Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/27/1996 01:30 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE March 27, 1996 1:30 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 SENATE BILL NO. 207 "An Act authorizing the issuance and sale of revenue bonds to fund public wastewater systems, nonpoint source water pollution control projects, including solid waste management systems, and estuary conservation and management projects; authorizing the use of the Alaska clean water fund to pay and secure the bonds and to pay costs related to issuance and administration of the bonds; authorizing certain measures to secure payment of the bonds; and amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 3." SENATE BILL NO. 268 "An Act relating to release before trial in cases involving controlled substances." SENATE BILL NO. 277 "An Act relating to charitable gaming and gaming on state ferries; and providing for an effective date." SENATE BILL NO. 272 "An Act relating to small claims actions; relating to actions that may be heard by a magistrate; relating to representation by an attorney in civil actions in which a corporation is a party and to representation by an attorney in certain civil claims asserted by assignment; amending Rules 11(a)(4), 15(c), and 17(b), Alaska District Court Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date." HOUSE BILL NO. 446 am "An Act allowing home rule municipalities to bring actions for certain injunctive relief relating to nuisances." SENATE CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 57(TRA) "An Act relating to driver's licensing; and providing for an effective date." CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 459(JUD) am "An Act relating to the jurisdiction governing a trust, to challenges to trusts or property transfers in trust, to the validity of trust interests, and to transfers of certain trust interests." PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SB 207 - See Community & Regional Affairs minutes dated 2/5/96, 2/14/96, and 2/21/96, and State Affairs minutes dated 2/29/96. See Judiciary minutes dated 3/20/96. SB 268 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/13/96, 3/22/96, 3/25/96. SB 277 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/20/96. SB 272 - No previous Senate committee action. HB 446 - No previous Senate committee action. HB 57 - See Senate Transportation minutes dated 2/22/96 and 2/27/96. HB 459 - No previous Senate committee action. WITNESS REGISTER Keith Kelton Dept. of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Ave. Ste. 105 Juneau, AK 99801-1795 POSITION STATEMENT: Supports CSSB 207(JUD) Senator Loren Leman Alaska State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 268 Senator John Torgerson Alaska State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 272 Mr. Al Tamagni 7001 Oakwood Dr. Anchorage, AK 99507 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 272 Bob Manley 324 E. Cook Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 272 and HB 459 John George NAII 3328 Fritz Cove Rd. Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 57 Mark Johnson Dept. of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110616 Juneau, AK 99811-0616 POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 57 Juanita Hensley Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Public Safety Box 20020 Juneau, AK 99802 POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 57 Chris Christensen Alaska Court System 303 K St. Anchorage, AK 99501-2084 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 272 Laurie Otto Deputy Attorney General Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 268 Dick Thwaites 500 L Street, Suite 301 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 459 Joe Ryan Legislative Aide to Rep. Vezey Alaska State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for the sponsor of HB 459 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-29, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. A quorum was present with Senators Green, Adams, Miller and Chair Taylor. The first order of business before the committee was SB 207. SB 207 REVENUE BONDS: WATER & WASTE PROJECTS SENATOR ADAMS moved for the adoption of CSSB 207(JUD) (version F). SENATOR TAYLOR objected for the purpose of discussion and explained the requested amendments were incorporated into the committee substitute. KEITH KELTON, representing the Department of Environmental Conservation, stated DEC is satisfied with this version. SENATOR TAYLOR removed his objection to the motion to adopt the committee substitute, therefore, so moved. SENATOR ADAMS moved and asked unanimous consent that CSSB 207(JUD) be moved from committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried. SB 268 PRETRIAL RELEASE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES SENATOR LEMAN stated version K accommodates the Chair's concerns and is similar to the original version of the bill. Language was included on page 2, lines 27 through 31, to address previously discussed concerns about firearms and knives. SENATOR TAYLOR added that references to AS 04 were omitted from version K. SENATOR LEMAN agreed the bill title was changed and any reference to alcohol was removed, making the bill more similar to the original version of SB 268. SENATOR TAYLOR felt lines 19 through 21 to be too restrictive as it would prevent a person who might need to use a portable communications device in the course of employment from doing so, when that person has only been alleged to have committed a crime. SENATOR LEMAN clarified the court would consider the list of conditions, as well as the person's previous record. It has become increasingly difficult to keep repeat drug offenders off the streets in the Municipality of Anchorage: the offenders are dealing drugs within hours of an arrest. In such a case, a judge would have the ability to decide which conditions would be appropriate. Police are finding that cellular phones are a tool of the drug trade. Number 099 SENATOR TAYLOR asked if version K includes conditions of release under AS 12.30.020, the domestic violence statute. SENATOR LEMAN replied AS 12.30.020 is the general authority for conditions. Section 2 ensures that general bail conditions, plus the conditions laid out in SB 268, are considered for domestic violence offenses. SENATOR TAYLOR questioned whether the same restriction on portable telephone use apply to domestic violence offenders. SENATOR LEMAN indicated it could be, but the bill does not provide for that explicit authority. This legislation provides that particular condition only for release before trial involving controlled substances. SENATOR ADAMS asked if on page 2, line 27, the words "possession or control" were supposed to replace the word "person." SENATOR TAYLOR believed that language was only to apply to knives, and subsection (4) pertains to controlled substances. SENATOR ADAMS inquired whether Section 2 is in concert with the Governor's domestic violence legislation. SENATOR TAYLOR replied the Governor's legislation is quite comprehensive; Section 2 is one small step. SENATOR GREEN moved the adoption of CSSB 268(JUD) (version K). There being no objection, the motion carried. SENATOR GREEN moved CSSB 268(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried. Number 187 SB 277 GAMING: FERRIES, VIDEO LOTTERY & MISC SENATOR TAYLOR explained the proposed committee substitute: limits those who may be able to utilize gaming permits and devices in the state; prohibits funds from flowing to political entities, and significantly narrows the definition of what constitutes a charitable organization. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt CSSB 277(JUD) (version K). SENATOR ELLIS objected. SENATOR ADAMS asked for a review of the changes made in the proposed committee substitute. SENATOR TAYLOR stated the original bill would have eliminated pulltabs and replaced them with video lottery machines. A previous witness from the pulltab industry believed the introduction of video lottery machines will eliminate the pulltab industry over time, and because many charitable organizations did not want to lose pulltab business, the section eliminating the use of pulltabs was removed. Nothing else in the committee substitute is different from the original bill. SENATOR ADAMS if a permittee could contract out either the pulltab or video lottery permit. SENATOR TAYLOR affirmed the permittee could not. Number 231 SENATOR ELLIS believed video lottery gaming will expand the gambling industry in the state because video machines can be programmed to provide an array of games. The California courts have interpreted video lotteries as slot machines, and Native organizations use that interpretation as their statutory basis for major casinos and mini casinos that have proliferated throughout that state. Regardless of the Native aspect, the escalation of the kind of gambling represented by this bill is a significant expansion of gambling. He questioned the move against such activity by the majority last year. He asked Senator Taylor if he agreed with the interpretation of the California court decision regarding the operation of mini and maxi casinos. In addition, he asked if video lottery machines must be programmed to keep an electronic record of gaming activity, and whether the bill explicitly requires such records to be kept. SENATOR TAYLOR replied it is his understanding the Division would have the authority to impose that type of regulation. SENATOR ELLIS asked if the bill explicitly directs the Division to do so. SENATOR TAYLOR responded the bill does not order the Division to set up a recording device. Regarding Senator Ellis' first question, he responded the U.S. Supreme Court just rendered a decision which says the states have retained the authority to regulate casino gaming. That decision is a direct reversal of the lower court decision and will have significant ramifications on the Native gaming casinos across the United States. Number 285 SENATOR ELLIS questioned whether Senator Taylor intended to require recordkeeping by statute as opposed to regulation. SENATOR TAYLOR stated he would have no problem with that, and would take the suggestion under consideration. SB 272 SMALL CLAIMS CT JURISDICTION & PROCEDURE SENATOR TORGERSON, sponsor of SB 272, explained the purpose of the bill is fourfold: it allows creditors without legal representation in relatively small claims cases; it increases the maximum amount of a claim from $5,000 to $10,000; it allows a motion to practice in small claims court; and allows service for small claim cases on defendants outside Alaska. SB 272 amends existing statute so the corporation can appear without an attorney in cases under $10,000, and amends three court rules. The legislation was introduced on behalf of an attorney in his district. Number 320 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, general counsel to the judicial branch, discussed two primary components of SB 272. It raises the jurisdictional limit of the small claims court from $5,000 to $10,000. The Supreme Court opposes an increase of that magnitude because although there has been no increase since 1986, the federal CPI has only increased 32.8 percent since 1986. That would equate to $6,650 in 1996 dollars. The Court System believes the change to $10,000 will cause cases of much greater evidentiary complexity to be placed before magistrates, and would prefer an incremental change, raising the current amount to $7,500. SENATOR TAYLOR asked about the second component regarding attorneys having to appear on behalf of creditors. MR. CHRISTENSEN stated the Supreme Court has not yet reviewed that portion of the bill, therefore he cannot state a position. He relayed comments from some district court judges who expressed concern about how the proposed court rule changes will change the nature of small claims court in ways that are detrimental to the system as a whole. The primary effect of SB 272 is to make it easier and cheaper for collection agencies to engage in commercial litigation. Collection agencies attempt to collect money on behalf of a third party. Section 4 provides that collection agencies will no longer have to use an attorney when they go into small claims court on behalf of another business or individual. The individual judges who have commented worry that collection agencies are not bound by the same set of ethical rules that licensed attorneys are bound by. Collection agencies have no prohibitions on conflict of interest, no rules on candor with the court, no rules regarding fairness to the other parties, no rules regarding communication with the other party, and no rules with regard to the degree of truthfulness they have to maintain. The same judges are also concerned that Section 5 will make it easier for agencies and others who are familiar with the small claims process to take advantage of the lack of familiarity the defendant has with the small claims process. Section 5 allows the court to grant a decision based on a summary judgment motion which would almost invariably be filed by the plaintiff. Court rules require the magistrate or clerks to assist the litigants in a small claims case by providing legal advice to both sides. If a plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion, the judge would not be able to offer assistance to the defendant. A defendant in such a case would eventually take far more clerical time keeping defendants informed and prepare documents. MR. CHRISTENSEN continued. Section 6 will allow out-of-state service on defendants. Presently, court rules only allow a small claims plaintiff to serve an out-of-state defendant in landlord/tenant cases and in cases involving motor vehicles. This particular issue was visited by the Supreme Court Small Claims Committee the last time the limit was changed. The magistrates and clerks in small rural courts are not trained and qualified in long arm jurisdiction. Current law excepts landlord/tenant cases and motor vehicle cases because the plaintiff can serve the Commissioners of Commerce and Public Safety if the defendant is out-of-state. SENATOR ADAMS asked if the Court System used federal figures to determine the CPI. MR. CHRISTENSEN replied it did. SENATOR ADAMS asked if the figure would be higher than $6,650 if the Alaska CPI was used. MR. CHRISTENSEN answered he was under the impression the federal figure for Anchorage was used. Number 400 SENATOR TAYLOR asked Senator Torgerson if he would object to a limit of $7,500. SENATOR TORGERSON indicated he did not. SENATOR ADAMS asked if the fiscal note would change if the limit were placed at $7,500. MR. CHRISTENSEN believed the figure would be lower because the number of new cases would decrease, and would be less complex since they would be of lower value. SENATOR TAYLOR felt the collection agencies should be held more accountable and be required to hire a person with some legal talent to represent them. Regarding Section 6, he shared Mr. Christensen's concern that out-of-state cases are complex. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to delete Sections 4 and 6, and to change every place that the bill reflects $10,000 to $7,500. There being no objection, the motion carried. Number 445 AL TAMAGNI testified from Anchorage in support of SB 272. The court takes a narrow approach as to what is good for the court which is not always what is good for the public. People with small automobile accident claims over $5,000 have no access to the court system. He would prefer to see the limit raised to $15,000 because if you adjust the $5,000 for cost-of-living increases since 1986, the amount would be $3,200. SB 272 will open the doors of the court to people who cannot get access now. He recommended keeping the limit at $7,500 but indexing it annually. SENATOR TAYLOR noted he thought an incremental approach to be most practical, and agreed with Mr. Tamagni that people's courts should be expanded. SENATOR MILLER moved SB 272 as amended out of committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried. HB 446 NUISANCE INJUNCTION BY HOME RULE MUNI SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, aide to Representative Rokeberg, sponsor of HB 446, gave the following summary of the bill. HB 446 was requested by Mayor Mystrom as it will help municipalities suppress nuisances and provide a mechanism for civil abatement of premises. It would enjoin nuisances within the jurisdictions of municipalities when real property is being used for illegal activity, such as drugs, gambling or prostitution, and is an attempt to assist municipalities to close down crack houses or similar enterprises when the landlord ignores repeated notices or citations. Current law mandates the Attorney General to enjoin the properties, but if that office is not inclined to do so due to lack of funding or unwillingness to enforce the statute, the public can enjoin a piece of property, however most people do not have the financial resources or legal talent to pursue such action. SENATOR TAYLOR commented injunctive relief is available in Title 9. SENATOR ELLIS expressed strong support of HB 446 but questioned where in the process the word "shall" was changed to "may." MS. ARMSTRONG answered that change was made on the House floor in response to concerns made by small municipalities who rely on the state to enjoin the nuisance. Currently a municipality that wants to pursue such a situation independently must get power of attorney from the state. The process is complicated and cumbersome. SENATOR ELLIS stated he understood that language was changed because one complaint was received from the City of Ketchikan. He objected to the House accommodating that request. He moved to return the word "may" to "shall" because otherwise the aggressive action necessary to rid neighborhoods of crackhouses will not take place. Number 554 MS. ARMSTRONG pointed out the Municipality of Anchorage is awaiting passage of this legislation to pursue 22 nuisances. She referred to an article in the Alaska Star about the Polar Bear Bar in the Spenard area. SENATOR ELLIS agreed that situation will get immediate attention. He repeated his motion to change the bill back to its original language. SENATOR TAYLOR objected because the word "shall" will require two entities to take action, both the state and municipality, and no entity will have priority. SENATOR ELLIS reminded Senator Taylor of other situations in which the state was given the power to act but could not do so due to limited resources. He repeated that the legislation needs to have more teeth. MS. ARMSTRONG noted the Municipality of Anchorage agreed to the language change because some areas of the state prosecute these types of problems under state statute. SENATOR TAYLOR stated if the word "shall" was used, the state would be shifting the burden to the municipalities without providing the resources to do so. The motion to change the word "may" to "shall" on line 8 failed with Senators Ellis and Adams voting "yea" and Senators Taylor, Green and Miller voting "nay." SENATOR ADAMS felt the committee made a mistake by not passing the amendment, as it would give local control back to municipalities. SENATOR TAYLOR pointed out the subjects covered within the bill are prostitution, illegal activity involving a place of prostitution, and illegal activity involving alcoholic beverages, a controlled substance, an imitation controlled substance, or gambling or promoting gambling. SENATOR GREEN moved HB 446am out of committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried. TAPE 96-29, SIDE B HB 57 LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVERS MELINDA GRUENING, legislative assistant to Representative Joe Green, explained the intent of the measure is to establish a graduated drivers license system. Currently 16 to 21 year old drivers comprise 6.2 percent of Alaskan drivers but account for 13.9 percent of all accidents and 28 percent of all fatal crashes. A large majority of those accidents happen in the early hours of the morning. HB 57 will ease the novice driver, under controlled conditions, into the driving environment by creating a provisional license. Nighttime driving hours will be restricted between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. with the exception of travelling the most direct route to and from work. A licensee with a provisional license could only accumulate 8 points during a 12 month period. After a one-year period, if the provisional licensee has demonstrated a safe driving record, an unrestricted driver's license would be issued. HB 57 is designed to allow the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to take advantage of new federal funding to implement such legislation. SENATOR GREEN moved to adopt the committee substitute. SENATOR ELLIS objected to the motion and asked Representative Green to speak for the bill. REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN offered to answer questions. SENATOR ELLIS asked about the fiscal impact of the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied that a majority of the costs would be reimbursed by a federal grant. HB 57 will help protect teenagers against themselves, and while their reflexes and ability to drive may be better than an older person, their concentration may be less than someone more mature. This bill will get teenagers through the most critical period and is designed to be a protective measure, not an intrusive one. Number 500 SENATOR ADAMS expressed concern about the point system on page 3 because it decreases the amount of accumulated points from 12 to 8. This topic was debated in the Transportation Committee, and a compromise amount of 10 points was discussed. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN observed the original amount of points in the bill was was raised from 6 to 8 points. He emphasized that a driver's license is a privelege. SENATOR GREEN felt to accumulate 8 to 12 points in one year to require a good deal of irresponsible behavior. JOHN GEORGE, representing the National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII), testified in support of the bill. On a personal note, he stated as Assistant Fire Chief of the Auke Bay Fire District, he has responded to many late night automobile accidents. He believes this bill will ensure the safety of teenagers by creating a curfew. Number 458 MARK JOHNSON, Chief of the Emergency Medical Services Section of the Department of Health and Social Services, testified in support of HB 57 as data from hospitals show that teenagers treated for motor vehicle accidents are double the rate of other drivers. The cost for hospitalization of that group averages over $20,000. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if Mr. Johnson had reviewed statistical information from other states that have implemented a similar program. MR. JOHNSON replied he had reviewed information provided by DPS and from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's newsletter. JUANITA HENSLEY, Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, DPS, testified in support of HB 57 and noted widespread support for the legislation by other national and international groups. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) made available incentive grants to Alaska and North Carolina several years ago to help implement and study a graduated license system to see if it does save lives. HB 57 is a step forward in that process. Alaska has already implemented a "use it, lose it" sanction system for driver's licenses. Because driver education is not provided to students, they learn by trial and error. SENATOR ADAMS asked how many points a teen driver would get for two curfew violations. MS. HENSLEY answered each violation receives two points. After accumulating four points, DMV would send a letter to the licensee providing him/her the option of eliminating two points by taking a defensive driving class. SENATOR TAYLOR asked Ms. Hensley to explain the changes made in the proposed committee substitute. MS. HENSLEY stated the original bill disallowed a licensee between the ages of 16 and 17 to get a provisional license until he/she had held an instructional permit for a period of six months. At the age of 18 through 20, a licensee would have to have a provisional license for one year before being granted full driving priveleges. The proposed committee substitute removes the provision for 18 to 20 year olds, and would allow a 15 year old who obtained an instructional permit for six months prior to obtain a provisional driver's license at age 16 after passing a test. SENATOR ELLIS asked if exceptions to driving during the curfew hours were discussed when the bill was heard in the House and who decides what the most direct route to and from work would be. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN answered the House did consider longer curfew hours from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Most of the discussion centered around the fact that teenagers do not need to be out between the hours of 1:00 and 5:00 unless it is for working purposes because there is a rapid escalation of accidents during those hours. Regarding the second question, the police officer would determine the most direct route, and could call the place of employment to verify where the driver was enroute to and from. SENATOR ELLIS asked if an officer would also determine whether the driver was driving from a legitimate activity during curfew hours, such as a school function. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied the officer would make that determination, but it could be appealed by the driver. SENATOR ELLIS stated he was trying to clarify whether driving to and from work would be the only legitimate reason to drive during curfew hours. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated if this bill becomes law, the teenager would need to be driven by someone else during curfew hours for any activity other than work. MS. HENSLEY clarified if a teenage driver has a driver over the age of 25 in the car, then the provisional license driver would be able to drive during curfew hours. SENATOR ELLIS questioned why the age of 25 was used. MS. HENSLEY commented the insurance industry uses the age of 25 to determine that a driver is no longer a higher risk. Current law allows a person with an instructional permit to drive in a car with a 19 year old; that would be changed because it is believed a 25 year old is more mature. She noted that age was chosen arbitrarily. SENATOR ELLIS believed young people feel contempt for the laws when they differentiate by age for various activities, and felt that provision in the bill needs more thought. MS. HENLSEY remarked New Zealand and the province of Ontario have successful graduated license programs based on novice driving, rather than age. SENATOR ELLIS removed his objection to the adoption of SCSHB 57(JUD) therefore the motion carried. SENATOR MILLER moved SCSHB 57(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried. HB 459 TRUSTS & PROPERTY TRANSFERS IN TRUST JOE RYAN, legislative aide to Representative Al Vezey, sponsor of HB 459, asked Dick Thwaites to provide the committee with an overview of the legislation. SENATOR ELLIS asked why the sponsor was not available to testify on HB 459. MR. RYAN replied Representative Vezey was attending a House Judiciary committee hearing at this time. DICK THWAITES, an estate planning attorney, gave the following summary of HB 459. The measure addresses Alaska statutes in the area of trust and probate law (Title 13) and other related statutes, including the statute of frauds, the rule against perpetuities, and other sections of the code. The Alaska statutes are not comprehensive in the area of trust law; they are general and generic. HB 459 will create several types of trusts defined as irrevocable family trusts. They are asset protection trusts which essentially give the same protections to a family that a corporation gives to a business. Assets unencumbered by spousal or child support rights, creditor's claims, collateral interests of banks, could be transferred into a trust which would allow the grantor of the trust to be among the class of beneficiaries. Under present law, if a grantor is a beneficiary of an irrevocable trust, the grantor is deemed to have the power to control the trust, therefore it is accessible by the grantor's creditors. HB 459 will change the statute to allow the trust to be irrevocable and for the grantor to be among the class of beneficiaries. It would allow for a family nest egg, and provides an exception to the rule of perpetuities. Alaska is in a beneficial position in that it does not have a lot of trust law and case law to encumber the establishment of such trusts, as Missouri did. This type of trust will provide an alternative for individuals who might want to pass property to offshore trusts; Alaska would be the unique jurisdiction within the United States to accomplish that. This type of trust provides certain estate tax advantages yet does not avoid income, estate, or gift taxes. The fact that Alaska has no state income tax adds to its appeal as a situs jurisdiction. The trustee of the estate would have to be an Alaska resident (according to the Permanent Fund dividend definition), an Alaska Trust Company, an Alaska State bank with trust powers, or a national banking association with trust powers having its principle place of business in the State of Alaska. If large sums of money are transferred to Alaska, it is likely large banks will establish Alaska trust companies as wholy owned subsidiaries. BOB MANLEY testified on his own behalf in support of HB 459. He suggested the language "some or all" on page 2, line 11, and on page 3, line 1, be changed to approximately 10 percent of the trust assets to enhance the benefits to Alaska and its financial institutions. MR. THWAITES agreed with Mr. Manley's philosophy, but believed imposing such a limit would discourage clients. He suggested that change be considered in the future. SENATOR GREEN moved CSHB 459(JUD)am out of committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried. SENATOR TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.