04/07/2008 02:15 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB25 | |
| HB196 | |
| HB354 | |
| HB331 | |
| HB333 | |
| HJR28 | |
| HB305 | |
| HB331 | |
| HB196 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 196 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 354 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 331 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 333 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 25 | ||
| = | HB 305 | ||
| = | HJR 28 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 2008
2:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Gene Therriault
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 25
"An Act relating to landowners' immunity for allowing use
of land without charge for a recreational activity;
relating to landowners' liability where landowner conduct
involves gross negligence or reckless or intentional
misconduct; relating to claims of adverse possession and
prescriptive easements, or similar claims; and providing
for an effective date."
MOVED SCS HB 25(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 196(JUD)
"An Act relating to the handling of matters after a
person's death."
MOVED SCS CSHB 196(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 354(JUD)
"An Act relating to adoptions, to subsidies for a hard-to-
place child, to criminal sanctions for unlawful disclosure
of confidential information pertaining to a child, to child
support orders in child-in-need-of-aid and delinquency
proceedings, and to civil actions on behalf of children in
need of aid who are injured or die while in state custody;
and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSHB 354(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 331(L&C)
"An Act relating to motor vehicle insurance, license
suspensions, and notices relating to motor vehicles and
notices relating to driver's licenses."
MOVED CSHB 331(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 333
"An Act relating to the reporting of child pornography."
HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 28(FIN)
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to the budget reserve fund, and to
appropriations to and transfers from the fund; and
dedicating a portion of the petroleum production tax to the
fund.
MOVED CSHJR 28(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 305(RLS) am
"An Act relating to campaign fund raising during a regular
or special legislative session; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED SCS CSHB 305(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 25
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC RECREATIONAL EASEMENTS/IMMUNITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON, WILSON
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) RES, JUD
01/24/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/24/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
01/24/07 (H) MINUTE(RES)
01/25/07 (H) RES RPT 8DP
01/25/07 (H) DP: GUTTENBERG, EDGMON, SEATON,
KAWASAKI, WILSON, ROSES, JOHNSON,
GATTO
01/31/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/31/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/01/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/01/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/05/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/05/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/05/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/07/07 (H) JUD RPT 1DP 3NR
02/07/07 (H) DP: LYNN
02/07/07 (H) NR: GRUENBERG, HOLMES, SAMUELS
02/12/07 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
02/12/07 (H) VERSION: HB 25
02/14/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/07 (S) RES, JUD
03/02/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/02/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/02/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/02/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/02/07 (S) Moved HB 25 Out of Committee
04/02/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/04/07 (S) RES RPT 2DP 4NR 1AM
04/04/07 (S) DP: HUGGINS, STEVENS
04/04/07 (S) NR: GREEN, MCGUIRE, STEDMAN,
WAGONER
04/04/07 (S) AM: WIELECHOWSKI
02/20/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/20/08 (S) Heard & Held
02/20/08 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/08 (S) JUD AT 2:15 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: HB 196
SHORT TITLE: HANDLING MATTERS AFTER A PERSON'S DEATH
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
03/14/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/14/07 (H) JUD
04/04/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/04/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/10/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/10/07 (H) Moved CSHB 196(JUD) Out of
Committee
04/10/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/07 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 5DP 1NR
04/11/07 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, LYNN, COGHILL,
HOLMES, RAMRAS
04/11/07 (H) NR: SAMUELS
04/20/07 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/20/07 (H) VERSION: CSHB 196(JUD)
04/23/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/23/07 (S) L&C, STA, JUD
02/21/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/21/08 (S) Heard & Held
02/21/08 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/06/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/06/08 (S) Moved SCS CSHB 196(L&C) Out of
Committee
03/06/08 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/10/08 (S) L&C RPT SCS 3DP SAME TITLE
03/10/08 (S) DP: ELLIS, BUNDE, DAVIS
04/01/08 (S) STA RPT SCS 2DP 3NR NEW TITLE
04/01/08 (S) DP: MCGUIRE, BUNDE
04/01/08 (S) NR: FRENCH, STEVENS, GREEN
04/01/08 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
04/01/08 (S) Moved SCS CSHB 196(STA) Out of
Committee
04/01/08 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/07/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: HB 354
SHORT TITLE: CHILD IN NEED OF AID/ADOPTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL
02/06/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/08 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
02/28/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/28/08 (H) Moved CSHB 354(HES) Out of
Committee
02/28/08 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/29/08 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 7DP
02/29/08 (H) DP: CISSNA, KELLER, GARDNER,
FAIRCLOUGH, SEATON, ROSES, WILSON
03/13/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/13/08 (H) Moved CSHB 354(JUD) Out of
Committee
03/13/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/17/08 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 5DP
03/17/08 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, COGHILL, DAHLSTROM,
HOLMES, RAMRAS
03/18/08 (H) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
03/27/08 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/27/08 (H) VERSION: CSHB 354(JUD)
03/28/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/28/08 (S) HES, JUD
03/31/08 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/08 (S) Moved CSHB 354(JUD) Out of
Committee
03/31/08 (S) MINUTE(HES)
04/01/08 (S) HES RPT 4DP 1NR
04/01/08 (S) DP: DAVIS, THOMAS, DYSON, COWDERY
04/01/08 (S) NR: ELTON
04/07/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: HB 331
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLES:LICENSES/INSURANCE/NOTICES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ROSES
01/18/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/08 (H) L&C, JUD
02/20/08 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/20/08 (H) Moved CSHB 331(L&C) Out of
Committee
02/20/08 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/21/08 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 1DP 3NR 3AM
02/21/08 (H) DP: GARDNER
02/21/08 (H) NR: LEDOUX, RAMRAS, OLSON
02/21/08 (H) AM: BUCH, NEUMAN, GATTO
03/12/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/12/08 (H) Moved CSHB 331(L&C) Out of
Committee
03/12/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/13/08 (H) JUD RPT CS(L&C) NT 3DP 3NR
03/13/08 (H) DP: COGHILL, DAHLSTROM, RAMRAS
03/13/08 (H) NR: GRUENBERG, SAMUELS, HOLMES
03/19/08 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/19/08 (H) VERSION: CSHB 331(L&C)
03/21/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/21/08 (S) L&C, JUD
04/03/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/03/08 (S) Heard & Held
04/03/08 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/05/08 (S) L&C AT 11:00 AM BELTZ 211
04/05/08 (S) Moved CSHB 331(L&C) Out of
Committee
04/05/08 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/06/08 (S) L&C RPT 2DP 1NR
04/06/08 (S) DP: ELLIS, DAVIS
04/06/08 (S) NR: STEVENS
04/07/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: HB 333
SHORT TITLE: COMPUTER PERSONS REPORT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FAIRCLOUGH
01/18/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/08 (H) JUD
03/13/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/13/08 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/13/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/17/08 (H) JUD RPT 5DP
03/17/08 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, COGHILL, DAHLSTROM,
HOLMES, RAMRAS
03/27/08 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/27/08 (H) VERSION: HB 333
03/28/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/28/08 (S) JUD
04/07/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: HJR 28
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: BUDGET RES. FUND/OIL & GAS TAX
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SAMUELS
01/11/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) JUD, FIN
01/25/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/25/08 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/28/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/28/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/28/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/04/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/04/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/04/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/06/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/06/08 (H) Moved CSHJR 28(JUD) Out of
Committee
02/06/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/08/08 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 2DP 3NR 1AM
02/08/08 (H) DP: SAMUELS, RAMRAS
02/08/08 (H) NR: COGHILL, DAHLSTROM, HOLMES
02/08/08 (H) AM: DOOGAN
02/12/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/12/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/12/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/21/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/21/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/22/08 (H) FIN AT 1:35 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/22/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/04/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/04/08 (H) Moved CSHJR 28(FIN) Out of
Committee
03/04/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/10/08 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 4DP 3NR
03/10/08 (H) DP: HAWKER, CRAWFORD, THOMAS,
MEYER
03/10/08 (H) NR: GARA, STOLTZE, JOULE
03/19/08 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/19/08 (H) VERSION: CSHJR 28(FIN)
03/21/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/21/08 (S) JUD, FIN
04/04/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/04/08 (S) Heard & Held
04/04/08 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/08 (S) JUD AT 2:15 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: HB 305
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN FUND RAISING DURING SESSIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MEYER
01/11/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) STA
01/22/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/22/08 (H) Moved CSHB 305(STA) Out of
Committee
01/22/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/23/08 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 4DP 2NR
01/23/08 (H) DP: JOHNSON, JOHANSEN, ROSES, LYNN
01/23/08 (H) NR: COGHILL, DOLL
02/04/08 (H) RLS AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 106
02/04/08 (H) Moved CSHB 305(RLS) Out of
Committee
02/04/08 (H) MINUTE(RLS)
02/06/08 (H) RLS RPT CS(RLS) NT 5DP 2AM
02/06/08 (H) DP: FAIRCLOUGH, HARRIS, KERTTULA,
SAMUELS, COGHILL
02/06/08 (H) AM: GUTTENBERG, JOHNSON
02/06/08 (H) RETURNED TO RLS COMMITTEE
02/19/08 (H) MOVED TO RETURN TO SECOND TO
RESCIND ACTION
02/19/08 (H) LEDOUX ABSTAIN VOTING FLD Y18 N17
E5 PER UR 34(B)
02/20/08 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
02/20/08 (H) VERSION: CSHB 305(RLS) AM
02/21/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/08 (S) STA
02/21/08 (S) JUD REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE STA
04/05/08 (S) JUD AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/05/08 (S) Heard & Held
04/05/08 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/08 (S) JUD AT 2:15 PM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
KATIE SHOWS, Staff
to Representative Paul Seaton
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 25 on behalf of the
sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 196.
JANE PIERSON, Staff
to Representative Ramras
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 196.
ROBERT MANLEY, Attorney at Law
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to HB
196.
MICHAEL c. GERAGHTY, Attorney at Law
and State Law Commissioner
National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to HB
196.
SHERRY BADILLO-MARINO (ph), Volunteer
Life Alaska
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 196.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 354 on behalf of the
sponsor.
SUSAN COX, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on Section 6 of
HB 354.
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff
to Rep Roses
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 331 on behalf of the
sponsor.
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 331.
REPRESENTATIVE ANNA FAIRCLOUGH
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 333
LINDA HAY, Staff
to Representative Ralph Samuels
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-Sponsor of HJR 28
MIKE POWLOWSKI, Staff
to Representative Meyer
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 305 on behalf of the
sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:21:46 PM. Present at the
call to order were Senators French, Huggins, McGuire, and
Wielechowski.
HB 25-RECREATIONAL LAND USE LIABILITY/ADV. POSS
2:22:08 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 25 and asked
for a motion to adopt the Senate committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt the Senate CS for HB
25, 25-LS0174\C, Bailey, as the working document.
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes. He explained
that the CS makes three changes. First, on page 1, line 10,
the phrase "directly or indirectly" was deleted. It is no
longer needed since the bill now requires that landowners
directly allow the use of their property through the filing
of an easement. Next, on page 2, lines 7-8, a new
subsection (b) was added to clarify that improved land does
not include buildings, structures, machinery, or equipment.
Finally, new Sections 2, 3, and 4 were added outlining a
procedure for recording the public easements and
establishing that a recording fee will not be charged. He
believes the sponsor will support the changes.
2:23:57 PM
KATIE SHOWS, Staff to Representative Paul Seaton, sponsor
of HB 25, affirmed that the sponsor supports the changes.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection and finding no further
objection, announced that the CS is before the committee.
He noted the letter of intent that provides sample language
for drafting an easement and highlighted that people that
grant the public free use of a portion of their land will
get better liability coverage in exchange.
2:25:14 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS moved to adopt the letter of intent.
CHAIR FRENCH found no objection, and announced the letter
of intent is adopted. Also, a title change concurrent
resolution will accompany the bill from committee to
reflect the use of public easements and that collecting
fees for recording the easements is prohibited. Finding no
further committee discussion, he asked for a motion.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI motioned to report [Senate] CS for HB
25, Version \C, from committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, SCS HB
25(JUD), 25-LS0174\C, is moved from the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
SENATOR McGUIRE motioned to report a conforming title
change resolution from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CSHB 196(JUD) - HANDLING MATTERS AFTER A PERSON'S DEATH
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 196. [The
committee was working from SCS CSHB 196(L&C).]
2:27:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, Sponsor of HB 196, said this
legislation updates the statutes on wills and addresses the
subject of anatomical gifts
JANE PIERSON, Staff to Representative Ramras, explained
that the estate portion of HB 196 is in Sections 1-5 and
Section 37. It provides a penalty clause for contesting a
will or instituting other proceedings even if there is
probable cause, which is in alignment with provisions in
revocable trusts. Also, it amends AS 13.16.680(a) to change
the statement in an affidavit to be used by a decedent's
successor to collect personal property in a small estate to
say that The statement says that the estate does not
consist of vehicles worth more than $100,000 or personal
property worth more than $100,000. The bill also lays out
protections for benefits paid under life insurance and
retirement plans.
2:29:22 PM
MS. PIERSON highlighted an issue that the committee might
wish to consider. Section 2, page 2, line 10, says that a
small estate can be passed to a successor via an affidavit
if the personal property is valued at less than $100,000.
Initially the bill increased the amount from the current
$15,000 to $25,000 and then the Senate Labor and Commerce
Committee amended it to $100,000. The attorneys working on
the bill believe $50,000 would be more in line with
Alaska's other statute on small estate administration,
which allows a short probate if the estate is less than
$55,000 and assuming there is a spouse or minor children.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS noted that the figure was raised at
the request of Senator Bunde.
MS. PIERSON relayed that the trust attorneys believe this
may be problematic. In the circumstance of two successors
of interest, one could write an affidavit that he or she
was the successor of interest and remove $100,000 from the
estate. That's a lot of money that couldn't be recouped,
she said.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS restated that all the parties worked
cooperatively and they suggest that a fair accommodation is
to roll the amount back to $50,000.
CHAIR FRENCH flagged that as a point for further discussion
and noted the individuals who would be testifying on the
trust principles and the anatomical gifts.
MS. PIERSON said the rest of the bill clarifies and updates
statutes dealing with anatomical gifts. That portion of the
bill was drafted cooperatively with the Department of Law,
the Department of Health and Social Services, the Office of
the State Medical Examiner, Life Alaska Donor Services, and
representatives from the National Conference on
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to ensure a sound piece
of legislation. The provisions are drawn from the Uniform
Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) that aims to harmonize
anatomical gift laws in all 50 states. Similarly, HB 196
aims to facilitate organ and tissue donation and
transplants. It removes obstacles in the donation process
and hopefully it will increase participation in organ donor
programs.
MS PIERSON said that there have been significant changes in
this field over the years and HB 196 will bring Alaska into
line with these changes. Close to thirty percent of the
state's population participate in the Alaska donor registry
program, but more can be done. Currently in this state 180
patients are awaiting life-saving transplants and many more
are awaiting tissue transplants. This bill improves the
anatomical gift laws in Alaska and encourages badly needed
organ donations that will save and improve lives statewide
and throughout the country.
2:33:42 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT joined the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS added that in spite of the strides
that hospitals across the state have made, Alaska currently
does not have the breadth of services available to do
anything but harvest organs. Alaska does have an intrastate
compact with other states to accommodate organ and tissue
donations, but it's important to update these laws so that
Alaska conforms with other states and can continue to
facilitate this life-giving service, he said.
2:36:16 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the wills and probate
subcommittee of the Alaska Bar had reviewed the bill.
MS. PIERSON replied it has been vetted through them.
CHAIR FRENCH said that Section 1 seems to flip current law
with respect to the ability of a person to challenge a
will. Current law says:
A provision in a will purporting to penalize an
interested person for contesting the will or
instituting other proceedings relating to the
estate is unenforceable if probable cause exists
for instituting proceedings.
Under that law a person would not be penalized for
challenging a will as long as there is probable cause. As
currently drafted HB 196 says that the penalty clause is in
effect and enforceable even if probable cause exists for
instituting proceedings. He asked if that is a huge change
and if it's becoming the majority rule.
2:38:20 PM
ROBERT MANLEY, Attorney at Law, said he is part of the
group of estate planning attorneys who work on keeping
Alaska trust law current and efficient so that Alaskans can
have their wishes implemented with a minimum of expense and
tax cost. He explained that Section 1 brings the law
governing wills into conformity with current law governing
revocable trusts. Those are the two primary vehicles used
in estate planning and there are various reasons for using
one versus the other. Trust law currently provides that a
no-contest clause is effective regardless of probable cause
for bringing a challenge to the trust.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it's a uniform provision or the
majority rule with respect to trusts, that you can not
institute challenge proceedings penalty free if that clause
is in the trust.
MR. MANLEY replied he believes that from a statutory point
of view it's the minority rule, and probably the minority
rule from a general judicial point of view where the issue
isn't specifically addressed by the statute.
CHAIR FRENCH asked about the will side of the equation.
MR. MANLEY explained that the will provision provides that
if there is a no-contest clause and there is probable cause
to bring a contest, then the penalty set forth wouldn't be
effective or enforceable. A no-contest clause simply
indicates that a beneficiary is provided something under a
will or trust, but if the beneficiary objects to the gift
or to the other provisions he or she is at risk of losing
that gift. For example, if a decedent wanted to favor his
children and stepchildren equally, in the absence of an
effective no-contest clause, the children who might gain
greater benefit if the will was ineffective could challenge
the capacity of the individual making the will without any
risk of loss. There may be very good reasons for excluding
or favoring one person or entity over another, and without
this provision it makes it too easy for the person who
benefits less, to leverage the risk of litigation and the
potential challenge and extract some sort of settlement. He
noted that this isn't applicable with respect to spouses;
they are protected under different provisions. This applies
to children, shirttail relatives and the like, but if there
is a true case of undue influence, then the no-contest
clause is ineffective because the entire instrument is
ineffective. This is simply a way for testators to preserve
their plan, he said.
2:42:50 PM
MR. MANLEY said that the trust provision makes Alaska a
more favored jurisdiction to administer trusts. The no-
contest provision was added to bring the laws governing
wills into conformity with the laws governing trusts and
allow people to do, with simpler les expensive wills, what
they could do with trusts, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH responded that that's the source of his
concern. He thinks of trusts as belonging to a more
sophisticated class of testators while wills fall on the
lower end of the sophistication scale. This statute has
been on the books for a long time and he sees probable
cause as the barrier to bad challenges. If there is
probable cause, he questions whether a person should be
penalized for bringing a challenge. He asked how many
jurisdictions have a clause that's similar to the one
that's being proposed in Section 1.
MR. MANLEY said he doesn't know, but he could get the
information and forward it to the committee.
CHAIR FRENCH said that's important to him. Alaska has
adopted an aggressive set of trust laws to attract
sophisticated investors nationwide, but he's had a
lingering concern about this provision.
MR. MANLEY observed that if Alaska laws on wills and trusts
don't conform, that allows the person wishing to provide
for a no-contest clause to do so by spending more money on
lawyers. It doesn't seem reasonable to deny that ability to
less sophisticated people, he said. Also, we usually have a
good indication of what a testator or decedent wanted to do
because that's what's in the trust or will. Anyone
challenging that is trying to defeat their intent rather
than figuring it out.
CHAIR FRENCH said those are good points. Acknowledging that
it's somewhat weak to make a decision by counting
jurisdictions with a similar provision, he relayed that at
some level he needs to know how prevalent this is in will
and trust law across the country.
MR. MANLEY agreed to get the information, hopefully by the
end of day.
2:47:21 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE said she respects the right of an
individual to put what they want in their will, but there's
a healthy tension in current law that allows people to
challenge wills and she'd hate to quash or chill any
healthy debate.
CHAIR FRENCH turned to Section 2 and clarified that the
suggestion that was made pertains to subparagraph (B).
Current statute allows a person to use an affidavit to pass
their personal property if the entire estate is worth less
than $15,000. The current draft proposes that an affidavit
can be used if vehicles in the estate are not worth more
than $100,000 and the personal property does not exceed
$100,000. The suggestion was to reduce the value of the
personal property to not exceed $50,000.
MS. PIERSON agreed that was the suggestion.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for an explanation for keeping the total
value of vehicles at $100,000 and dropping personal
property to $50,000.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS commented that this accommodates
motor homes and campers.
MS. PIERSON added that vehicles are titled and won't be
dissipated.
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 1.
AMENDMENT 1
Page 2, line 10 following "exceed"
Delete "$100,000"
Insert "$50,000"
SENATOR McGUIRE objected for discussion purposes. She asked
what year the underlying statute was crafted that came to
the $15,000 figure.
MS. PIERSON replied she isn't sure, but believes it was in
the '60s.
MR. MANLEY clarified that in 1962 the amount was $6,000 and
in 1984 it was adjusted to $15,000.
SENATOR McGUIRE removed her objection and said that this is
a good provision; probate can be onerous.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection Amendment 1
is adopted.
CHAIR FRENCH turned to the anatomical gift portion of the
bill beginning with Section 5 and asked Mr. Geraghty to
explain those provisions.
MICHAEL C. GERAGHTY, Attorney at Law, and State Law
Commissioner to the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), explained that NCCUSL drafts
appropriate uniform legislation for consideration by the 50
states. One area NCCUSL has worked is organ donation. The
original Uniform Anatomical Gift Act was promulgated by the
NCCUSL in 1968 and quickly enacted by all 50 states and the
District of Columbia. Minor revisions were made in 1957 and
those were adopted in 26 states. The current revisions
found in HB 196 bring the original act up to date with the
advances in medical technology, the widespread use of
electronic records, and evolving practices in
transplantation. HB 196 is the revised Uniform Anatomical
Gift Act. It was promulgated in 2006 and has already been
adopted in over 20 states. Because it's very common for a
decedent, the donor, and the donor's family to be in
different states, this is an area where uniformity is
critical.
2:54:27 PM
MR. GERAGHTY explained that the revised act strengthens the
first-person consent to make a donation of an individual's
organs, eyes and tissue to bar others from amending or
revoking a gift made by the donor. Likewise, the revised
act strengthens the provision of a person who refuses to
donate and prevents others from interfering. Absent first-
person consent, gifts by family members and agents are
facilitated if the deceased hasn't acted to make or refused
to make an anatomical gift. This is done by expanding the
roster of people who can make a gift on that person's
behalf to include a health-care agent, a grandchild or
another family member who has exhibited special care. Also,
it clarifies the manner in which the consent must be
obtained in those circumstances.
Gifts on donor registries and state-issued identification
cards are specifically authorized under HB 196, registries
are encouraged, and standards are provided for their
operation. Alaska has a donor program through the division
of motor vehicles (DMV) and it's been very successful.
Finally, it provides for coordination between procurement
organizations and medical examiners, particularly with
regard to procuring organs and tissue from donors under the
jurisdiction of the medical examiner. Doctors Butler and
Fallico went over the changes and at their suggestion some
minor tweaks were made, he said. The goal, of course, is to
expand the opportunity for gifts of organs and tissue to be
taken from donors.
MR. GERAGHTY said the revised act, which is embodied in HB
196, is endorsed by the American Medical Society, the
American Bar Association, the American Academy of
Ophthalmology, the American Association of Tissue Banks,
the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery,
the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, the
federal Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on
Organ Transplantation, the Cornea Society, and the Eye Bank
Association of America. He encouraged the committee to act
on HB 196 and join the other states that have adopted the
revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.
2:57:31 PM
CHAIR FRENCH commented that it gives him some comfort that
the doctors and lawyers are in agreement on the bill. He
asked if the model provisions begin in Section 18 and go on
for several sections.
MR. GERAGHTY said that's right.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the small tweaks that the doctors
suggested are in preceding sections where references are
inserted in statute to those model provisions. For example,
Section 6 takes up a DMV statute.
MR. GERAGHTY replied that's where some of the changes
occur, but the major changes occur on page 18, Sec.
13.52.255 - Cooperation between coroner, state medical
examiner, and procurement organization. Although based on
the model act some accommodations were made to acknowledge
the vast jurisdiction of the medical examiner and the
limitations on his services. Those minor changes were
reviewed by and agreed upon by the National Conference of
Commissioners and the original drafters.
2:59:49 PM
SHERRY BADILLO-MARINO (ph), Life Alaska Volunteer, said
she's a donor mom; her 17-year-old daughter died in an auto
accident in 2003 while on her way to work. She became a
tissue, heart valve, skin, and bone donor and has helped 48
people across the country, including a six-year-old boy and
a 65-year-old woman. Her heart valve will become lifesaving
to either an infant or young child, her skin has been used
in burn and reconstructive surgeries, her bone and tissue
could used be in joint and back surgeries.
She referenced a poem her daughter wrote when she was 12
called, "Cherish the Moments" that speaks about living
every moment to its fullest and not taking anyone in you
life for granted. You never know when someone will be gone
and you'll never be able to relive a moment that's passed.
When Life Alaska called and asked about tissue and organ
donation, she didn't hesitate because she knew that's what
her daughter would want. "That is part of why I continually
offer to help and to encourage others to consider tissue
and organ donation, because it has helped me and her sister
immensely to move forward," she said.
MS. BADILLO-MARINO said she and her daughter had never
discussed becoming a donor, but after her death she found a
signed tissue and organ donation card in her room. As a
grieving mother that solidified the decision she had
already made for her daughter to become a tissue and organ
donor. In her heart she knew she'd done the right thing and
that's part of what she says to everyone she contacts.
"Share your wishes with your family."
She relayed that her father was so proud of his
granddaughter and the fact that she became a tissue donor,
that he changed his stand and become a donor as well. He is
now helping others along with his granddaughter, she said.
3:06:06 PM
CHAIR FRENCH thanked her for her very moving testimony.
Finding no one else who wished to testify on behalf of HB
196, he closed public testimony.
SENATOR McGUIRE said we spend time in these meetings and
you wonder if anything you do makes a difference. This is
one of the circumstances that makes her think it does. She
reminded the committee that 2004 she sponsored a bill that
created the Alaska donor registry. At that time she thought
it was something that would make a difference, but it's
overwhelming to see that over 330,000 Alaskans have joined
and between 800 and 1,000 new registrants are added each
week. She described HB 196 as a step to continue those
efforts, and then declared a conflict and asked to refrain
from voting on the bill. her father is the founder and
chair of Life Alaska Donation Services, one of the groups
supporting this bill.
CHAIR FRENCH noted her conflict and said that while the
meeting is in recess he'd find out if that's in order. He
thanked the sponsor for accommodating two bills into one
and set HB 196 aside.
CSHB 354(JUD)-CHILD IN NEED OF AID/ADOPTIONS
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 354. [Before
the committee was CSHB 354(JUD).]
3:08:57 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill,
sponsor of HB 354, explained that as currently drafted the
bill: 1) clarifies in statute best practices of the Office
of Children's Services (OCS), 2) fixes contradictory
language that resulted in 18-year-olds being adopted, and
3) incorporates HB 377. Initially the Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS) approached the sponsor because
of uncertainty in the language dealing with the department
subsidizing hard-to-place children. As currently written
the statute could be interpreted to mean that even if a
child did not have a special need at the time, DHSS would
have to provide a subsidy. Under HB 354 the decision is
turned over to the department and it can adopt regulations
to clarify when a hard to place child can receive a
subsidy. This makes the decision more fair and equitable to
everyone.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what the subsidy is, who pays for it,
and how much it is.
MS. MOSS first explained that fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS)
is an example of how it came about that you would have a
hard to place child subsidy when you didn't know that the
child was hard to place. An infant at birth might show no
sign of problems, but when the child is 2 or 3 years old
signs of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) or other issues
becomes apparent. Sometimes the issues continue through
childhood and into adulthood. This would allow DHSS to
initiate a subsidy at that time to pay for medical costs
and assistance to foster parents to care for the child, not
to exceed the current rates for foster care. The state
could also subsidize an adoption through Medicaid coverage
and a subsidy that would not exceed the foster care subsidy
limit. The upper limit of the subsidy is the amount that
foster parents are paid to take in foster children, and she
believes that's in the neighborhood of $850 a month.
3:12:28 PM
MS. MOSS continued to say that Section 4 clarifies that a
public official or employee who discloses confidential
information about a child that is in OCS custody could be
convicted of a misdemeanor. Sections 3 and 4 clarify in
statute that OCS can change a child custody support order
by administrative action rather than having to go to court.
OCS currently does this, so this simply brings the statute
and regulation into alignment, she said.
CHAIR FRENCH said he's trying to understand the thinking on
that.
MS. MOSS explained that child support enforcement already
has the authority to change support orders through
administrative review, but the state statutes don't clarify
that this applies to OCS as well.
3:14:36 PM
MS. MOSS relayed that two issues came up subsequent to DHSS
coming to the sponsor. The first relates a conflict in
state statute regarding notification of absent parents.
This clarifies in statute that a person who is 18 years of
age and wants to be adopted is treated as an adult. There
is no requirement to seek notification of the absent
parents. Finally, this bill incorporates HB 377, which
clearly says that the state is civilly liable for the
action of its employees who are on duty and make decisions
that result in the injury or death of a child in state
custody.
3:16:22 PM
SUSAN COX, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL), reported that she is here to speak to Section 6. DOL
helped redraft that section to incorporate HB 377. It was
done with Representative Gara's permission and agreement.
The existing AS 47.10.960 is unchanged; it becomes
subsection (a) and states that the statutes in Title 47
cannot form the basis for a civil action against the state.
Subsection (b) clarifies that a common law action or
wrongful death case would not be prohibited.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if that was done with the full support
from the bill sponsor and Ms. Cox said yes.
CHAIR FRENCH found no one who wished to testify on behalf
of HB 354, and closed public testimony. He asked for
discussion or a motion.
3:18:35 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS motioned to report CSHB 354, Version M,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection CSHB 354(JUD)
is moved from committee.
CSHB 331(L&C)-MOTOR VEHICLES:LICENSES/INSURANCE/NOTICES
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 331. [Before
the committee was CSHB 331(L&C).]
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff to Representative Roses, sponsor of
HB 331, said the bill does three things. First, it drops
the penalty for failure to notify the Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) of a name or address change from a class B
misdemeanor to a fine of not more than $25.
3:20:06 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if she knows whether anyone has
ever been convicted of that crime.
MS. KOENEMAN replied she doesn't know.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there's a mechanism to force
a person to update their license.
MS. KOENEMAN deferred to Ms. Brewster with DMV. She
continued to explain that The second change adds an
affirmative defense clause. It states that it is an
affirmative defense if someone is charged with driving
without insurance and can prove to the court that they did
have valid insurance at the time. The third change is in
Section 3, which states that if a person doesn't have
vehicle insurance, he or she is guilty of a class B
misdemeanor and a fine of at least $500. Currently the only
fine for driving without insurance is a license suspension
of 90 days to one year.
CHAIR FRENCH recalled a more severe penalty for that
violation.
MS. KOENEMAN responded that she knows that municipalities
impose different penalties, but at this time it's up the
municipality.
CHAIR FRENCH said he may be harking back to a time when he
was more familiar with that statute. Perhaps he's
forgotten, but he would double check.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for clarification that this is
in addition, and the license would still be suspended.
MS. KOENEMAN said that's correct. She continued to say that
Section 4 of the bill changes the notification procedure.
Current statute requires a person who is in an accident to
fill out and submit to DMV a form saying he or she did have
insurance at the time. DMV sends a notice if a person fails
to send in the form and a second notice is sent by
certified mail if there is no response. If there is no
response after 30 days, the driver's license is suspended.
Currently the notice is sent to the address on file, not to
the address that is listed on the accident report. Section
4 changes that procedure and allows DMV to send the notice
to the address on the accident report.
CHAIR FRENCH recalled an instance of a person losing their
license because the notification was sent to an old
address. This provision has DMV send the notification to
either the address that's on file or to the address shown
on the accident report, which is probably the best
information. You give that information to the officer and
you should be telling the truth.
3:23:47 PM
MS. KOENEMAN agreed.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Brewster if she had anything to add
to the discussion on HB 331.
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration, said the DMV supports HB 331
because it allows the division more flexibility on where
license suspension notifications are sent. This will
increase the odds that notice gets to the proper
individuals. What is listed on the accident report is
sometimes more current than information on file. Current
law requires DMV to send the notice to the address on
record and this allows the notice to be sent to the most
current address, whether it is the one on the accident
report or the one DMV has on file. Responding to the
question raised earlier, she relayed that no one has been
convicted of a misdemeanor for not changing their address
with the DMV.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it becomes an issue for DMV
if people change their address multiple times and don't
notify DMV.
MS. BREWSTER replied DMV likely wouldn't be aware that it
was happening.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if there's an A misdemeanor on the books
for driving without vehicle insurance.
MS. BREWSTER replied she isn't sure.
3:26:28 PM
CHAIR FRENCH set HB 331 aside.
At ease from 3:26:43 PM to 3:27:22 PM.
HB 333-COMPUTER PERSONS REPORT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
3:27:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANNA FAIRCLOUGH, sponsor of HB 333, stated
that HB 333 is an Act relating to reporting child
pornography. It expands the reporting requirements to
include individuals providing computer, Internet, cellular
telephone and related services to the list of individuals
who are required to report finding images of unlawful
exploitation of a minor. The Internet provides vast
opportunity, but it also allows unparalleled opportunity to
exploit children. As images become prolific in the Internet
environment, children are being exploited and sometimes
that continues on into adult years since the images can
linger and get passed on to other generations. This is
relatively new technology and we need to address it
differently, she said.
3:28:50 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to line 12 asked if she wants
the report to go to the nearest law enforcement agency
without regard to the level that might be.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH replied she is open to an
amendment. Representative Gara proposed an amendment saying
the nearest local, state, or federal authority. There was
question about whether the village public safety officer
(VPSO) is the right person, but that could be the
appropriate person, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH relayed that a national
organization advancing the business of technology suggested
amending the bill to include reporting to the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Her response was
that the report should go to the local authorities so that
Alaska's children would be protected as quickly as
possible. To clarify her intent, NCMEC asked her to read
the following into the record:
Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge for the
record that there has been an existing federal
law passed in 1999, 42 USC 13032, already
requiring Internet Service providers to report
suspected child pornography through the cyber
tips line of the National Center for Missing [and
Exploited] Children (NCMEC). NCMEC coordinates
its law enforcement activities with both federal
and local agencies.
3:30:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLAUGH continued to say that she is in
no way trying to make Internet service providers a target
in this legislation. As long as those providers fully
fulfill their existing federally mandated reporting, they
meet the requirements in HB 333, she said. "I want local
law enforcement agencies to know where that computer is at
inside the state of Alaska and to act so that children are
protected in a timely manner."
CHAIR FRENCH remarked it's tempting to add a provision that
requires anyone who ever sees child pornography to call the
police. He noted that he and Senator McGuire have supported
mandatory notification laws and have run into opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said this issue was brought to
her because members of her community who work on electronic
equipment have seen these images. The concern is that if
the field isn't level, some people won't do the right thing
for a child that's placed in danger.
SENATOR McGUIRE reminded the sponsor that, as a result of
forfeiture legislation she introduced in years past, law
enforcement is able to confiscate hard drives and other
pertinent materials in the course of an investigation. That
can provide an opportunity to learn a lot, she said.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the federal law the sponsor
mentioned has any preemptive effect on the Internet
provision, and if there are any privileges. For example,
would a doctor or lawyer be obligated to make a report if
he or she happened across these images while looking at
images on your camera for another purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH replied that a detailed
explanation of unlawful exploitation is referenced in AS
11.41.455. And if the second question is asking if people
other than the ones listed would be required to report, she
said it's unfortunate that they are not.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he's thinking of a situation
where you take your camera to your lawyer to look at and
print a digital picture for another reason. If the lawyer
flips through the images and sees child pornography he
questions whether that would fall under the reporting
requirement for "printed matter processing" under Sec.
47.17.023. "I guess I'd be interested in hearing what legal
had to say about that," he said.
3:34:52 PM
CHAIR FRENCH held HB 333 in committee to provide an
opportunity to check on several matters.
CHAIR FRENCH recessed the meeting to a call of the chair.
4:41:02 PM
CHAIR FRENCH reconvened the meeting. Present were Senators
French, Huggins, and Therriault. Senator McGuire arrived
shortly thereafter.
CSHJR 28(FIN)-CONST. AM:BUDGET RES.FUND/OIL& GAS TAX
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of CSHJR 28(FIN).
The bill was heard previously.
4:41:24 PM
LINDA HAY, Staff to Representative Ralph Samuels, co-
sponsor of HJR 28, introduced herself.
CHAIR FRENCH described HJR 28 as an interesting idea that
should advance to the next committee. That being said, he
has two reservations - one philosophical and one practical.
Philosophically he questions how rich government should
grow. He recognizes that this state is different than
others because it's a resource state so HJR 28 isn't
reaching into people's pockets to do this. I don't think we
could get away with that, he said. But because we live in a
resource state and because most everyone recognizes that
the resource isn't infinite, we should save some.
The more practical issue revolves around what happens in
the future. I think that we all recognize that at some
point in the future the five percent payout won't be enough
to sustain government, he said. When that happens,
lawmakers will have the choice of imposing an income tax or
using the money in the "strongbox." He said he has a hard
time believing that as a body the legislature will have the
wherewithal to impose an income tax if all that rainy day
money is sitting there. He believes that at some point the
legislature will undo this and reach in and get the money
out.
4:43:38 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT commented that if this is set up, it
would take a constitutional amendment to undo, so reaching
in to get the money out may be easier said than done.
CHAIR FRENCH said he thinks that procedurally a resolution
would go to the people asking if they want to be taxed or
if they want to take the money from the strong box.
SENATOR McGUIRE said her hope is that government growth is
controlled. The main point the sponsor made was that
continued growth in the operating and capital budgets is
unsustainable. I hope we live within our means, she said.
CHAIR FRENCH said the slide showing the relationship
between the surplus and government spending was very
persuasive.
4:45:11 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS motioned to report CSHJR 28 from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, CSHJR
28(FIN) is moved from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
CSHB 305(RLS) am -CAMPAIGN FUND RAISING DURING SESSIONS
4:46:51 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 305 and
asked for a motion to adopt Version \O committee substitute
(CS).
SENATOR HUGGINS moved to adopt Senate CS for CSHB 305, 25-
LS1226\O, as the working document.
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes. He explained
that the CS makes one change he suggested and one change
brought by the sponsor. The first removes from the bill the
references to federal offices. The legal precedent is so
far beyond debate that it's clear that the state would
spend money to defend a statute that would ultimately yield
no positive result. The sponsor has agreed to avoid that
fight, he said. The second change is to replace the phrase
"location outside the capital city" with the phrase
"municipality other than the capital city." The sponsor
suggested that change because the word "location" isn't
clear and meaningful.
4:48:18 PM
MIKE POWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Meyer, sponsor of
HB 305, clarified that the Legislative Ethics Committee
suggested the change in terminology. The sponsor does
support both changes, he added.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection and finding no further
objection, announced the CS is before the committee. He
stated that in his view the CS continues to operate in
areas where he has constitutional qualms and he wants them
on the record. This is an extremely tricky area of law and
there are a welter of opinions on the topic so it's easy to
get lost. He felt strongly about the reference to federal
office and has suspicions about other matters, but those
aren't strong enough to bottle the bill up in committee.
It seems that the real heart of the matter is disclosure.
Buckley v. Vallejo went on about that and said that is the
least restrictive manner in which you can impose some kind
of a restriction on someone's ability to participate in the
marketplace of ideas.
If you disclosed every seven days during session and every
month during the rest of the year, you could raise money
whenever you wanted to, he said. This bill lets you raise
money in Anchorage then hop on a plane to Juneau and vote
on a big bill. Most people would say that's absurd, but his
view is that if it's disclosed 24 hours later the voters
would know what's going on. "That's a qualm of mine about
the approach taken here, but again this is one of those
issues that people wrangle over for months and years," he
said. In response to a question from Senator McGuire he
relayed that Buckley v. Vallejo is the original Supreme
Court case on campaign free speech.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the example of hopping on the
plane to Juneau is only within 90 days.
CHAIR FRENCH said yes; HB 305 maintains the flat
prohibition on fundraising during a legislative session
unless the session is within 90 days of an election.
MR. POWLOWSKI said that's correct for your own race for
office.
CHAIR FRENCH added that even in this year you could see
that happening. If for some reason the governor's office
can't make a recommendation until September 19, people
would be raising money in Anchorage for their elections and
flying down to Juneau to vote on the gas line, he said.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if individual legislators would be
prohibited from signing on as a host and raising money for
someone else's campaign within 90 days of the election.
MR. POWLOWSKI said yes, but if a legislator was in a joint
fundraiser it would be permissible because it's fundraising
for him or herself, too. It's a subtle nuance that the
sponsor thinks is important, he said.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if there's a fiscal note.
CHAIR FRENCH said there's a zero fiscal note from APOC.
MR. POWLOWSKI said they asked for the APOC fiscal note
because of the adjustment to AS 15.13.072 in bill section
1.
4:53:04 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS motioned to report committee substitute for
CSHB 305 from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection SCS CSHB
305(JUD), 25-LS1226\O, is moved from the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
CSHB 331(L&C)-MOTOR VEHICLES:LICENSES/INSURANCE/NOTICES
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 331. [Before
the committee was CSHB 331(L&C).] Referring to the
discussion during the bill hearing earlier in the
afternoon, he said he was right about the penalties for
driving without insurance.
4:54:09 PM
CHRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff to Representative Bob Roses,
sponsor of HB 331, agreed he is correct. Driving without
insurance is an unclassified misdemeanor. It is punishable
by a fine of not more that $500, imprisonment for not more
than 90 days, or both.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that driving without insurance is
an unclassified misdemeanor in statute now and HB 331 makes
it a class B misdemeanor with a minimum $500 fine.
Discussion before the hearing began indicated that 9 out of
10 cases are dropped in exchange for someone going out and
buying a policy, which is the idea.
Finding no one who wished to testify on behalf of HB 331,
he asked for a motion.
4:55:23 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE motioned to report CS for HB 331 from
committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, CSHB
331(L&C) is moved from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
CSHB 196(JUD)-HANDLING MATTERS AFTER A PERSON'S DEATH
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 196. [Before
the committee was CSHB 196(JUD).] He said he understands
that the sponsor and the interested parties are willing to
drop Section 1.
JANE PIERSON, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, sponsor
of HB 196, said that's correct.
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 2.
AMENDMENT 2
Page 1, lines 6-10
Delete all material
Renumber sections accordingly.
CHAIR FRENCH, hearing and seeing no objection, announced
that Amendment 2 is adopted.
4:58:08 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked what Amendment 1 was.
CHAIR FRENCH replied Amendment 1 changed on page 2, line
10, $100,000 to $50,000.
SENATOR McGUIRE motioned to report SCS CSHB 196, as amended
today, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, SCS CSHB
196(JUD) is moved from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SENATOR McGUIRE moved the Senate concurrent title
resolution to accompany HB 196 from the Senate Judiciary
Committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR FRENCH recessed the Senate Judiciary Committee to a
call of the chair at 4:59:15 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|