03/17/2021 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearings | |
| SB90 | |
| SB15 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2021
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lora Reinbold, Chair
Senator Mike Shower, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Jane Mores - Juneau
Robert Sheldon - Anchorage
Karla Taylor-Welch - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Alaska Police Standards Council
Daniel Weatherly - Anchor Point
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
SENATE BILL NO. 90
"An Act relating to wills and the probate of wills; relating to
the making, witnessing, self-proving, revocation, and probate of
wills by electronic means; relating to the choice of law for
execution of wills; relating to the certification of copies of
wills; relating to the establishment of the validity of a will
before death; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 15
"An Act relating to the Open Meetings Act; and establishing a
civil penalty for violations of the open meeting requirements by
members of governmental bodies."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 90
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC WILLS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MYERS
02/22/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/21 (S) JUD, L&C
03/03/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/03/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/03/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/15/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/15/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/17/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 15
SHORT TITLE: OPEN MEETINGS ACT; PENALTY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) COSTELLO
01/22/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/22/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/21 (S) CRA, JUD
02/25/21 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/25/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/25/21 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/04/21 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/04/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/04/21 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/09/21 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/09/21 (S) Moved CSSB 15(CRA) Out of Committee
03/09/21 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/10/21 (S) CRA RPT CS 1DP 1DNP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/10/21 (S) DP: HUGHES
03/10/21 (S) DNP: GRAY-JACKSON
03/10/21 (S) NR: MYERS, WILSON
03/17/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
JANE MORES, Appointee
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Alaska Court System
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Commission on
Judicial Conduct (CJC).
ROBERT SHELDON, Appointee
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Commission on
Judicial Conduct.
DANIEL WEATHERLY, Appointee
Alaska Police Standards Council
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchor Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Police
Standards Council.
KARLA TAYLOR-WELCH, Appointee
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Alaska Court System
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Commission on
Judicial Conduct.
SUSAN POLLARD, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Statewide Section Supervisor
Legislation and Regulations Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the fiscal note for SB 90.
LINDA HULBERT, Agent
New York Life
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 90.
ABIGAIL O'CONNOR, Attorney
O'Connor Law Office, LLC
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 90.
MELODIE WILTERDINK, Staff
Senator Mia Costello
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Briefly presented SB 15 on behalf of the
sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:26 PM
CHAIR LORA REINBOLD called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kiehl, Myers, Shower, Hughes, and Chair
Reinbold.
^CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Alaska Police Standards Council
1:35:33 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD announced the consideration of Governor
Appointees to Boards and Commissions.
1:36:41 PM
JANE MORES, Appointee, Commission on Judicial Conduct, Alaska
Court System, Juneau, Alaska, stated she was reappointed to
serve in an attorney position for the Commission on Judicial
Conduct (CJC). She has practiced law in Alaska for 30 years in
Anchorage, Haines and since 2007 in Juneau. She retired from the
City and Borough of Juneau law department in 2019 and opened a
private law practice. This commission is tasked with oversight
of judicial conduct. Judges must conduct themselves in a highly
ethical manner in and out of the courtroom, which provides
accountability. It has been an honor to serve on the Commission
on Judicial Conduct (CJC). She said she is seeking reappointment
to the CJC.
1:38:08 PM
SENATOR HUGHES disclosed that Ms. Mores is her sister.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if she had a conflict to declare.
SENATOR HUGHES responded that she has no conflict to declare but
merely wanted the record to reflect Ms. Mores is her sister.
1:38:46 PM
SENATOR KIEHL agreed there was no conflict. He remarked that he
had the privilege of working with Ms. Mores at the City and
Borough of Juneau.
SENATOR HUGHES, in response to Chair Reinbold, replied that she
was unaware of Ms. Mores' appointment or reappointment to the
commission.
1:39:51 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether the appointee has any conflicts,
arrests, or convictions to disclose, has submitted a background
check to the administration, has been involved in any political
campaigns that could create an ethical or Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) conflict and if the appointee has reviewed the
state ethics policy.
MS. MORES answered that she was unaware of any conflicts and has
not undergone any background check but would be willing to do
so. She said she had not made any contributions that would
create a conflict, but she has made small contributions to
Senator Hughes' campaign. She said she was very familiar with
the ethics policy. She stated that she must adhere to high
ethical standards as an attorney.
SENATOR SHOWER remarked that contributions to her sister's
campaign would not be an issue.
1:43:09 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if she has been politically active in any
political party.
MS. MORES answered that she had maintained a non-political
position. She said as a private attorney, unless working in the
political arena, it is not prudent to be too political. She
stated she has not been politically active in any political
party and she is not registered with any political party.
1:44:05 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD described the circumstances when the Alaska
Supreme Court struck down a parental rights bill passed by the
legislature. She said she helped draft the bill with Senator
Hughes that would have restricted abortion funding in the state.
She asked if she considered the Alaska Supreme Court's action
was "legislating from the bench" and, if so, what repercussions
should be taken.
MS. MORES responded that judicial decisions are not within the
CDC's jurisdiction. Judges can make decisions that can be
appealed if they are believed to be legally wrong. She said she
was not familiar with the specifics of the Alaska Supreme Court
decision so she was reticent to speak to it. She indicated she
would review any complaint filed against a judge since that
review falls within the commission's role and function. She said
she would hold herself to the statutory and constitutional
duties of the commission.
1:46:09 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if it was appropriate for judges to
legislate policy or strike down policy that was passed by the
legislature since the legislature is the policy branch of
government.
MS. MORES responded that the Commission on Judicial Conduct
(CJC) does not look at the propriety of judicial decisions; that
is not what the commission does. Instead, the CJC is charged
with reviewing the conduct and ethical behavior of judges.
Further, it is difficult to make generalities because sometimes
the law can be "gray" so judges try to interpret what was
intended by the law. If the legislature does not agree with
their ruling, it is within the legislature's prerogative to
change the law. She said she would like to be able to answer the
question, but she did not believe it was appropriate to do so.
1:47:22 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked for clarification on the purpose of the
Commission on Judicial Council.
MS. MORES answered that the powers and duties of the Commission
on Judicial Council are set out in Alaska Statutes (AS) Title
22. She indicated that the commission could consider a judge's
conduct, initiated by a written complaint, such that a judge has
been convicted of a crime punishable as a felony under state or
federal law; that the judge was convicted of a crime that
involves moral turpitude under state or federal law; or that a
judge suffers from a disability that seriously interferes with
the performance of judicial duties. The CJC can also consider
other matters, whether a judge commits acts that constitute
wilful misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to
perform judicial duties, conduct that brings the judicial office
into disrepute, conduct in violation of the code of judicial
conduct, or that a judge is habitually intemperate.
MS. MORES remarked that people often disagree with a judge's
decision. Keep in mind that 50 percent of the parties in a case
will not like the judge's decision. The commission does not
review disagreements on decisions. The parties must demonstrate
that the judge showed extreme bias or improper decorum in the
courtroom. Judges are required to submit affidavits that their
decisions were timely and that they do not have any outstanding
late decisions. Those serving on boards and commissions must
only consider matters within the lines of jurisdiction, she
said.
1:49:36 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD said it seemed that Ms. Mores was evading her
questions. She said she cannot let the appointee plead
ignorance. She surmised Ms. Mores understood that people have
the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and a
ballot initiative was put forth on parental rights that was
struck down. That initiative would have limited and restricted
public funds for abortion. She said the bill passed the
legislature and was struck down. She asked whether that action
could be considered "legislating from the bench" since it
impacts a policy that the legislature has passed.
1:50:33 PM
SENATOR KIEHL objected. He said that this question goes to the
applicant's personal views outside of the Commission on Judicial
Conduct arena.
1:50:51 PM
At ease
1:51:09 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD reconvened the meeting.
MS. MORES acknowledged that she heard Senator Kiehl's objection.
She agreed that her personal opinion does not matter. She said
she has not discussed the parental rights case with Senator
Hughes. She said, "With all due respect, Chair Reinbold, I am
not comfortable answering that question." She maintained that
she has not reviewed the decision, that she was even unsure of
her view but if she had a view, it would be a personal decision
and not have any bearing on her work on this commission.
1:51:56 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked whether she believes that a judge should be
impacting policy that the legislative branch passed.
1:52:15 PM
SENATOR HUGHES related a hypothetical situation. She highlighted
that there are cases where it is appropriate for the courts to
make a ruling when the legislature errs. If the legislature
passed a bill banning guns and the court ruled that legislation
was unconstitutional, it would be appropriate for the court to
do so. She stated that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme
Court's ruling on parental rights. However, she said she did not
recall ever discussing this ruling with Ms. Mores.
1:53:13 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD persisted in questioning whether judges should
set policy from the bench.
MS. MORES said that she would not answer the question with all
due respect.
CHAIR REINBOLD remarked that some Alaskans get upset when the
legislature passes laws that the courts overturn. She offered
her belief that this constitutes a separation of powers issue.
She said that anyone who serves on the Commission on Judicial
Conduct must understand the separation of powers. She emphasized
the importance of understanding her perspective since she will
be serving on the Commission on Judicial Conduct. She commented
that she could not just waive her appointment through.
1:54:30 PM
MS. MORES offered her belief that ethics is not political. A
person's politics do not matter when it comes to the issue of
ethics. The commission does not consider the political views of
judges, but the commission does consider judicial conduct and
behavior. The commission does not review judges' legal decisions
because that falls outside its jurisdiction.
1:55:19 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD remarked that it is important that the
legislature has the ability to set policy. As elected officials,
legislators represent the people in their districts. Since the
legislature sets policy, it is difficult for her to accept when
the courts strike down laws that the legislators worked so hard
to pass.
1:56:20 PM
ROBERT SHELDON, Appointee, Commission on Judicial Conduct,
Alaska Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that he has
served on several boards and commissions for five governors. He
stated that he had served three terms as a public member for the
Commission on Judicial Conduct. The commission investigates
judicial misconduct or impropriety. Fortunately, most complaints
are not substantiated or are non-jurisdictional. His interest in
finance extends to his service on the commission. The rule of
law is critical to the orderly function of an economy. He said
that serving on the commission has been an honor. He emphasized
having continuity on the commission to retain institutional
knowledge. He reminded members that members who serve as
attorney representatives often only serve for one term, so the
public members provide continuity to the commission.
1:58:23 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether the appointee has any conflicts,
arrests, or convictions to disclose, has submitted a background
check to the administration, has been involved in any political
campaigns that could create an ethical or Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) conflict and if the appointee has reviewed the
state ethics policy.
MR. SHELDON answered that he has signed the materials for the
commission that asked questions about conflicts, but he had no
conflicts to disclose. He said he does not make any political
contributions and has reviewed the ethics policy.
2:00:07 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked him to elaborate on a recent letter he
wrote against the Alaska Supreme Court's comments on systemic
racism in the courts. This relates to the premise that members
of the judicial system can remove themselves from bias and
objectively.
2:01:17 PM
MR. SHELDON clarified that Senator Shower was referring to a
ten-minute Zoom segment from the Commission on Judicial
Conduct's December 2020 meeting and not a letter. He described
his comments at that meeting as "a stream of consciousness" to
express his disappointment that the Alaska Supreme Court
justices joined other states in suggesting systemic racism
exists in Alaska's justice system. In summary, the clip captured
his comments that Alaska is exceptional, that several of
Alaska's largest corporations in the state are owned by
minorities. He said his concerns were discussed at [the August
and December 2020] meetings and a motion is pending before the
commission but has not yet been acted upon. He said was
disappointed that the court missed an opportunity to share
Alaska's exceptionalism in the court system and provide a
framework for others to follow. Alaska has done more for its
primary minority population than any place with extensive
reparations, including the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,
two recapitalizations of Native corporations and land grants for
Alaska Natives who served in the Vietnam War. Instead, the
Alaska Supreme Court [posted its June 2020 letter about the
death of George Floyd] on its website. The letter seemed to echo
what other states said. He said he was wondering aloud why the
court was focusing on the negative when the nation is
encountering such a difficult, stressful time.
2:03:34 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said it seemed that the court was reacting to the
politics of the day. However, he has often heard that the
judiciary is above the fray.
2:05:00 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if the court should set policy or strike
down laws from the bench or if the court should interpret cases
based on the constitution and uphold the intent of the law.
MR. SHELDON answered that CJC could not handle complaints
against magistrates, masters, attorneys, or federal judicial
officers. However, CJC can handle the types of issues raised on
the Superior Court or Alaska Supreme Court issues. He stated
that CJC reviews conduct related to improper courtroom behavior,
improper or illegal influence, and impropriety off the bench. He
related that there are other improper activities CJC members
review, including prohibitions against conducting proceedings or
discussions involving one party in a legal dispute interfering
with attorney and client relationship, bias, improper campaign
activities abusing the prestige of the judicial office, and
obstructing justice and actual criminal behavior. If any
allegations fell within this, such as improper or illegal
influence, the matter should be investigated.
2:07:21 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD reiterated her work and experience on passing the
parental rights bill, which the Alaska Supreme Court struck
down. She expressed concern that the Alaska Supreme Court
decision did not uphold the constitution. She asked if that
action would be considered an abuse of power.
MR. SHELDON offered his view that the decisions made during his
time on the commission were good ones. He wrote minority reports
that the Alaska Supreme Court agreed with. He said that if
someone was concerned that an abuse of power occurred in any
matter, a complaint should be filed. If no complaint is filed,
the commission could file one. However, he cautioned that the
commission is reluctant to file complaints. He suggested she was
describing something that appears to be a philosophical
difference between an interpretationist and a strict
constructionist. He stated that he tends to be a strict
constructionist because the state and federal constitutions
should be followed.
2:10:09 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked him to describe the complaint process.
MR. SHELDON commended the commission staff's work. Someone who
wants to file a complaint could call the Commission on Judicial
Conduct's office for assistance or go to CJC's website and
locate a complaint form. If someone is reluctant to file a
complaint, the office will also take an anonymous complaint. He
said CJC will nominally review all complaints and some become
jurisdictional complaints. He has encouraged people to file
complaints with the executive director. He cautioned members not
to approach commissioners with complaints because a potential
conflict can arise if the matter comes up for a vote.
2:13:14 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD recapped that the process to file a complaint is
to call the commission's office or fill out a complaint form
online.
MR. SHELDON answered yes. He identified the Commission on
Judicial Council website: http://www.acjc.alaska.gov.
2:14:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL reported that some of his constituents were deeply
disappointed when the Alaska Supreme Court ceased to protect the
constitution and Alaskans' freedoms under the constitution in a
3-2 decision upholding a parental notification law. While it
gave him great heartburn, it did not raise any ethical issues.
He recalled Mr. Sheldon said Alaska had paid reparations. He
asked what bearing that has to the commission initiating a
complaint. He asked what the complaint was and how it was
jurisdictional.
MR. SHELDON clarified that he did not mention a commission-
initiated complaint. He said the commission can initiate
complaints, but it does not. He said his reference to
reparations related to the Alaska Native Settlement Claims Act,
the two subsequent recapitalizations of Alaska Native
Corporations, and the tremendous work the Congressional
Delegation in Washington, DC, did to ensure that those with
military service were entitled to land selections.
2:16:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL offered his view that ANCSA was not reparations
but is the last act of the termination era of federal Indian
policy. He asked for clarification on an issue Mr. Sheldon
mentioned relative to the Alaska Supreme Court statement on the
state of justice in Alaska.
2:17:09 PM
SENATOR KIEHL offered to follow up later. He did not
specifically recall Senator Shower's question about the letter.
2:17:13 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if judges should legislate or set policy
from the bench or strike down policy or if setting policy is the
responsibility of the legislative branch.
MR. SHELDON answered that he believes in the separation of
powers as he tends to be a strict constructionist.
2:17:52 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD brought up the next appointee, Daniel Weatherby,
to the Alaska Police Standards Council.
2:18:38 PM
DANIEL WEATHERLY, Appointee, Alaska Police Standards Council,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), Anchor Point, Alaska, stated
that he served for 22 years with the Alaska State Troopers and
three years at the Homer Police Department before retiring. He
earned his Advanced Police Certificate from the Alaska Police
Standards Council. He said he is seeking to serve in the
urban/rural position on the board. He stated that he was
involved in the Village Police Safety Officer Program (VPSO)
from 1980 to 1995. He attends the quarterly meetings of the
council. He finds that Alaska is ahead of some police agencies
because the council and law enforcement have been working to
address issues that have plagued police departments in the Lower
48.
2:21:00 PM
SENATOR KIEHL pointed out that increased training has been
recommended for police departments, but he was unsure if
regulations have been adopted yet. He asked for any
recommendations or innovative ideas to help the smaller police
agencies meet the training requirements given their limited
budgets. He highlighted the importance of having all officers in
Alaska in full compliance with the regulations.
MR. WEATHERLY said the Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC)
will discuss training at its quarterly council meeting. It will
focus on how to bring all law enforcement to the same standards
given the limited financial resources of many departments.
Currently, police departments have been conducting a significant
amount of their training online, but at some point, police
officers must receive hands-on training. He indicated that the
council struggles to provide training to police officers in
rural Alaska, yet these officers must receive the same training
and standards as the troopers. He suggested that the council may
offer training in one of the larger villages and bring in
officers from surrounding villages rather than fly officers to
Anchorage, Fairbanks, or Sitka for training.
2:23:20 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether the appointee has any conflicts,
arrests, or convictions to disclose, has submitted a background
check to the administration, has been involved in any political
campaigns that could create an ethical or Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) conflict and if the appointee has reviewed the
state ethics policy.
MR. WEATHERLY answered that he did not have any conflicts and
has reviewed the ethics policy.
2:24:57 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD reviewed some of the highlights on his resume.
She thanked him for his community involvement.
2:26:38 PM
KARLA TAYLOR-WELCH, Appointee, Commission on Judicial Conduct,
Alaska Court System, Fairbanks, Alaska, stated that she has
served on the commission since 2015. She said she is a third-
generation Alaskan lawyer, that her father and grandfather were
both territorial lawyers. She said her family has a history of
public service in Alaska, including that her grandfather helped
to write the constitution and her father sat as a judge. She
said she has worked as an attorney since 1984. She has served as
a prosecutor at the attorney general's office and for the Office
of Public Advocacy. As a trial lawyer, she was in court every
day and observed judges and other attorneys firsthand, so she
brought that perspective to the commission. She emphasized the
importance for litigants to have an avenue to air their
grievances when they think that something was not handled
appropriately even if the commission is not the proper
jurisdiction to address their issue.
2:29:19 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether the appointee has any conflicts,
arrests, or convictions to disclose, has submitted a background
check to the administration, has been involved in any political
campaigns that could create an ethical or Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) conflict and if the appointee has reviewed the
state ethics policy.
MS. TAYLOR-WELCH answered that she does not have any conflicts
to disclose. She said she was willing to submit to a background
check but did not believe she was asked to do so.
2:32:04 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked whether she has any political involvement
and if she believes that judges should legislate from the bench.
She said thousands of Alaskans are concerned about this.
2:33:24 PM
MS. TAYLOR-WELCH said she does not have any political
involvement and is not a member of any party. She offered her
belief that there is a clear separation of powers in the Alaska
Constitution. The Code of Judicial Conduct preamble states that
our legal system is based on the principle that an independent,
fair, and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws
that govern us. The judiciary is empowered to interpret laws,
and if they see that the laws are unconstitutional to so act. If
the judiciary acts outside of that power and legislates on
matters under AS 22.30.011, their actions should be reviewed. AS
22.30.011 describes the powers and duties of the commission. She
said she was not in a position to determine whether the Alaska
Supreme Court actions were incorrect. She offered her view that
it would be improper for her to do so as a commission member.
For example, she would automatically have to disqualify herself
if she gave an opinion.
2:34:53 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if she takes an oath to uphold the
constitution and if it is the supreme law of the land.
MS. TAYLOR-WELCH answered yes.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if the legislature writes laws with clear
intent whether the courts should strike down these laws and
legislate from the bench.
MS. TAYLOR-WELCH responded that when the court interprets the
law as not following the constitution, the court has a duty and
right to strike it down. She acknowledged that an age-old
conflict and struggle exists related to the checks and balances
on the three branches of government. She acknowledged it is
clear that Chair Reinbold is very upset about this. However,
this is not the first or the last time that there will be a
struggle between the legislature and the judicial branch. She
maintained that the constitution is the supreme law of the land.
However, the constitution is subject to interpretation. She said
she is not able to weigh in on any specific judicial action or
case since she serves on the commission.
2:36:27 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD maintained her concern that some Alaskans are
upset when ballot initiatives are struck down by the courts,
which they believe judicial activism occurs. She asked if the
legislative branch is the policy-setting branch.
MS. TAYLOR-WELCH answered yes, the legislature sets policy, but
it is subject to review.
2:37:38 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD opened public testimony and, after first
determining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony on
the confirmation hearing.
2:38:20 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that in accordance with AS 39.05.080, the
Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed the following and recommends
the appointments be forwarded to a joint session for
consideration:
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Jane Mores - Juneau
Robert Sheldon - Anchorage
Karla Taylor-Welch - Fairbanks
Alaska Police Standards Council
Daniel Weatherly - Anchor Point
Signing the reports regarding appointments to boards and
commissions in no way reflects individual members' approval or
disapproval of the appointees; the nominations are merely
forwarded to the full legislature for confirmation or rejection.
2:39:18 PM
At ease
SB 90-ELECTRONIC WILLS
2:41:44 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 90, "An Act relating to wills
and the probate of wills; relating to the making, witnessing,
self-proving, revocation, and probate of wills by electronic
means; relating to the choice of law for execution of wills;
relating to the certification of copies of wills; relating to
the establishment of the validity of a will before death; and
providing for an effective date."
2:41:58 PM
At ease followed by another at ease
2:43:11 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD reconvened the meeting and solicited a motion.
2:43:17 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for SB 90, [work order 32-LS0501\I], Version I, as the
working document.
2:43:29 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes.
2:43:39 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked if the committee must first adopt the
committee substitute.
CHAIR REINBOLD clarified that her reason for objecting was to
hear the changes in Version I.
2:44:30 PM
SENATOR MYERS explained that the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 90, Version I, incorporated Amendments 1, 2, and 5, which
were previously adopted. This bill makes changes to revocatory
acts, addresses an electronic form of holographic wills, and
removes the ability to store an electronic will with the court
since the court system cannot do so.
2:45:49 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD removed her objection and Version I was before
the committee as the working document.
2:46:00 PM
SENATOR MYERS moved to adopt Amendment 1, [work order 32-
LS0501\I.1]:
32-LS0501\I.1
Bannister
3/17/21
AMENDMENT [1]
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR MYERS
TO: CSSB 90(JUD), Draft Version "I"
Page 3, line 5, following "form":
Insert "but not electronically generated"
Page 6, line 13, following "will":
Insert ", including a reproduction of a
holographic will,"
Page 7, line 9, following "form":
Insert "but not electronically generated"
CHAIR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes.
2:46:29 PM
SENATOR MYERS explained that Amendment [1] would address
holographic wills. He stated that the committee previously
worked on an amendment to the bill, but the general consensus
was that it did not fully address the issues. He worked with
Senator Kiehl on language to allow handwriting in electronic
form but restrict it from being electronically generated. In
practice, this will enable people to write their wills on paper
and photograph them with their phones or scan them into computer
documents. However, it does not allow people to type their wills
on computer tablets. He indicated that concern was raised about
someone using artificial intelligence (AI) to mimic a person's
handwriting, making it difficult to authenticate who had written
the will.
2:48:12 PM
SENATOR KIEHL agreed that holographic wills are tricky. He said
that Amendment 1 gives him much comfort. He acknowledged it is
possible to envision scenarios where bad actors can commit
fraud, so the language in Amendment [1] was crafted to minimize
the risks.
2:49:02 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD thanked them for developing language to better
address holographic wills.
2:49:17 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD removed her objection. There being no further
objections, Amendment [1] was adopted.
SENATOR MYERS stated that the Department of Law submitted a zero
fiscal note. The department indicated that this bill affects
what is done in private practice. The department does not
anticipate that this will affect any state operations.
SENATOR MYERS said that this bill is technical but
straightforward. The bill would allow people to validate their
wills by using Zoom or some other platform that still can
authenticate them. He said this provides another option for
people to use during a pandemic or in remote situations.
2:51:37 PM
SUSAN POLLARD, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Statewide
Section Supervisor, Legislation and Regulations Section,
Department of Law, Juneau, Alaska, said that the department is
comfortable with the fiscal note. Senator Myers gave a correct
explanation of the fiscal note, she said.
2:52:23 PM
At ease
2:52:32 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD reconvened the meeting and opened public
testimony on SB 90.
2:52:55 PM
LINDA HULBERT, Agent, New York Life, Fairbanks, Alaska, spoke in
support of SB 90. She stated that she has worked in the
insurance and financial planning industry for over 30 years. She
has offices in Fairbanks and Anchorage but works with people
throughout Alaska. She said that the industry has evolved from
paper applications to electron processes due to consumer
expectations. She highlighted that she works with clients on
Zoom and can issue and deliver their insurance policies very
quickly. She encourages her clients to engage in will and estate
planning. However, it can be difficult for people to do so if
they lack electronic access. She offered her view that this bill
is necessary and well drafted. She highlighted that her clients
are increasingly focused on proactive estate planning due to the
pandemic.
2:55:42 PM
ABIGAIL O'CONNOR, Attorney, O'Connor Law Office, LLC, Anchorage,
Alaska, spoke in support of SB 90. She said she is one of the
attorneys that initially helped draft this bill. She related
that she has attended numerous national meetings where
electronic wills were discussed. She said she has followed the
Uniform Electronic Wills Act so she is comfortable with
electronic wills. When electronic wills were first introduced at
a conference in Orlando, Florida, she recognized that electronic
wills were trending since commercial entities have developed the
technology to make electronic wills possible. She indicated that
her firm wanted to take the initiative and work with the
legislature to design statutes to make this technology available
to Alaskans. This bill responds to the growing expectation to
accomplish estate planning efficiently without the need to
physically walk into an attorney's office, which SB 90 will
achieve.
MS. O'CONNOR expressed her appreciation for the time spent on
the amendment to address the holographic wills. She said she was
not 100 percent sure that the electronic form but not
electronically-generated language is what her firm had in mind.
Instead, her office wanted people to be able to create
holographic wills on their computer tablets. However, she said
she respected and understood the concerns and conceded. She
raised a point about Amendment [1 to Version I]. She said she
thought she may have responded to questions about the "deleting"
language. At the time, she thought it was from the Uniform
Electronic Wills Act, which provides the primary basis for most
of our language. However, she said she went back and reviewed
the uniform act and it does not have the word "deleting" in it.
She opined that this should not be an issue. Further, Amendment
[1 to Version I] uses a clear and convincing evidence standard
for issues related to electronic wills. However, the Uniform
Electronic Wills Act uses a preponderance of the evidence
standard, she said. She stated that she did not object to
Amendment [1 to Version I] as written. She expressed her
appreciation that the committee embraced the concept of
electronic wills and remote witnessing, which is just as
important as electronic wills.
2:59:35 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD closed public testimony on SB 90.
2:59:42 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD solicited a motion.
2:59:47 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to report SB 90, work order 32-LS0501\I as
amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal notes.
CHAIR REINBOLD found no objection and CSSB 90(JUD) was reported
from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
3:00:48 PM
At ease
SB 15-OPEN MEETINGS ACT; PENALTY
3:01:30 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 15, "An Act relating to the
Open Meetings Act; and establishing a civil penalty for
violations of the open meeting requirements by members of
governmental bodies."
[CSSB 15(CRA) was before the committee.]
3:01:43 PM
MELODIE WILTERDINK, Staff, Senator Mia Costello, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said the committee substitute (CS)
SB 15(CRA) would impose a civil penalty of $1,000 on elected
officials who violate the Open Meetings Act.
[SB 15 was held in committee.]
3:03:58 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Reinbold adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB90A.PDF |
SJUD 3/3/2021 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 3/3/2021 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 3/3/2021 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 Supporting Documentation Electronic Wills Research.pdf |
SJUD 3/3/2021 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 B.1 Amendment.pdf |
SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 B.2 Amendment.pdf |
SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 B.5 Amendment Kiehl.pdf |
SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB90 B.6 Amendment.pdf |
SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB 15 Version B.PDF |
SCRA 2/25/2021 3:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| SB15 Sectional Analysis 2.23.21.pdf |
SCRA 2/25/2021 3:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| SB15 Sponsor Statement 2.24.21.pdf |
SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| SB15 Stupport Document States with Open Meetings Penalties Table.pdf |
SCRA 2/25/2021 3:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| SB15 Presentation 2.25.21.pdf |
SCRA 2/25/2021 3:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| CSSB 15 Version G.pdf |
SCRA 3/4/2021 3:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| CSSB 15 Version G Explanation of Changes.pdf |
SCRA 3/4/2021 3:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| SB15 Anchorage Code of Ethics Answers.pdf |
SCRA 3/4/2021 3:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| SB15 Answer to Violations Frequency.pdf |
SCRA 3/4/2021 3:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| SB 15 Fiscal Note DOA-APOC 3.8.21.pdf |
SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| SB 15 Anchorage Municipal Attorney's Office Written Testimony.pdf |
SCRA 3/9/2021 3:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| SB 15 Public Testimony- Support 3.9.21.pdf |
SCRA 3/9/2021 3:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |
| SB 15 Public Testimony- Opposition 3.9.21.pdf |
SCRA 3/9/2021 3:30:00 PM SJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 15 |