Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/24/1995 01:36 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
April 24, 1995
1:36 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
HOUSE BILL NO. 200
"An Act reassigning responsibility for the custody of persons
pending their arraignments, commitment to the custody of the
commissioner of corrections, or admission to a state correctional
facility, and authorizing the commissioner of corrections to employ
guards for emergencies on the same basis as the commissioner of
public safety, as partially exempt service employees; and providing
for an effective date."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 28(FIN) am
"An Act relating to the possession of weapons within the buildings
of, grounds of, or on the parking lot of preschools, elementary,
junior high, and secondary schools or while participating in a
school-sponsored event; requiring the expulsion or suspension of
students possessing deadly weapons on school grounds; requiring
reports to the Department of Education concerning those expulsions
or suspensions; and relating to school lockers and other containers
provided in a public or private school by the school or the school
district."
SENATE BILL NO. 115
"An Act relating to the establishment, modification, and
enforcement of support orders and the determination of parentage in
situations involving more than one state; amending Alaska Rule of
Administration 9; amending Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 79 and
82; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to administrative establishment of paternity and
establishing paternity by affidavit; relating to child support
enforcement; and providing for an effective date."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 42 (STA) am
"An Act relating to absentee voting, to electronic transmission of
absentee ballot applications, and to delivery of ballots to
absentee ballot applicants by electronic transmission, and enacting
a definition of the term 'state election' for purposes of absentee
voting."
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5(FIN) am
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to terms of legislators.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 95(L&C)
"An Act relating to automobile liability insurance for uninsured or
underinsured motor vehicles; and providing for an effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 200 - No previous Senate action to report.
CSHB 28 (Fin)am - No previous Senate action to report.
SB 115 - SB 115 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes
dated 4/12/95.
SB 116 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated
4/12/95.
CSHB 42 (Sta)am - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/28/95 and
Judiciary minutes dated 4/22/95.
CSHJR 5 (Fin)am - See Judiciary minutes dated 4/22/95.
CSSB 95 (L&C) - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 2/28/95,
3/21/95, and 3/28/95.
See Judiciary minutes dated 4/12/95, 4/19/95.
WITNESS REGISTER
Dennis DeWitt
Legislative Aide
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for sponsor of HB 200
Lt. Ted Bachman
Alaska State Troopers
Dept. of Public Safety
5700 E. Tudor Rd.
Anchorage, AK 99507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 200
Patty Swenson
Legislative Aide
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for sponsor of HB 28
Margot Knuth
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 28
Peggy Robinson-Wilson
Vice President, Anchorage School Board
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, AK 99519-6650
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28
Sheila Peterson
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St., Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28
Representative Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 28
Art Peterson
NCCUSL
350 N. Franklin St.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 115
Marilyn May
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
1031 W. 4th Ave., Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501-1994
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 115
Glenda Straube
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 410
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 115 and SB 116
Stuart Hall
Office of the Ombudsman
P.O. Box 113000
Juneau, Alaska 99811-3000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 115
Don Koch
Division of Insurance
Dept. of Commerce & Economic Development
P.O. Box 110805
Juneau, AK 99811-0805
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 95
Representative Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 5
Chris Christensen
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 5
Charles McKee
P.O. Box 143452
Anchorage, AK 99514
POSITION STATEMENT: No position stated
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-25, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:36 p.m. The first order of business before the
committee was HB 200.
HB 200 CUSTODY OF PRISONERS
DENNY DEWITT, legislative aide to Representative Mulder, sponsor of
the measure, gave the following testimony. HB 200 completes the
move of community jails from the Department of Public Safety to the
Department of Corrections by making the technical changes required
to change authority to the Commissioner of the Department of
Corrections. Both the Hickel budget and the Knowles budget
proposals, in both the House and Senate versions, make the
financial transfer.
Number 037
SENATOR ADAMS asked about the number of employee transfers included
in the financial transfer. MR. DEWITT replied a contract function
is transferred; local agencies provide those services under
contract. The House budget contained two departmental positions to
manage the program; the Senate version contained one position.
Jail employees are municipal employees, however the state does pay
for some employee expenses under the contract.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated he understood the program to be managed by a
Dept. of Public Safety employee one-quarter time, yet through the
committee process, two full-time positions were added to administer
a single form of contract, signed by 14 people.
Number 080
MR. DEWITT believed the House Finance subcommittee included two
positions based on the premise that more than simple contract
management would be necessary; supervision and other functions
would be added. The additional functions were part of the reason
for the transfer to the Dept. of Corrections. A recommendation
from the Task Force on Community Jails suggested more technical
assistance from the Department in the operation and supervision of
community jails.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted HB 200 has a referral to the Senate Finance
Committee where that issue can be reviewed.
Number 102
LT. TED BACHMAN, Alaska State Troopers, presented the following
testimony. Since July 1, 1994, he administered the contracts for
the Department of Public Safety. The community jails program
consists of 15 municipally owned and operated jails throughout the
state, primarily in rural areas. They are staffed by approximately
70 people, who require initial screening and training. The jails
respond to between 2 and 5 civil law suits per year which require
research, recordkeeping, and other activities associated with the
suits. The program position monitors prisoner intake and time
served as well as expenditures and contract compliance. Although
the contracts were unified and standardized, monitoring monthly
operations and compliance oversight must still occur.
Number 138
SENATOR GREEN moved HB 200 out of committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried.
HB 28 POSSESSION OF GUNS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY
PATTY SWENSON, staff to Representative Bunde, sponsor of HB 28,
testified. HB 28 brings Alaska into compliance with the federal
Gun Free Schools Act. It prohibits the possession of guns within
school buildings, or on school grounds, and elevates the crime from
a class B to a class A misdemeanor. HB 28 allows locker searches
if notice is posted prominently in the schools. Locker searches
are constitutional as long as notice of the policy is posted.
Locker searches would be permitted only for weapons, guns, and
drugs. Other items found during a search could not be used against
a student. Personal items, such as backpacks, could not be
searched without probable cause. To comply with the Gun Free
Schools Act, schools must change data gathering methods regarding
weapons' incidences. HB 28 mandates reporting requirements that
will comply with the federal legislation and improve data gathering
on expulsions and weapon possession. Currently no adequate
statewide data gathering program regarding the age, grade, and
number of students expelled or suspended for weapons possession or
drug violations exists. HB 28 mandates expulsion for one year for
possession of deadly weapons on school grounds. The measure gives
school administrators the ability to modify expulsions or
suspensions on a case-by-case basis. Some weapons are exempted
with permission, i.e. those used for drill team competitions.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Ms. Swenson if she has reviewed the proposed
Senate Judiciary committee substitute and amendment. MS. SWENSON
replied affirmatively and stated the sponsor does not object to the
proposed changes.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained the changes as follows. On page 2, line
16, the phrase, "or on the parking lot immediately adjacent to" was
changed to read, "or on the school parking lot of." He noted the
change was made to clarify the parameter of the law.
SENATOR GREEN moved to adopt the Senate Judiciary committee
substitute (Luckhaupt, 4/24/95). SENATOR ELLIS objected, and asked
if any other changes were made. SENATOR TAYLOR explained there is
an amendment to be offered. He maintained the objection for the
purpose of discussion.
SENATOR ELLIS asked for clarification of the parameters under which
a locker search could occur, and whether that provision is based on
case law, or the new federal law.
Number 233
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
explained the basis of the locker search provisions in HB 28 are
existing law under both the U.S. and Alaska Constitutions. The
provision is not required by the federal Firearms on School Grounds
Act, but is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court case law.
Essentially, school lockers are the property of the school,
therefore students' expectation of privacy in the school lockers is
reduced and the school may set criteria for reasonable searches.
HB 28 codifies existing law so that schools will be able to look to
the statute to determine what the parameters are to conduct
searches. Notices must be at least two inches high, and the search
or examination must not be more intrusive than reasonably necessary
to meet the objectives of the search.
Number 260
SENATOR ELLIS questioned whether it was the privacy provision in
the Alaska Constitution, or the probable cause provision of the
federal constitution, that prevents the search of backpacks and
personal items.
MS. KNUTH replied that protection is provided in both the U.S. and
Alaska Constitutions, but more so under Alaska's search and seizure
provision.
Number 271
SENATOR ELLIS asked about the notification requirements in HB 28.
MS. KNUTH responded lines 19-21 on page 4 contain that directive;
it is anticipated that notice will be continuously posted during
the school year. SENATOR ELLIS clarified the notice is continuous
and used as a standing announcement.
SENATOR ADAMS asked if a person gives up the right to privacy when
using a locker owned by a municipality or school district. MS.
KNUTH explained the individual never had that right with respect to
the locker. Part of the basis is that the search is for
contraband, and most particularly for weapons. The right to search
is a balance between the expectation of the right of privacy and
the right of other students and school officials to protection.
SENATOR ADAMS commented he was uncomfortable with that provision.
Number 303
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the posting of the search notice could occur
simultaneously with the search. MS. KNUTH stated she would expect
the notice to precede any searches, but it is possible that the
notice might be posted on the first day of school and a search
could occur on the same day. Such a situation would technically
comply with the statute, however that would be a one-time hardship
to the student.
SENATOR ELLIS expressed concern that when teaching young people
respect for laws, those laws need to be thorough and well
constructed, otherwise students learn disrespect for the laws. He
suggested amending the bill to prevent simultaneous notice posting
and searching.
Number 330
SENATOR GREEN asked if the same locker search policy is in effect
under current law. MS. KNUTH stated locker searches are currently
permissible. She added the notification element was included to
provide better communication about that policy and instill an
improved sense of trustworthiness on the part of the school.
MS. KNUTH discussed the proposed amendment. The amendment changes
the language on page 2, lines 18-19, from "who otherwise may
lawfully possess a deadly weapon or a defensive weapon" to "21
years of age or older." This allows a certain group of people to
possess weapons on school grounds, the intent being that an adult
should be able to possess a defensive or deadly weapon, most
specifically an unloaded firearm, in the trunk of a motor vehicle
or in a closed container in a motor vehicle. The House amended the
bill and removed the "21 years of age or older" language and
replaced it with "who otherwise may lawfully possess a deadly
weapon or a defensive weapon." Section 8 on page 3 prohibits
students from carrying such weapons. The House amendment would
permit a student expelled from school for a firearm violation to
qualify as somebody who would otherwise be able to lawfully possess
a weapon. The amendment would prevent such an occurrence.
Number 356
PEGGY ROBINSON-WILSON, Vice President of the Anchorage School
Board, testified on SCS CSHB 28(JUD). The Anchorage School
District has had experience in expelling students for bringing guns
and other deadly weapons on campus. She noted the word "school"
was inserted in front of the words "parking lot" on page 2, line
16, and page 3, line 3, in the proposed Senate Judiciary committee
substitute at her request. The change was requested to clarify
potential jurisdictional issues that could arise at the school
located in the Fifth Avenue parking garage in Anchorage.
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of the
Department of Education, testified in support of SCS CSHB 28(JUD),
primarily Section 6. When the federal government reauthorized the
Education Act, it included a section dealing with the Gun Free
School Act. If the state does not have this legislation in place by
October 20, federal funds will be at risk. Those funds equaled
approximately $90 million in 1995. Safety in the schools is of
paramount concern to everyone; this measure provides school
districts with tools to ensure that schools are safe.
Number 420
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there was continued objection to the
adoption of the Senate Judiciary committee substitute. There being
none, the motion carried.
SENATOR GREEN moved to adopt Amendment #1. There being no
objection, the motion carried.
Number 427
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Representative Bunde if lines 20-21 on page 2
could be interpreted to mean a person could have a loaded weapon in
a motor vehicle. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that language was
difficult to draft, but is intended to cover such things as a filet
knife, as a parent might pick up a child from school on the way
home from a fishing trip. A firearm must be in the trunk or in a
case and must be unloaded. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there are no
circumstances under which a person could have a loaded firearm.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied, "That is correct, assuming you are
not a peace officer or something like that."
Number 443
SENATOR ELLIS asked if there is a section in the bill defining
"closed container." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated there is not, but
he considered a closed container to be a gun case.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the closed container has to be locked. He
noted many states are passing legislation making parents liable for
unlocked gun cases.
MS. KNUTH replied the container does not have to be locked; those
containers could be as simple as a cardboard box with a lid. It is
the same term used in the search and seizure law. REPRESENTATIVE
BUNDE commented he assumed the term to mean the gun case, so that
it is not readily accessible and would prevent a person from using
a gun on impulse.
SENATOR GREEN moved SCS CSHB 28(JUD)am out of committee with
individual recommendations. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
Number 481
SB 115 UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT
ART PETERSON, of the law firm Dylan & Findley, testified in his
role as a Uniform Law Commissioner for Alaska. SB 115 represents
the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), promulgated by
the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
(NCCUSL) to replace the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support
Act (URESA), also promulgated by the NCCUSL. In several decades of
experience with URESA, enacted by all jurisdictions, numerous
problems arose; the most significant being the problem of multiple
jurisdiction and multiple court orders. Multiple court orders can
conflict with each other, cause confusion for both the obligee and
obligor, prevent the child from receiving the appropriate amount of
support, and cause confusion in the administrative agencies and
courts. SB 115 resolves those problems by providing for the
avoidance of multiple court orders. SB 115 was created in 1992,
after a several year study by NCCUSL. It has already been adopted
by 21 states and has been introduced in several other states this
year. This legislation is anticipated to eventually replace URESA
in all jurisdictions.
Number 518
SENATOR ADAMS stated the Attorney General's Office is interested in
deleting the reference to the Alaska Rule of Administration 9. He
asked Mr. Peterson's position on that deletion.
MR. PETERSON responded he would support the deletion. He noted the
bill title would need to be amended, as well as Section 6 on page
26. He stated the Supreme Court voted to adopt that Rule change,
therefore its inclusion is unnecessary.
Number 530
MARILYN MAY, Assistant Attorney General, concurred with Mr.
Peterson's description of the amendment. She verified the Rule
change was made by the Supreme Court.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how SB 115 would impact a divorced couple
whose support order was issued in Alaska, but have since moved at
separate times to Oregon. MS. MAY stated UIFSA provides a method
for determining which state has continuing exclusive jurisdiction,
and it is only that state that has the power to modify an existing
support order. In the scenario described, the Alaska order would
remain in effect until one of the parties requested a modification
of the order. That could occur in Oregon, because under UIFSA that
would most likely be the state with exclusive jurisdiction. Either
party could make the request of the Oregon tribunal.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if that is existing law. MS. MAY stated under
existing law it is possible there could be two separate orders.
The Alaska order would remain in effect but a new order might be
established in Oregon. If one of the parties moved back to Alaska,
Alaska could collect on its order, which could differ from the
amount on the Oregon order. Currently under URESA, there can be
two orders of differing amounts. The law provides that a person
cannot double collect, however there is often argument about which
amount is to be collected. Under UIFSA, if a party requested
Oregon to modify the Alaska order, it would be modified and the
Alaska order would no longer be effective.
Number 564
SENATOR GREEN asked if ample provision exists for everyone to be
represented in court, or at all levels of the hearing process so
that there are no surprises. MS. MAY commented that UIFSA is more
clear than URESA in that way, and provides a specific right to be
represented by an attorney. It allows states to establish or
modify orders administratively if allowable under state law.
GLENDA STRAUBE, Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division
(CSED), stated the most important part of SB 115 is the elimination
of the multiple order system which is a nationwide problem. The
most difficult collection cases for CSED are the interstate cases,
which comprise 44 percent of the caseload. If SB 115 is enacted,
CSED estimates additional collections of $340,000 per year for the
state share of the AFDC reimbursement, and about $680,000 in direct
payments to children in non-AFDC cases. CSED does not anticipate
any additional operating expenditures. The bill standardizes forms
across state lines and allows direct income withholding.
STUART HALL, Ombudsman, emphasized that enactment of SB 115 will
assist many who sought the Ombudsman's help with CSED. In FY 94
and 95 to date, the Ombudsman's Office has assisted almost 1700
individuals with complaints against CSED, many of whom were
custodial parents who depend on CSED to collect support from an
out-of-state parent. A large number of those complaints came from
single parents concerned about the slow pace of case establishment
and child support collection. SB 115 will streamline the
establishment process and prompt speedier collections, and would
help reduce the Ombudsman's caseload. The bill will allow an
Alaska order to be taken to another state, and to obtain payments
directly from employers.
Number 577
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned the number of the Ombudsman's cases
related to CSED. MR. HALL responded approximately two-thirds of
their cases involve CSED. He has discussed those complaints with
Ms. Straube and Commissioner Condon. SB 115 would significantly
streamline the process and reduce the level of clientele
frustration.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the frustration stems from the fact that
CSED decides which order will be enforced when multiple orders
exist. MR. HALL stated he was unqualified to answer that question,
but repeated that the frustration stems from the fact that multiple
orders exist.
MR. PETERSON noted that Senator Taylor was correct, and added that
SB 115 would streamline the process by providing for agency
enforcement of the orders, simplify the process, eliminate some of
the court backlog, and thereby minimize delays. When multiple
court orders are challenged, a lengthy procedure takes place, and
the courts have to resolve the issue. Under UIFSA, that problem
will be eliminated, therefore subsequent handling of the order will
be simplified.
Number 554
SENATOR TAYLOR spoke of the high transient population in Alaska,
and attributed the large number of out-of-state cases to that fact.
He thought the State of Alaska was handling a lot of enforcement
cases for people living elsewhere, instead of the state agency
where the client resides. He cited previous testimony from CSED,
in which the fact that Alaska was opting to go with the most
expensive of the multiple orders without justification, was
disclosed. He was concerned that policy be curtailed.
SENATOR TAYLOR also discussed the fact the legislature needs to
eventually make a policy call on the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) program when both divorced parents have been judged
to be competent parents but custody is awarded to one parent. When
the custodial parent chooses to go on AFDC for six months, he
believes the CSED should issue an automatic petition to move those
children to the other parent who is willing to support them and has
a job.
Number 535
MS. STRAUBE replied CSED has no legal jurisdiction over custody or
visitation rights. SENATOR TAYLOR spoke about the effect of the
layoff in Wrangell on his constituents, and that most of those
paying child support probably cannot afford to hire an attorney to
request a reduction in payments. MS. STRAUBE explained if the
support order was administratively established, a person can
directly request a modification, at no cost. SENATOR TAYLOR asked
if out-of-state orders can be modified directly by CSED. MS.
STRAUBE responded they cannot.
SENATOR GREEN asked for clarification of the modification process.
MS. STRAUBE replied CSED can modify administrative orders directly,
and if, after reviewing financial records, the modification is
approved, a change of 15 percent is made.
TAPE 95-25, SIDE B
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if CSED modifies payments if the support order
is a court order, and the recipient requests an increase based on
an increase in the obligor's income. MS. MAY responded that only
the court can change a court order. The CSED can provide forms,
but the parent must appear in court.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Ms. May to work with committee staff to draft
language to delete the reference to the Alaska Rule of
Administration 9, as requested by Senator Adams. She agreed to do
so. He announced a proposed committee substitute would be brought
before the committee at the next meeting.
SB 95 INSURANCE AGAINST UNINSURED DRIVERS
Number 481
DON KOCH, Division of Insurance, clarified CSSB 95(JUD), Version O,
addresses the Tumbleson issue, discussed at the previous meeting.
SENATOR ELLIS moved to adopt CSSB 95(JUD). SENATOR GREEN objected.
MR. KOCH explained Version O. It addresses the Tumbleson issue by
restating that uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is
excess and either one can be triggered by a shortfall in the funds
needed to cover a particular loss.
Number 454
SENATOR TAYLOR discussed Mr. Lessmeier's projection that State Farm
Insurance would have to double the cost of premiums under this
interpretation, even though State Farm paid claims according to
this interpretation in the past.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked why the Division of Insurance would allow an
insurance carrier to double rates when the premise upon which
claims are paid has not changed. MR. KOCH replied the cost of this
coverage has increased over time, but that cost is borne by those
who voluntarily purchase the coverage, since purchase of the
insurance is optional. He was unsure of the basis State Farm uses
to settle claims since that information would not be made available
to the Division unless a complaint was filed, or unless an
examination was conducted. The Division's actuarial section is
taking a hard look at the basis for rate increases.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated there was some confusion in the testimony and
statements made. He reiterated he could not find any justification
for a projected rate increase when the interpretation for claims
payments used by the carrier in the past was confirmed by a court.
MR. KOCH commented the two don't necessarily relate, and the
reasons for additional costs are independent of the court decision.
If the carrier was settling on the basis of excess, they may have
had an adverse experience with that approach that would suggest the
need for higher rates.
Number 394
SENATOR ADAMS maintained objection to the motion. He asked if the
Division supports Sections 4 and 6 (the repealer sections). MR.
KOCH answered he was not specifically aware of the statute sections
being repealed. SENATOR TAYLOR clarified Section 6 makes the bill
retroactive to 1990 so that the intent of the 1990 law is restated.
He added most carriers have been operating under that
interpretation, therefore it should not affect them. MR. KOCH
agreed.
Number 370
SENATOR GREEN asked if other lawsuits were pending or might be
revisited due to the retroactive clause. SENATOR TAYLOR noted to
his knowledge, there have only been two cases.
SENATOR GREEN requested the bill be held until Friday for further
review of Sections 4 and 6. She expressed concern that rate
increases will discourage people from buying the insurance.
MR. KOCH noted the rates are based on the experience, and if State
Farm has had an experience that suggests the need for a rate
increase, it will file an application for review by Division
actuaries who will determine the validity. The rate level is
determined by the loss history.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented the bill was introduced at the request of
the industry to restructure the high mandatory offer of
uninsured/underinsured coverage because of reinsurance
difficulties. MR. KOCH explained the bill passed in 1990 required
the insurance industry to offer coverage in the amount of
$1,000,000/$2,000,000. CSSB 95(JUD) changes the amount to
$1,000,000/$1,000,000 to compromise with the industry.
Number 285
SENATOR TAYLOR commented he had been receiving a lot of support for
this measure from insurance agents statewide until the second court
decision created controversy over the triggering mechanism. The
legislation originated because carriers could not limit the amount
of the coverage, and rates had to be determined accordingly. Those
rates were higher than necessary and prevented carriers from
competing in the field. He repeated the bill would be heard on
Friday, April 28.
SB 115 UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT
SENATOR TAYLOR brought SB 115 back before the committee. SENATOR
ADAMS moved to adopt Amendment #1 as follows.
Page 1, line 3, delete: "amending Alaska Rule of
Administration 9;"
Page 26, lines 13-15, delete Section 6
Page 26, lines 19-21 should read:
Sec. 8. AS 25.25.313(c), added by sec. 3 of this Act, take
effect January 1, 1996 only if AS 25.25.313(c) receives the
two-thirds majority of each house required by art. IV, sec.
15, Constitution of the State of Alaska.
SENATOR ADAMS noted the Department did not contest any of the
changes when discussed in the House.
There being no objection to the adoption of the amendment, the
motion carried.
SENATOR ADAMS moved SB 115 as amended from the Judiciary Committee
with individual recommendations. There being no objection, the
motion carried.
SB 116 PATERNITY; CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
MS. STRAUBE explained SB 116 allows the CSED to administratively
establish paternity in a more expedient manner. New federal
guidelines require paternity to be established in 75 percent of
child support orders within six months. Paternity must be
established prior to the issuance of an order. Due to court
backlogs, cases remain on court dockets for six months. If
paternity can be established administratively, the process will be
shortened by at least six months. The same standards used by the
court will be used, and full due process will be provided to those
affected. The fiscal cost of $72.7 thousand will generate $850
thousand per year in AFDC reimbursements. SB 116 also allows the
biological parents and step parents of children born in wedlock to
sign an affidavit as to who the biological parents are, without
appearing in court. This bill should appease both obligors and
obligees.
Number 170
SENATOR ADAMS moved and asked unanimous consent that SB 116 be
moved to the next committee of referral with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried.
Number 145
CHARLES McKEE testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
expressed frustration that he was not able to testify on several
bills before the committee.
HJR 5 LIMITING TERMS OF STATE LEGISLATORS
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, sponsor of HJR 5, asked about the
change in the Senate Judiciary Committee substitute which requires
a person to wait three consecutive sessions before running for
office again on page 1, line 12.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated that was changed for no particular reason.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT questioned how the committee substitute
would impact elected municipal officials who already have term
limits, most of which are shorter. After discussion,
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT clarified the committee substitute
prevents a municipality from setting a term limit longer than what
is established in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT stated his preference for the original
language in the bill. He asked if the Senate Judiciary Committee
would prepare a fiscal note of $2200 to accompany the measure to
cover the cost of placing the question on the ballot.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated the committee would, and added the Finance
Committee should review the bill.
SENATOR MILLER moved adoption of SCS CSHJR 5 (JUD) (4/22/95, Cook,
Version D). SENATOR ADAMS objected for the purpose of hearing
testimony from the Court System.
Number 066
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, general counsel to the Judicial branch,
testified in opposition to the section of HJR 5 that relates to
term limits for judicial officers. The court believes the drafters
of Alaska's Constitution designed a judicial appointment and
retention system which is considered a model and has been copied by
a number of other states. The court system does not believe that
model will be improved by the changes made in HJR 5. The court
takes no position on term limits for others contained in the bill.
MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that arguments made against term limits for
legislators are equally applicable to judicial officers. The
retention election serves as the ultimate term limit for judicial
officers. Also, judicial officers who have served 15 years have
valuable experience. He responded to three specific reasons cited
in the sponsor statement to limit terms. Regarding public support
in both opinion polls and electoral results, there is no
groundswell of public support for term limits for judges,
especially in light of the fact the idea came into being only three
days ago. Second, the sponsor states term limits will provide a
flow of new legislators with new ideas. The public wants judges
who enforce laws as written, not judges with new ideas. Third, the
sponsor believes term limits will level the playing field for
challenges to entrenched incumbents. Leveling the playing field
only applies to contested elections; judicial officers have
retention elections. A fourth reason in support of term limits is
that it will force people to sit out for three years and get back
in touch with their communities. That argument does not apply to
judges since they live and work where they serve.
MR. CHRISTENSEN discussed negative results that could occur if term
limits were imposed on judicial officers. First, the judicial
retirement system would cost more to the state because judges would
be removed at the point in time they become vested. Over the long
run, more people would be drawing money out of the judicial
retirement system. Second, unlike legislators, most of whom have
an outside career, judges are required by the rules of judicial
conduct to completely give up the practice of law when they become
judges. At the end of their 15 year term, judges will have to
start a new career. This may serve as a disincentive to successful
lawyers, to take a pay cut to become a judge, and then have to
begin a new legal career at the age of 50.
TAPE 95-26, SIDE A
SENATOR ADAMS removed his objection to the adoption of SCS CSHJR 5
(JUD).
SENATOR MILLER moved SCS CSHJR 5(JUD) out of committee with
individual recommendations. SENATOR ADAMS objected. The motion
passed with Senators Green, Miller and Taylor voting "Yea," and
Senators Ellis and Adams voting "Nay."
HB 42 ABSENTEE VOTING & USE OF FAX
TOM ANDERSON, legislative aide to Representative Martin, sponsor of
the measure, deferred the question of waiving the right to privacy
issue to Mr. Gaguine.
SENATOR ADAMS suggested getting an outside opinion of the issue.
JOHN GAGUINE, Assistant Attorney General, gave the following
testimony. While reviewing the minutes of the Constitution, he
found there was discussion on this issue among two delegates. One
asked, "How can secrecy be guaranteed if, as in the case of a blind
person, or in the case of a person who cannot read, the election
judges might have to assist." The second delegate responded, "The
right of secrecy is not an absolutely unqualified right. It is
like the right to freedom of speech, the classic example is that
the right to freedom of speech does not give one the right to yell
'FIRE' in a crowded theater." After the discussion, the amendment
was adopted by a voice vote.
Number 131
SENATOR ADAMS commented that discussion referred only to a person's
physical or mental ability. MR. GAGUINE agreed, but stated he
quoted that to propose that the delegates did not intend this right
to be an absolute restriction. He spoke to the fact that the bill
requires the voter casting a faxed ballot to acknowledge that they
are waiving whatever rights they have to absolute secrecy. He
believed, if the law were challenged, the court would apply a
balancing test, and would find that the minimal intrusion on ballot
secrecy is outweighed by the fact that this bill enfranchises
people who would otherwise not be able to vote.
Number 159
SENATOR GREEN asked if anyone sees absentee ballots when they are
received. MR. GAGUINE replied that at the receiving end, the
ballot is commingled, therefore no one at that end could connect
the voter with the ballot. He clarified he was referring to the
operator at the sending end.
Number 174
SENATOR MILLER commented it is possible to connect a name with an
absentee ballot in a small election, therefore there is no
guarantee of secrecy even with absentee ballots.
Number 187
SENATOR TAYLOR discussed the history of the constitutional freedom
of speech, and questioned Mr. Gaguine's reference to Messerly v
State, which says that Alaska's society's interest in knowing the
identity of a person who publishes an ad concerning a municipal
bond proposition outweighs that person's right, under free speech,
to privacy.
MR. GAGUINE answered that Messerly v State became invalid as of 10
days ago since the U.S. Supreme Court issued a differing opinion.
Number 220
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Gaguine to review the statutes governing
the APOC reporting requirements to determine if repeal of any of
that statute is necessary. MR. GAGUINE offered to pass the request
to Nancy Gordon, Assistant Attorney General, in Anchorage. SENATOR
TAYLOR felt it was important to inform the public of changes made
in light of the Supreme Court decision.
Number 232
SENATOR ADAMS asked about technical implementation of the bill, and
potential disclosure of ballot information from phone line problems
or human error.
MR. GAGUINE assumed the court would take those types of occurrences
into account when applying a balancing test. He personally
considered the possibility of those types of problems occurring to
be a policy decision.
Number 260
SENATOR ELLIS requested the bill be held in committee for further
study and discussion. SENATOR TAYLOR replied the bill would be
heard again on Friday, April 28.
SENATOR TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|