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