Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/27/1995 01:34 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= 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.