Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/27/1995 01:34 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                   SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE                                  
                         March 27, 1995                                        
                           1:34 p.m.                                           
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
 Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman                                                
 Senator Lyda Green, Vice-Chairman                                             
 Senator Mike Miller                                                           
 Senator Al Adams                                                              
 Senator Johnny Ellis                                                          
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  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              
  PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION                                             
 CSSB 53(L&C) - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 2/28/95 and               
 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                        
 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               
 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            
 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                
 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                  
 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              
 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           
 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             
 SENATOR TAYLOR withdrew his objection.  CSSB 87(JUD) moved out of             
 committee with individual recommendations.                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m.                             

Document Name Date/Time Subjects