources are those of the Human Rights Commission.
10:29:09 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS clarified the employee pays nothing for the
process.
MR. NORDSTRAND responded correct.
SENATOR THERRIAULT mentioned that sometimes the most
unreasonable clients are the pro bono clients.
SENATOR GUESS stated Section 4 paragraph (1) appears to be based
on either side. She asked Mr. Nordstrand whether that was the
case.
MR. NORDSTRAND said no. It is about whether or not the
complainant's case would be dismissed. The employer always has
the right to be unreasonable.
10:31:37 AM
SENATOR GUESS moved Amendment 1.
24G-1
11/3/2005
(10:23 AM)
A M E N D M E N T 1
Page 2, line 27:
Delete "The commission, in its"
Page 2, line 28, through page 3, line 1:
Delete all material.
Page 3, line 4:
Delete ", in the executive director's discretion,"
Page 3, following line 15:
Insert the following new material:
"(c) The commission, in its discretion, may review
the executive director's order of dismissal under (a) or
(b) of this section and may affirm the order, remand the
complaint for further investigation, or, if the commission
concludes that substantial evidence supports the complaint
of an unlawful discriminatory practice, refer the complaint
for conference, conciliation, and persuasion as provided in
AS 18.80.110, or for hearing."
Page 3, line 16:
Delete "(c)"
Insert "(d)"
Page 3, line 22:
Delete ", in the executive director's discretion,"
CHAIR SEEKINS objected for discussion.
SENATOR GUESS explained the proposed amendment would allow the
Commission to review a dismissal under Section 4, subsection (a)
and/or (b).
10:33:35 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether Commission members were paid.
MR. NORDSTRAND answered they receive per Diem.
MS. MERKES stated they were unpaid except for per diem. She said
if the Commission were to do what is being suggested, it would
take up a lot of volunteer time. Per Diem consists of dinner and
a plane ticket.
MS. HALEY commented a modicum per Diem of $40 a day was revoked
in the early 1990s.
SENATOR GUESS offered the committee might consider changing
Section 4 to a review under subsection (b) and not (a).
10:35:36 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS stated a claimant has the option of a civil action
if the claim was dismissed.
MR. NORDSTRAND agreed that any dismissal is free to go to court
so long as they are within the statute of limitations, which is
two years.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Nordstrand the statute of limitations on
an action with the Commission.
MR. NORDSTRAND answered SB 132 places it in statute at 180 days.
CHAIR SEEKINS commented that seemed like a reasonable amount of
time.
MR. NORDSTRAND agreed. He said the claimant could seek
additional remedies in court based on the finding.
CHAIR SEEKINS clarified a civil remedy would require a person to
pay for their own defense.
10:37:47 AM
MR. NORDSTRAND agreed. He referred to Amendment 1 and stated the
practical consequence is a check and balance on the discretion
to dismiss if the Commission chooses to allow it. The Commission
could choose not to review cases based on lack of resources.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Haley the procedure for a dismissed
case.
MS. HALEY said it would not be burdensome.
10:40:03 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS suggested using the wording "may by the request of
the majority of the Commission."
MS. HALEY recommended adding time constraints otherwise it could
be unfair to the responding party.
MR. NORDSTRAND said the proposed wording would essentially
require the Commission to consider all of the cases.
Roll call proved Amendment 1 failed 2-3 with Senators Huggins,
Therriault, and Chair Seekins dissenting.
10:42:18 AM
SENATOR GUESS voiced disappointment over not including
subsection (b) in the review. She asked the committee members to
consider possible consequences to the language of SB 132.
MR. NORDSTRAND reiterated all decisions are subject to superior
court review.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS moved SB 132 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). There
being no objection, the motion carried.
10:43:20 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee, he
adjourned the meeting at 10:44:17 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|