Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/06/2004 08:16 AM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 6, 2004
8:16 a.m.
TAPE(S) 04-65,66
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Johnny Ellis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 421(JUD)
"An Act relating to reconveyances of deeds of trust."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 549(JUD) am
"An Act relating to unsolicited communications following an
aircraft accident."
MOVED SCS CSHB 549(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 275(FIN)
"An Act relating to animals, and to the care of and to cruelty
to animals."
MOVED SCS CSHB 275(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 397
"An Act relating to open meetings guidelines applicable to
legislators, to the confidentiality of complaints and
proceedings involving alleging violations of AS 24.60, and to
hearings on formal charges by the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics or its subcommittees."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 421
SHORT TITLE: DEED OF TRUST RECONVEYANCE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ANDERSON
02/02/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/04 (H) L&C, JUD
03/19/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/19/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/24/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/24/04 (H) Moved CSHB 421(L&C) Out of Committee
03/24/04 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/25/04 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 7DP
03/25/04 (H) DP: CRAWFORD, LYNN, GATTO, ROKEBERG,
03/25/04 (H) DAHLSTROM, GUTTENBERG, ANDERSON
04/21/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/21/04 (H) Moved CSHB 421(JUD) Out of Committee
04/21/04 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/22/04 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 2DP 4NR
04/22/04 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, MCGUIRE; NR: HOLM,
04/22/04 (H) GARA, SAMUELS, OGG
04/28/04 (H) MOVED TO BOTTOM OF CALENDAR
04/28/04 (H) NOT TAKEN UP 4/28 - ON 4/29 CALENDAR
04/30/04 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/30/04 (H) VERSION: CSHB 421(JUD)
05/01/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/01/04 (S) L&C, JUD
05/04/04 (S) L&C AT 2:00 PM BELTZ 211
05/04/04 (S) Moved CSHB 421(JUD) Out of Committee
05/04/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
05/05/04 (S) L&C RPT 4DP 1NR
05/05/04 (S) DP: BUNDE, SEEKINS, DAVIS, STEVENS G;
05/05/04 (S) NR: FRENCH
05/06/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 549
SHORT TITLE: UNSOLICITED COMMUNICATION:AIRCRAFT CRASH
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
03/29/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/04 (H) JUD
04/05/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/05/04 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to Tues. 4/6/04 --
04/06/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/04 (H) Moved CSHB 549(JUD) Out of Committee
04/06/04 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/04 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 4DP 1NR 1AM
04/07/04 (H) DP: SAMUELS, HOLM, ANDERSON, MCGUIRE;
04/07/04 (H) NR: GARA; AM: OGG
04/21/04 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/21/04 (H) VERSION: CSHB 549(JUD) AM
04/22/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/22/04 (S) L&C, JUD
04/27/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/27/04 (S) Moved SCS CSHB 549(L&C) Out of
Committee
04/27/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
05/01/04 (S) L&C RPT SCS 1DNP 3NR SAME TITLE
05/01/04 (S) NR: BUNDE, SEEKINS, STEVENS G;
05/01/04 (S) DNP: FRENCH
05/03/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
05/03/04 (S) Heard & Held
05/03/04 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/05/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
05/05/04 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/06/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 275
SHORT TITLE: ANIMALS AND CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CHENAULT
04/17/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/17/03 (H) L&C, RES
02/20/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/20/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
03/29/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/29/04 (H) Moved CSHB 275(L&C) Out of Committee
03/29/04 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/31/04 (H) RES REFERRAL WAIVED
04/01/04 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 3DP 2NR 1AM
04/01/04 (H) DP: CRAWFORD, LYNN, ANDERSON;
04/01/04 (H) NR: ROKEBERG, DAHLSTROM; AM: GUTTENBERG
04/01/04 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED AFTER L&C
04/01/04 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
04/05/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/05/04 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to Tues. 4/6/04 --
04/06/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/04 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/07/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/07/04 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/14/04 (H) Moved CSHB 275(JUD) Out of Committee
04/14/04 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/04 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 2DP 2NR
04/19/04 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, MCGUIRE; NR: SAMUELS,
04/19/04 (H) HOLM
04/26/04 (H) FIN AT 8:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/26/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/04 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/27/04 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/27/04 (H) Moved CSHB 275(FIN) Out of Committee
04/27/04 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/28/04 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 5DP 6NR
04/28/04 (H) DP: CROFT, MEYER, CHENAULT, FOSTER,
04/28/04 (H) WILLIAMS; NR: HAWKER, STOLTZE, JOULE,
04/28/04 (H) MOSES, FATE, HARRIS
04/30/04 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/30/04 (H) VERSION: CSHB 275(FIN)
05/01/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/01/04 (S) JUD, FIN
05/03/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
05/03/04 (S) Heard & Held
05/03/04 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/04/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
05/04/04 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/06/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Josh Applebee
Staff to Representative Anderson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 421 for the sponsor
Mr. Brian Merrell
Alaska Land Title Association
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 421
Ms. Vanessa Tondini
Staff to Representative McGuire
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about HB 549
Ms. Sharalynn Wright
Staff to Representative Chenault
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Does not object to SCS CSHB 275(JUD)
Ms. Sally Clampitt
Alaska Equestrians
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed a concern about Amendment 1 to
CCSHB 275(FIN)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-65, SIDE A
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:16 a.m. Senators French,
Therriault and Seekins were present. The committee took up HB
421.
CSHB 421(JUD)-DEED OF TRUST RECONVEYANCE
MR. JOSH APPLEBEE, staff to Representative Tom Anderson, sponsor
of HB 421, told members this legislation was brought forward by
the Alaska Land Title Association as a way to enable people to
get clear title to their homes and mortgages. The intent and
purpose of the bill is simple: once a loan is paid, the title
must be cleared. He explained that most Alaska banks rarely hold
a home loan for more than 30 days. Banks sell those mortgages to
servicing companies, which collect the monthly payments over the
life of the loan. Most mortgage service companies are located
outside of Alaska. Under current law, service companies are not
required to make sure loans are reconveyed and filed in the
state recorder's office once they are paid off. Once a homeowner
pays off his mortgage, the lien on the home held by the mortgage
service company should be removed. During testimony in previous
committees, a title insurance company in Anchorage stated that
over 1400 deeds of trust were pending reconveyance, which
illustrates that thousands of deeds across the state have not
been reconveyed.
MR. APPLEBEE noted that other states are experiencing this same
problem. HB 421 is modeled after an Idaho statute that was
adopted three years ago. The Idaho law has proved to speed up
the reconveyance process there. HB 421 is supported by other
sectors of the housing industry, including the Alaska Mortgage
Bankers Association and the Alaska State Homebuilders
Association, and it has been reviewed by realtors and bankers.
HB 421 applies only to those deeds of trust held by title
insurance companies. It does not provide opportunities to wipe
out debt or other obligations established by deeds of trust. The
bulk of HB 421 establishes a notification process and describes
the form that notification should take. The notification process
provides for quality control and uniformity. He indicated that
Mr. Brian Merrell was available to answer specific questions.
MR. BRIAN MERRELL, First American Title Insurance Company and
immediate past president of the Alaska Land Title Association,
affirmed that HB 421 was introduced at the request of the Alaska
Land Title Association, in an effort to assist the Association's
customers in clearing title to old deeds of trust when title
insurers' have sufficient information from lenders to believe a
mortgage has been paid off. The legislation additionally
requires notification to be given to lenders and their servicers
of the intention to reconvey trusts, which is normally done at
their request. He noted a problem arises because out-of-state
lenders often do not make those requests.
SENATOR FRENCH commented that HB 421 appears to make perfect
sense but questioned why a law is necessary and whether
something in the law is prohibiting title companies from
releasing deeds of trust.
MR. MERRELL said the statutes say very little about how a deed
of trust is to be released. He stated:
It's just sort of a matter of common law how the whole
process is set up anyway. But there certainly is a
part of that common law requirement that the lender
request that this reconveyance happen and, as I
mentioned, so many times we find that a lot of
particularly out-of-state lenders don't follow through
on making that request or they send the information
for the request to be made through their old borrower
who may have sold the property and has no further
interest in doing anything with it so it just ends up
being thrown in the trash. So this would help us to
help future owners of the property - the ones who own
the property and come in later to do transactions that
find that these deeds of trust haven't been released,
to help them out, to make sure it gets done. But I do
agree with you, it is sort of a common sense thing.
The problem is that there isn't any common sense in
the law right now so we need to put it there.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that with no further questions or persons
wishing to testify, public testimony was closed.
SENATOR OGAN moved CSHB 421(JUD) and its attached fiscal notes
from committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted without objection, the motion carried. The
committee took a brief at-ease.
CSHB 549(JUD)am-UNSOLICITED COMMUNICATION:AIRCRAFT CRASH
MS. VANESSA TONDINI, staff to Representative McGuire, chair of
the House Judiciary Committee, reminded members that she has
presented HB 549 several times so was available to answer
questions.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Tondini if she was able to summarize
some of the conversations that have taken place about this
legislation since its last hearing.
MS. TONDINI explained that a committee member expressed concern
about the penalty and she believes an amendment may be proposed
to address that concern.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved the following amendment [Amendment 1]:
On page 2, line 9 [version Q], change $100,000 to $10,000.
MS. TONDINI informed members that Representative McGuire does
not object to that amendment.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that without objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
SENATOR FRENCH moved to adopt Amendment 2, which reads as
follows:
A M E N D M E N T 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR FRENCH
TO SCS CSHB 549(L&C)
Page 2, lines 8-12:
Delete all material and insert:
"(d) The attorney general or an
aggrieved person may institute a civil action against
a person who violates this section. In addition to
injunctive and compensatory relief, a civil penalty
not to exceed $10,000 may be imposed for each
violation."
CHAIR SEEKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
SENATOR FRENCH explained that the purpose of Amendment 2 is to
turn what is proposed to be a crime into a civil wrongdoing.
Amendment 2 would allow either the attorney general or an
aggrieved person to bring a civil action against an attorney or
an agent of the airlines to seek redress for any intrusion
during the 45-day cooling off period. He opined that the main
benefit of Amendment 2 is that it will allow the wrongs to be
addressed. He said assuming that an overworked district attorney
will file a criminal complaint against a lawyer for contacting
an injured victim of an airplane accident within 45 days of the
accident is unlikely. He believes the caseloads of the district
attorneys' offices will preclude them from taking action on what
they will see as a civil issue. Amendment 2 will put the power
in the attorney general's office or the aggrieved person's hands
to take action. He repeated that he believes this bill addresses
a civil wrong, not a crime.
MS. TONDINI maintained that Representative McGuire opposes
Amendment 2 as she believes a criminal penalty is appropriate.
Such a penalty will get the attention of the Alaska Bar
Association. The existing penalty in HB 549 does not include
jail time. She furthered that although the district attorneys'
caseload may be high, that is also the case for the civil
division of the attorney general's office.
SENATOR OGAN asked what the sanctions would be if an attorney is
convicted of this crime.
MS. TONDINI said she believes the bar association would take
notice of a criminal conviction on an attorney's record and may
disbar that attorney or take other appropriate action.
SENATOR FRENCH said he believes the answer to that question is
"it depends." He said the bar association sometimes waits until
a criminal action is complete before taking action, which may
result in an unnecessary delay. He said if he was charged with
this crime, he would insist on a jury trial and appeal it for as
long as possible. He believes the civil route is cleaner and
faster, and more likely to lead to prosecutions than a criminal
action.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Senator French if he would use the same
tactic to drag the case out for a civil action.
SENATOR FRENCH said the "aura" of a criminal conviction is
higher and a civil charge would more likely lead to settlement.
The two parties could settle their disagreement over the
practice of driving airplane passengers to the hospital, which
is what this bill aims to stop. He said he sees Amendment 2 as a
rational first step; if, in two years it has not produced any
results, the undesired activity can be made a crime.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that a criminal charge could only be
brought by the state, whereas Amendment 2 would permit an
aggrieved person to bring a civil charge.
With no further discussion, the roll was called. Amendment 2
failed to be adopted with Senator French in favor and Senators
Therriault, Ogan and Seekins opposed.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he believes the criminal penalty will be a
greater deterrent.
SENATOR OGAN moved SCS CSHB 549(JUD) and its attached fiscal
notes from committee with individual recommendations.
SENATOR FRENCH objected.
The motion to move SCS CSHB 548(JUD) from committee carried with
Senators Ogan, Therriault and Seekins in favor and Senator
French opposed.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:40 - 8:47 a.m.
HB 275-ANIMALS AND CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that at the last meeting, members discussed
some provisions that were troublesome. He said over time, he has
worked with people from the equine industry, veterinarians, and
animal advocates to find a way to adequately protect animals
without being "extremist." He said in his proposal, Section 1
addresses the minimal standards necessary for animals. He noted
that because Alaska has a very small number of veterinarians,
the bill requires reasonable medical care to the extent
available and necessary. He added that his proposal also says
that the final determination of whether the standards of care
are met shall be based on the professional opinion of a licensed
veterinarian. He noted the department can adopt regulations to
implement Section 1 and that the bill is too open-ended in that
the department would set other standards for health and safety.
He said he believes his proposal contains a compatible
definition of the minimum standard of care.
SENATOR FRENCH asked why the sanitation portion of the bill was
left out of Chair Seekins' proposal.
CHAIR SEEKINS said his proposal addresses a reasonable
sanitation level and that no standard environment applies to all
animals. He said his proposal is designed to provide reasonable
guidelines and allows a veterinarian would make the final
determination as to what is a proper environment.
SENATOR OGAN expressed concern that some people believe animals
should have the same protections as humans. He explained:
I mean honestly, my daughter was on a tour in Kachemak
Bay for school. She was a chaperone for younger kids,
and the people that were giving the tour that hosted
the place where they stayed...were out there talking
about how the starfish murder the clams.... That's how
they described it to these kids and my daughter's
going they what? They murder the clams? I mean
honestly, there are some people out there that are, as
far as animal rights, an animal doesn't have a right
to murder another animal to continue to live, you
know, God or the natural order or whatever your belief
is set it up that way. So that's what I'm worried
about. Those are my concerns with these kind of bills.
Like I said, I have friends that have open-ranged
horses over in Kachemak Bay. It's a tough way for a
horse to make it through the winter. Some of them
might not have. I know there's one of them, a living
legend in our neighborhood that had a big old chunk
out of its rear end from where a bear got a hold of it
in the spring when it was born. So it's all pretty
subjective. One person's standard of good care will be
another person's level of outrage. Those are some of
my problems with putting some of these things in
statute.
CHAIR SEEKINS agreed with Senator Ogan and said according to his
veterinarian, his horses are the healthiest in Alaska, although
others might not believe they are appropriately cared for.
He then explained the second section of his proposal [Sec.
03.55.110] pertains to animal cruelty. He explained:
If you did believe here that there was some cruelty
that was taking place to an animal, it says you can
bring that complaint with a public or private animal
control agency or organization - the department, which
is here the Department of Environmental Conservation,
or with a peace officer....
So, let's say it's the Alaska Equine Rescue. They take
a look at the animal and they think in their opinion
there is no problem there. They may just not refer it.
If they think there is a problem there, they may refer
it to a peace officer. That peace officer then has the
process of - the availability of being able to go
through the process, to get a search warrant and to go
out and take a look. That is - when they get there,
they have several options. They can say well, I don't
think this warrants further investigation or if they
do think it warrants further investigation they could
actually place the animal or the animals into
protective custody. And then at that point, when that
police officer felt that that was necessary, they'd
have to request an immediate inspection and decision
by a licensed veterinarian and that placement into
protective custody is in the immediate best interest
of the animal. If no veterinarian is available to
perform an inspection, then that police officer must
communicate with a veterinarian who has, after hearing
a description of the animal and its environment,
decided it is in the immediate best interest of the
animal that it be placed into protective custody. If
the police officer is not able to communicate with a
veterinarian, before the officer may take the animal
the officer must decide it is in the immediate best
interest of the animal to be placed into protective
custody.
CHAIR SEEKINS said the word "seize" has been replaced by
protective custody, which he believes is the intent of most
people. He said, regarding where the animal would go, it could
be placed in the custody of Alaska Equine Rescue, the ASPCA, or
any organization that is willing to care for the animal during
the interim.
CHAIR SEEKINS described Sec. 03.55.130 to say that if, once the
animal is taken into protective custody, it appears the best
course of action is to destroy the animal, the police officer
would have to make contact with a veterinarian but, if contact
is not possible, the police officer would have to make that
decision.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if that section is identical to Sec.
03.55.130 in the original bill.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he thought so but said he changed the terms
to "protective custody" and "destroy." He said the proposal
provides that the court could make some decisions regarding
adoption and destruction. He noted the most difficult part of
the proposal for him was to get consensus on what constitutes
cruelty to animals in the first degree. He noted that, for
example, some people want to prepare a dog or cat for human
consumption. Because that topic gets into cultural discussions,
that section was removed. Instead the bill defines cruelty as
knowingly inflicting physical pain or prolonged suffering on an
animal, using a decompression chamber to kill, using poison to
kill, or failing to care for an animal, which results in the
animal's death. He noted that scientific research accepted by
government standards would not apply.
SENATOR OGAN expressed concern that the definition is too broad
in that a person could be charged with animal cruelty in the
second degree if that person left his dog outside and it was hit
by a car.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he had the most difficulty getting agreement
on the definition of animal cruelty in the second degree. He
said he believes the current animal cruelty law needs to be
expanded, especially in light of recent animal atrocities,
without including accepted practices in the state. He suggested
adopting the content of his proposal up to Sec. 11.61.142,
Cruelty to animals in the second degree, which could be
addressed next session. He said in effect, that would provide a
definition for minimum standards of care and would allow for
protective custody.
SENATOR OGAN moved to adopt a conceptual amendment [Amendment
1], which is the proposal offered by Chair Seekins, and includes
the material on pages 1 through 5, up to Sec. 11.61.142.
SENATOR OGAN clarified that the conceptual amendment would
replace the contents of CSHB 275(FIN).
SENATOR FRENCH commented that CSHB 275(FIN) passed the House
after a lot of hard work. He expressed concern that he was under
the impression the committee planned to remove one definition of
animal cruelty in the first degree and address steel jaw leg
holds, snares, and the problem of securing animals in the back
of pick-up trucks. He believes everything else in the bill has
been well thought through so he was asking what options he was
being offered.
CHAIR SEEKINS clarified that Amendment 1 would establish a new
committee substitute.
SENATOR FRENCH objected because he believed the bill before the
committee could be fine-tuned in a short time. He asked to hear
from the sponsor or staff about the proposed committee
substitute.
TAPE 04-65, SIDE B
MS. SHARALYN WRIGHT, staff to Representative Chenault, told
members she has received 113 telephone calls about this bill
since the last Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The callers
want to see the bill passed as it is, however, because session
is nearing its end, the sponsor is willing to accept whatever
the committee passes out.
SENATOR FRENCH asked Ms. Wright to articulate further on the
phone calls she has received.
MS. WRIGHT explained that HB 275 has morphed from a one-page
bill to being combined with Representative Crawford's bill. The
House Judiciary Committee then spent 20 hours on the bill,
during which it took public testimony. Animal control officers
statewide scrutinized it. She added, "If I could say that most
of our communications came from Anchorage or Fairbanks or the
Mat-Su, I would tell you that but it isn't. Everybody everywhere
is concerned about the Karen Botley (ph) case - the most
egregious cases that we've had that are just a reflection of a
civilization that just shouldn't be and for these folks to be
able to continue to go on and abuse animals in this way, it's
just not correct."
MS. WRIGHT said she was unable to get a sectional analysis of
Chair Seekins' proposal [Amendment 1] but Representative
Chenault's intent was to deal with the worst cases. He has
worked on this legislation for four years.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if Chair Seekins' proposal deals with the
worst cases.
MS. WRIGHT said it probably does. She maintained, "I think it
was for your information but if this is actually what the bill
does, we're going to take it and run with it. I'm not here to
object."
SENATOR OGAN said he is appalled by animal cruelty cases like
everyone else and believes the proposed committee substitute
deals with those cases. He said in reality, only the worst cases
will be prosecuted. He is concerned however, that in reaction to
the worst cases, people will attempt to fix the situation by
"making it so that farmers cannot farm or dog mushers cannot
mush and there are those out there that don't want farmers to
farm or dog mushers to mush." He believes the proposed committee
substitute provides a good balance.
CHAIR SEEKINS took public testimony.
MS. SALLY CLAMPITT, Alaska Equestrians, thanked members for
taking this issue on at this late date and for their willingness
to leave the basics of the bill intact. She expressed concern
that Amendment 1 increases the defenses of cruelty statute to
include some of the disciplines of riding and training
practices. She noted that training practices were put in the
defenses of cruelty statute in 1998. She was not sure of the
need to defend a couple of disciplines of riding and training
practices as opposed to the condition of the animal or the acts
committed. She recommended that those provisions be removed. She
questioned why rodeos were included and said one person could
consider a lot of training practices cruel while another would
find those same practices acceptable.
CHAIR SEEKINS pointed out that training practices were included
in the version of the bill that was referred to the committee.
MS. CLAMPITT repeated that was put into statute in 1998 and was
slipped in at the very end.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he believes the proposed CS covers the
egregious situations and he does "not want to love it to death
and kill the whole thing."
MS. CLAMPITT agreed with that approach.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that without objection, Senator Ogan's
motion to adopt Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR OGAN moved SCS CSHB 275(JUD) and its attached fiscal
notes from committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that without objection, the motion
carried. He then announced an at-ease from 9:30 a.m. to 9:38
a.m.
TAPE 04-66, SIDE A
Upon reconvening, CHAIR SEEKINS recessed the meeting to the call
of the chair.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|