Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/30/1994 09:07 AM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
March 30, 1994
9:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chair
Senator Mike Miller, Vice Chair
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Jim Duncan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Johnny Ellis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 358
"An Act relating to the existence and functions of certain multi-
member state bodies, including boards, councils, commissions,
associations, or authorities; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 357
"An Act relating to certain study, publication, and reporting
requirements by and to state agencies; relating to certain fees for
reports; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 365
"An Act relating to the improvement of state finances and fiscal
accountability by increasing fees, by collecting additional
revenue, by reducing certain program expenditures by changing
services or eligibility requirements for programs, by changing
certain statutory limitation periods, by providing for use of
certain electronic records, by making changes to state agency
functions or procedures including certain reporting and planning
procedures, and by authorizing extensions for state leases for real
property if certain savings can be achieved; and providing for an
effective date."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 315(JUD) am
"An Act relating to the unauthorized use of or unauthorized
interference with transmission and delivery of subscription cable
services; and amending the definition of the offense of theft of
services and the penalties for its violation."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 323(JUD) am
"An Act relating to requests for anatomical gifts and to the
release of certain information for the purpose of facilitating
anatomical gifts."
HOUSE BILL NO. 402
"An Act requiring that an owner's motor vehicle liability insurance
policy used as proof of financial responsibility designate by
description or appropriate reference the motor vehicles it covers;
and providing for an effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 358 - No previous senate committee action.
SB 357 - No previous senate committee action.
SB 365 - No previous senate committee action.
HB 315 - No previous senate committee action.
HB 323 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated
3/21/94.
HB 402 - No previous senate committee action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Kristie Leaf, Director
Boards & Commissions
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110001, Juneau, AK 99811-0001¶465-3500
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of SB 358
George Smith, Deputy Director
Libraries, Archives, & Museums
Department of Education
P.O. Box 110571, Juneau, AK 99811-0571
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 358
Arbe Williams, Special Assistant
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149, Juneau, AK 99802-1149¶465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 358
Senator Dave Donley
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶465-3892
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 358, SB 365, & HB 402
Harry Gamble, Administrator
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St., Suite 200, Juneau, AK 99801-1894¶465-2851
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 358
Linda Rexwinkel, Budget Analyst
Division of Budget Review
Office of Management & Budget
P.O. Box 110020, Juneau, AK 99811-0020¶465-4694
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 357
Sharon Barton, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110208, Juneau, AK 99811-0208¶465-2277
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 357
Nancy Slagle, Director
Division of Budget Review
Office of Management & Budget
P.O. Box 110020, Juneau, AK 99811-0020¶465-2178
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 365
Margot Knuth, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300, Juneau, AK 99811-0300¶465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 365 and HB 315
Juanita Hensley, Chief
Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020, Juneau, AK 99802-0020¶465-4335
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 365
Eric Musser, Aide
Representative Porter
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶465-4930
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 315
Representative Cynthia Toohey
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶465-4919
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 323
Jens Saakvitne
Life Alaska Inc.
P.O. Box 230785, Anchorage, AK 99523¶562-5433
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of HB 323
Mark Johnson, Coordinator
Emergency Medical Services
Division of Public Health
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110616, Juneau, AK 99811-0616¶465-3027
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of HB 323
Linda Giguere, Aide
House Labor & Commerce Committee
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶465-6827
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 402
Howard Jaeger
Shattuck & Grummett Insurance Agency
301 Seward St., Juneau, AK 99801¶586-2414
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of HB 402
John George
National Association of Independent Insurers
9515 Moraine Way, Juneau, AK 99801¶789-0172
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of HB 402
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-21, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN LEMAN calls the Senate State Affairs Committee to order at
9:07 a.m.
Number 009
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 358 (ELIMINATE SOME STATE MULTIMEMBER
BODIES) as the first order of business before the Senate State
Affairs Committee and calls the first witness.
Number 015
KRISTIE LEAF, Director, Boards & Commissions, Office of the
Governor thanks the committee for hearing SB 358 and says the bill
is basically a governmental efficiency bill. SB 358 will do
several things: first, it will eliminate nine non-functioning
boards; second, it streamlines procedures associated with the
Alaska Labor Relations Agencies and the Board of Parole; third, it
eliminates the statutory Alaska School Activities Association
(ASAA); and fourth, it eliminates the Museum Collections Advisory
Committee and transfers the committee's duties to the Department of
Education.
MS. LEAF mentions there were two sectional analysis' submitted to
the committee and there are zero fiscal notes accompanying SB 358.
Ms. Leaf states she would be happy to go over any changes in more
detail and answer any questions the committee might have.
Number 047
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Leaf what control the state will have over
the non-profit organization that will handle school activities
after ASAA is eliminated. The chairman asks if the state will have
the ability to over-ride a policy decision by the board if the
state does not agree with the decision.
Number 062
MS. LEAF responds it is her understanding that the Board of
Education will not be able to serve as the board of appeal for the
non-profit school activities association, and the board would have
to have a separate appeal. The only relationship between the state
and the association would be that school districts would contract
with and belong to the association. Ms. Leaf says Mr. Gamble from
the Department of Education could perhaps answer questions on ASAA.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Leaf if the Board of Appeal would then, in
essence, be the school districts themselves.
MS. LEAF replies the association itself would need to set up a
board of appeal. Ms. Leaf says since the association is a non-
profit organization and is not a state entity, the state could not
set up a board of appeal.
Number 095
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Leaf if the changes dealing with the Board
of Parole in SB 358 are different from the changes relating to the
Board of Parole in another piece of legislation currently being
worked on.
Number 101
MS. LEAF responds the changes in SB 358 are the same as changes
addressed in the other piece of legislation. It is simply a
safeguard to include that language in both bills.
Number 110
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there are further questions. The chairman
notes the committee now has a quorum. The chairman asks the
pleasure of the committee regarding SB 358. The chairman calls the
next witness.
Number 122
GEORGE SMITH, Deputy Director, Libraries, Archives, & Museums,
Department of Education gives the committee some background history
on the Museum Advisory Committee on Acquisitions.
MR. SMITH states that currently, the acquisitions committee is
overseeing a very limited acquisitions budget. The entire
acquisitions budget for the museum is about 50,000$. Approximately
half of that money is spent on acquisitions over 1,000$, and so
would be overseen by the acquisitions committee. The expenses for
the required travel of the committee, as well as services and
supplies, is 6,000$ per year. Staff support time equals an
additional 16,000$. So about 22,000$ per year is being spent to
oversee an acquisitions budget of about 25,000$.
MR. SMITH states the Division of Libraries, Archives & Museums
feels the internal controls in place now, make it virtually
impossible for inappropriate acquisitions or deaccessions to occur.
For a safeguard, SB 358 stipulates any acquisition or deaccession
with a value over 1,000$ would require the signature of the
commissioner of the Department of Education. Mr. Smith states the
Department of Education favors passage of SB 358.
Number 204
SENATOR TAYLOR asks why the provisions for the Museum Advisory
Committee on Acquisitions should be left in statute, merely
changing "committee" to "commissioner" and "department". Why not
simply repeal the provisions and allow the commissioner to handle
acquisitions and disposals.
MR. SMITH replies that would be an acceptable alternative.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN calls the next witness.
Number 225
ARBE WILLIAMS, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of
Labor states section 10 of SB 358 addresses a concern of the Alaska
Labor Relations Agency. At this time, the law requires that when
a Railroad Labor Relations case is at impasse, the person who
previously served as mediator, then serves as arbitrator. At this
point, the Alaska Labor Relations Agency uses the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service in labor negotiations. However, the
charter of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
stipulates that mediators cannot serve as arbitrators. The
Department of Labor would like state statute changed to eliminate
the requirement that the mediator of a case serves as arbitrator
when a case reaches impasse.
Number 255
MS. WILLIAMS addresses amendment #1 to SB 358. The Department of
Labor asks that an amendment be made to the Alaska Worker's
Compensation Act, expanding the Alaska Worker's Compensation Board
from five panels to six panels. The department feels this is part
of a solution to the critical problem facing the board. In 1983
the state was sued because it did not meet the statutory
requirements for issuing decisions and orders, which is thirty
days. The state lost that case and had to pay 250,000$. Right
now, forty-four decisions and orders are not issued within the
required thirty day time frame. The Department of Labor has
received serious inquiries from prominent employee attorneys asking
for statistical information on the Alaska Worker's Compensation
Board response record. The department sees another impending class
action suit. An increase from five panels to six has a zero fiscal
note and would simply serve to speed up the hearing and review
process. There is zero fiscal impact because the panels would not
be meeting more frequently, they would simply be meeting sooner.
Number 290
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says it is his intent to hold SB 358 and pick up
amendment #1 in a committee substitute. The chairman asks if there
is anyone else who wishes to testify on SB 358. Hearing none, he
states the committee will set it aside until the committee has a
quorum.
Number 306
SENATOR DONLEY states he is concerned with allowing school boards
to delegate their authority to a non-profit group to make policy
decisions. In the past, the final decision came back to the state.
If that authority is delegated to a non-profit to avoid the
responsibility of those decisions, where do voters get
accountability.
Number 319
CHAIRMAN LEMAN states he is concerned with that also, and the
Blomfield case comes to his mind. ASAA said they could not do what
Blomfield wanted because it went against their bylaws.
Number 325
SENATOR DONLEY adds Blomfield appealed through the process and were
told by the Department of Education that the rules were being
changed by pending legislation and Blomfield would have to start
the process all over again with the new group.
SENATOR TAYLOR asks where in SB 358 it refers to the Blomfield
case.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN replies SB 358 does not refer directly to Blomfield,
but deletes any reference to the Alaska Student Activities
Association (ASAA) because that group is now functioning as a non-
profit organization.
The section of SB 358 referring to ASAA is section 11.
Number 337
SENATOR DONLEY states SB 358 was the excuse given by the Department
of Education for not ruling on the appeal by Blomfield.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there is anyone from the Department of
Education who can respond to this.
Number 342
HARRY GAMBLE, Administrator, Commissioner's Office, Department of
Education says in 1987 the legislature removed the Alaska School
Activities Association from the Department of Education's budget.
In its place, ASAA filed articles of incorporation. At that time,
ASAA began acting independently of statutes and of the department.
The only connection between the department, the State Board of
Education, and ASAA was that the State Board of Education continued
to serve as the appeals review commission for students looking for
waivers to the rules of ASAA.
MR. GAMBLE says that the Department of Education now has an opinion
from the Attorney General saying that ASAA and ASAA Inc. are two
very separate and distinct bodies. ASAA Inc. is an entity not
addressed in statute and over which the state has no control. In
the view of the Department of Education, the Blomfield case is not
an appealable issue. That is something that would have gone to the
court. Blomfield seeks relief from one of the rules of ASAA which
requires students who participate in interscholastic activities to
attend the school for which they compete.
Number 376
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Mr. Gamble to clarify whether it is ASAA or
ASAA Inc. which is no longer in existence.
MR. GAMBLE clarifies he meant to say ASAA ceases to exist.
Number 379
SENATOR DONLEY wants to know why Blomfield wasn't told that the
Department of Education was not the proper place to appeal.
Blomfield was in fact told the Department of Education was the
proper place to appeal to by ASAA Inc and by the Anchorage School
Board.
Number 383
MR. GAMBLE replies the State Board of Education did inform these
people that this was something that was not appealable to the State
Board of Education. He does not know what ASAA Inc. told them.
SENATOR DONLEY states the Board of Education did not tell them it
was not the proper place to appeal until after Blomfield had
already appealed and waited for months and months.
MR. GAMBLE says he is trying to recall that issue, and is not sure
what ASAA Inc. told anyone. He says he thinks the Blomfield's
asked ASAA Inc. to change the rule.
Number 390
SENATOR DONLEY says ASAA Inc. told the Blomfield's the rule
couldn't be changed without approval from the State Board of
Education. When the Blomfield's went to the Board of Education,
the board said they would not deal with the issue because they were
waiting for pending legislation to pass.
Number 395
MR. GAMBLE says a regulation was approved by the State Board of
Education that would have changed the ASAA bylaws to allow students
from private, correspondence, or homeschools to participate in the
activities of public schools. The board conducted hearings and
decided there was to much opposition from the public schools to
proceed. In the meantime, the board also received the opinion from
the Attorney General's Office saying ASAA Inc. was separate and
distinct from the state, and the board did not have control over
that body.
Number 404
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Senator Donley if it is his opinion that
passing SB 358 would do a disservice to Blomfield and people
similarly situated.
Number 405
SENATOR DONLEY thinks the Blomfields were denied due process based
on anticipated legislative action. Senator Donley thinks the
legislature should send the Board of Education a really clear
message that they will not be an excuse for the board denying the
Blomfields due process.
Number 408
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Senator Donley if he is suggesting that the
section relating to ASAA not be deleted at this time, and that it
will perhaps be deleted at a future time when they have done their
job.
Number 412
SENATOR DONLEY says that would be his request at this point. He
does not think it is fair to someone who has gone all the way
through the process, done everything they were told to do by state
government, and then when they reach the end, they are told that
their problem will not be dealt with because the legislature is
going to change the rules.
Number 420
CHAIRMAN LEMAN comments that in this particular case, the only
thing that happened was that the woman bringing the case happened
to have sufficient resources to be able to bring the case. He has
read the case, and he thinks Ms. Blomfield has been mistreated
throughout the whole process.
Number 424
SENATOR TAYLOR asks if there is a way to take care of the Blomfield
situation and still accomplishing what the Department of Education
wants to accomplish.
SENATOR DONLEY says he would be open to that, and perhaps the
department could make a recommendation.
Number 430
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Mr. Gamble if there is anything the legislature
could do to assist in solving this problem.
Number 435
MR. GAMBLE responds the Blomfield case is not driving the desire to
repeal the statutes relating to ASAA. The department would have to
think about the chairman's question. Perhaps something can be done
in statute to require schools that join a private non-profit to
have that association allow private school students to participate
in public school activities.
Number 443
SENATOR DONLEY says that is a policy decision that there would have
to be many hearings on. His problem with SB 358 is it was used as
an excuse to not resolve the Blomfield case. Blomfield was
entitled to a yes or no answer. Instead of an answer, they were
told that the legislature was going to take it away from the
department's authority, so then the department wouldn't have to
deal with it. So Blomfield has wasted thousands of dollars and all
this time, and the legislature was given as the excuse.
Number 455
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Leaf where the reference to ASAA is in
section 11 of SB 358.
MS. LEAF responds it is in AS 14.07.058 and 059.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says the committee will move on to the next bill on
the calendar.
Number 463
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 357 (REQUIRED REPORTS OF STATE
AGENCIES) as the next order of business before the Senate State
Affairs Committee. The chairman calls the first witness.
Number 470
LINDA REXWINKEL, Analyst, Division of Budget Review, Office of
Management & Budget (OMB) states SB 357 is the culmination of a
study by OMB. OMB worked with departments to identify annual
reports which were either duplicative and unnecessary, or could be
amended to a biennial, rather than an annual report.
MS. REXWINKEL states the committee has been provided with a
sectional analysis of the bill. That analysis identifies bill
section, statute citation, a brief summary of the report itself,
and the cost the departments believe is currently associated with
the production of that report. SB 357 is seen as an efficiency
measure. Zero fiscal notes accompany the bill. Ms. Rexwinkel then
reviews the sectional analysis.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Rexwinkel about section 11, which deletes
the requirement that the Department of Military & Veteran's Affairs
(DMVA) submit a report. The chairman asks if there is a provision
elsewhere requiring DMVA to submit a report.
MS. REXWINKEL responds it is her understanding that this reporting
requirement may have been in place when DMVA was a subset of the
Governor's Office. Now it is a regular department, so the actions
and activities of that entity would now be covered in their regular
operating budget. So having a separate report is extraneous.
Number 500
SENATOR DUNCAN asks the reasoning behind section 11, making the
APOC (Alaska Public Offices Commission) report on lobbying a
biennial report. Senator Duncan asks what is in the annual report
from APOC regarding lobbyists.
Number 506
SHARON BARTON, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Administration responds she is not familiar with the
content of the report, but the logic behind making the report
biennial is that the APOC staff is small, and the information in
the report is generally available at all times. A biennial report
would relieve the staff's workload burden.
Number 520
SENATOR DUNCAN says he is concerned because the report is not just
a report to the legislature, but is also a report to the public.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN adds perhaps the APOC report on the legislature
should be biennial also.
SENATOR DUNCAN says the reason for APOC's existence is public
disclosure.
Number 528
SENATOR TAYLOR says the only persons interested in APOC's reports
are the newspapers. Perhaps we should just report the information
directly to the newspapers and save money.
Number 530
SENATOR DUNCAN says he is concerned with section 11, and is not
sure the APOC's report on lobbying should be changed to a biennial
basis.
Number 532
CHAIRMAN LEMAN states he had planned to hear SB 357 today, and
perhaps move the bill next Wednesday. That will give the committee
a chance to become familiar with the bill.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if, relating to the language under section 31
deleting the requirement to report to the legislature every year on
medical assistance, that information is made available in some
other place.
MS. REXWINKEL replies that information can be found in the
department's regular operating budget, so the reporting requirement
is duplicative.
Number 549
SENATOR DUNCAN is concerned with item 4, page 4 of the sectional
analysis, which states,
"Repeals the annual reporting requirement by APOC to publish
copies of Conflict of Interest Statements to lobbyists to
facilitate the filing of their reports. Information is made
available on an individual basis for lobbyists."
MS. REXWINKEL responds the thought behind that item is that the
Department of Administration and APOC felt that the information was
already available, rather than going through the time and expense
of publishing a report. Lobbyists can simply ask questions as
needed, which would save the department time and effort.
SENATOR DUNCAN asks Ms. Rexwinkel to clarify that this provision
would not stop the publishing of a disclosure report.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN replies this provision would make information
available to lobbyists to help them with the filing of their
reports.
SENATOR DUNCAN states if that's what the provision would do, he no
longer has a concern with it. He would only be concerned if it
halted the publishing of a report of disclosure to the public.
MS. REXWINKEL states she will follow up on Senator Duncan's concern
to make sure it would not affect the publishing of a report of
disclosure to the public.
Number 569
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there are further questions for Ms.
Rexwinkel. The chairman asks if anyone else wishes to testify.
Hearing none, he announces the committee will set SB 357 aside and
take up again on Wednesday.
Number 574
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 365 (GOVERNOR'S OMNIBUS BILL) as the
next order of business before the Senate State Affairs Committee.
The chairman calls the first witness.
Number 576
NANCY SLAGLE, Director, Division of Budget Review, Office of
Management & Budget (OMB) states SB 365 would increase fees and
reduce expenses wherever practicable in state government. A
sectional analysis which briefly explains each of the sections was
provided to the committee...
TAPE 94-21, SIDE B
MS SLAGLE says she can either walk the committee through the
sectional analysis or answer specific questions.
Number 581
SENATOR TAYLOR wants to know why non-mutual collateral estoppel
against the state is abolished, but is ok against all other
parties.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks that collateral estoppel be defined.
MS. SLAGLE responds it has to do with a decision that has been made
in one district, and whether that decision would apply to a similar
case in another district. Ms. Slagle states it is her
understanding that the Department of Law believes disallowing non-
mutual collateral estoppel against the state could be an extensive
cost-saving measure.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there is anyone from the Department of Law
present who could speak to the question.
Number 557
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law states the Civil Division in the Department of
Law is involved in this issue as well, and it would probably be
good for the committee to hear from someone in that division as
well.
MS. KNUTH replies, in answer to Senator Taylor's question, the
state is probably the one party involved in the greatest number of
lawsuits throughout the State of Alaska. The state loses a number
of cases, and the way the state decides whether or not to appeal a
case is if it can live with the decision in that particular case.
There are all sorts of adverse decisions against the state which
the state does not feel it is important to appeal. It may be a
small case, or perhaps the state even feels that the right result
for that individual was reached in that decision. Probably under
appeal, it would be concluded that the legal analysis by the court
was unsound. But if the state needs to appeal every adverse
decision, even in the smallest case, because the state would not be
able to live with that decision being applied to a different,
perhaps multi-million dollar case, would cause the state's
litigation to skyrocket. The state would need a lot more
attorneys, both in the civil side and the criminal side. The State
of Alaska is uniquely situated; there is no other party in the
State of Alaska sued as often as the state.
Number 538
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Knuth about the language in SB 365
overriding the decision of the court in the State v. UCIDA (United
Cook Inlet Drift Association) and what would be the effect of that.
MS. KNUTH responds she is vaguely familiar with that case. It was
a supreme court decision that said the court was now going to start
applying collateral estoppel against the State of Alaska. She does
not recall the specifics of the case, but could have someone from
the Civil Division available for the committee.
Number 532
SENATOR TAYLOR states collateral estoppel is not a new doctrine,
but merely a new application by the supreme court of collateral
estoppel. He states there must be a lot of commonality between two
cases for collateral estoppel to be applied to the present case.
Number 519
MS. KNUTH replies that is exactly the problem that was created by
UCIDA.
Number 512
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks what section 14, extending temporary vehicle
permits from 30 days to 60 days, would accomplish.
Number 505
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor
Vehicles, Department of Public Safety says section 14 would allow
the department to issue 60 day temporary vehicle licenses. The
reason for this is many times people aren't able to get title to
the car within 30 days. This keeps that person from having to come
back in to get a second 30 day permit when the first expires.
Number 490
SENATOR TAYLOR asks about the section that would repeal the statute
relating to proof of motor vehicle liability insurance in the case
of an accident; why would we want to repeal that statute.
Number 484
SENATOR DONLEY notes that sections 18 through 26 deal with motor
vehicle liability insurance.
Number 480
MS. HENSLEY responds section 18 increases the amount of damage from
500$ to 1500$. The information the department has received from
the insurance industry and the Division of Insurance indicates the
average claim is about 1600$. Police departments are not able to
investigate minor property damage accidents due to budgetary
constraints. Section 18 would simply increase the dollar amount
required to be reported.
Number 465
SENATOR TAYLOR comments what this section would do is raise the
ceiling of when an accident would have to be reported.
Number 458
MS. HENSLEY states people driving without insurance would have
their driver's licenses suspended if they were in an accident with
a damage total of over 1500$, instead of a limit of 500$.
Number 450
SENATOR TAYLOR says part of what the state is trying to pick up
with mandatory reporting of accidents with damage of 500$ or over
is people driving with suspended or revoked driver's licenses.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN comments that simply scratching the finish on a car
can cost 1500$.
MS. HENSLEY says that is very true, and sometimes breaking a tail
light on a car can be 1500$.
Number 429
SENATOR DONLEY states that at the time mandatory auto insurance
legislation was passed, there was a decision made not to require
proof of insurance up front. One of the selling points for that
was to raise registration fees to pay for a program where people
would have to show proof of insurance if they were in an accident.
It was a "check" to make sure people were getting insurance. If we
now weaken the "check" we have, it removes one of the arguments for
not having proof up front.
Number 417
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Ms. Hensley how many more accidents would slip
through the system if the state changes from mandatory reporting
for accidents from 500$ damage to 1500$ damage.
Number 414
MS. HENSLEY replies she really does not have that information.
Number 410
SENATOR TAYLOR says he would like to get back to public safety
concerns. He is concerned with section 43 because it would repeal
that portion relating to proof of motor vehicle liability insurance
in the case of an accident.
Number 405
MS. HENSLEY states that is not correct. The repealer section in AS
28.22.041 would allow a person to come back within a period of time
and submit proof that they purchased insurance after the fact. Ms.
Hensley says she would have to read the statute to explain exactly
what it would do, but it does not repeal the mandatory insurance
law at all. It just takes out one paragraph which is a loophole.
SENATOR DONLEY says he did not understand that explanation at all.
SENATOR TAYLOR says he was confused too.
Number 395
MS. SLAGLE responds that section 23 and 24 of SB 365 deal with the
sections concerning proof of motor vehicle liability insurance.
Those sections are not repealed from statute.
SENATOR DONLEY asks why AS 28.10.108 (b) should be deleted.
MS. HENSLEY replies AS 28.10.108 (b) deals with allowing commercial
vehicles to have a rotating registration period, as do private
vehicles.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN notes that the committee is operating with time
constraints today, and asks that members perhaps review their
concerns about SB 365 between today and next Wednesday.
Number 374
SENATOR TAYLOR says that he will just list his concerns for the
department and they can then be taken up Wednesday. He has a
significant concern with section 12, which would change the method
of notification for cancellation, suspension, or revocation of
driver's licenses from certified mail to first class mail. He
thinks police officers should go out and personally serve the
notices and cut the license plates off the damn car at the same
time. By not sending the letter certified mail, the state cannot
even prove in court that the notice was received.
SENATOR TAYLOR's second concern is all the additional fees that the
Department of Public Safety is asking for. He wants to know how
the department is currently handling SR22's. Who is responsible
for maintaining those records?
Number 334
MS. HENSLEY replies the Department of Public Safety is basically
not going to change any of the operation of how SR22's are handled,
or how suspension of driver's licenses for uninsured motorists are
handled. The only thing changing, is the department will not be
issuing suspension notices for those individuals involved in
accidents where the damages are between 500$ and 1,500$.
MS. HENSLEY states the mandatory insurance law has worked. Before
the law, the uninsured motorist rate was about 21%. In 1985, that
rate went down to 7.7%. It has slowly risen over the years, and is
now at about 11.9%. The department has not been excluded from the
budget cuts of the last several years, and has fewer employees
today. One of the things the committee should be aware of is that
the house budget caps have cut out the financial responsibility
program entirely from the department's budget. If that budget goes
through, the Department of Public Safety will not be suspending any
driver's licenses for failure to prove financial responsibility.
Number 311
SENATOR TAYLOR asks Ms. Hensley what happened to the revenue stream
created in 1985 by the mandatory insurance laws. That revenue
stream was intended to support those positions.
MS. HENSLEY responds the Division of Motor Vehicles brings 29
million dollars per year to the general fund, while at the same
time receiving a budget of 7.9 million dollars. That money goes to
the general fund and is not coming back to DMV.
SENATOR TAYLOR asks if Ms. Hensley knows why that money is not
coming back to DMV. He asks, if we add all these new fees, won't
they also go into the general fund? Senator Taylor says he is
fascinated to hear that is what is happening to DPS's budget on the
house side, and he will do what he can to correct that.
Number 277
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks personnel from DEC to be prepared to address
the committee regarding the section of SB 365 that relates to them
at Wednesday's hearing. The chairman announces that, in the
interest of time, the committee will hold SB 365 until Wednesday's
hearing.
Number 266
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up HB 315 (THEFT OF SUBSCRIPTION TV SERVICES)
as the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs
Committee. The chairman calls the first witness.
Number 251
ERIC MUSSER, Aide to Representative Porter, states HB 315 defines
theft of cable services and sets out penalties for the unauthorized
use or reception of cable transmission. HB 315 deals primarily
with illegal converter boxes. At this time, the existing theft of
services statute is very broad and makes theft of cable services
unenforceable.
Number 226
SENATOR TAYLOR asks, since estimation of loss is based upon a
certain percentage of the current revenues from subscription cable
service, that if cable companies are charging Alaskans rates 700%
to 1000% higher for the same level of service found any place else
in the United States, that means the actual loss would maybe be
150,000$ to 200,000$, and not 1,000,000$ estimated in the sponsor's
statement. What we're really talking about are people who are
ripping off the cable companies who are currently ripping us off.
SENATOR TAYLOR wants to know how he could amend the bill to allow
other people to go into the cable business.
Number 194
MR. MUSSER responds he doesn't think that subject would fit under
the title of HB 315. However, the public utility commission
extension legislation will be coming to the senate soon, and that
has in place some changes and would provide a vehicle for that
subject.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN states the Senate State Affairs Committee has
changed the title in other house legislation, and would not be
opposed to doing it a second time. The chairman asks Ms. Knuth
from the Department of Law if she has anything to add.
Number 185
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law says, in response to Senator Taylor's comments,
that the cable company has assured the Department of Law that they
are passing on their losses to existing consumers. Although, when
asked in a prior committee if they would reduce their monthly
subscription rates if they are not sustaining these losses any
more, they indicated they needed time to respond to that question.
MS. KNUTH states that, from a prosecution perspective, the benefit
of this legislation is that it will identify theft of cable
services by the consumer as the class A misdemeanor offense,
regardless of the actual monetary value of the loss. So the
prosecution will not need to calculate how many months the theft of
services has been occurring. Ms. Knuth thinks a class A
misdemeanor offense is appropriate to the crime. At this time, the
prosecutor must know exactly what the value of the theft of
services was; this bill will take that part of the guessing game
out of the equation.
MS. KNUTH states entrepreneurial activity relating to theft of
cable services will be a class C felony, which also seems to be an
appropriate classification. She expects this legislation to have
a more noticeable deterrent effect than what is usually seen in
crime bills. This is the type of prosecution, where, if it occurs
three or four or five times in Anchorage, the word is going to get
out. The Department of Law expects to see a noticeable drop in
theft of services. The Department of Law supports the bill and Ms.
Knuth would be glad to answer any questions.
Number 152
SENATOR MILLER asks if a renter hooks up a television and is not
himself paying for the cable service, if that is theft of service.
Number 149
MS. KNUTH replies that is not theft of service. To be engaged in
theft of service, the person must engage in knowing conduct that
can be proven. If a person is in a situation where they reasonably
believe their landlord is providing this service as a part of the
rental, the necessary mental state for this offense is not there.
If there comes a point at which the renter figures out that the
landlord probably isn't paying for the cable service, and the
renter continues to take advantage of the service, there is a line
somewhere that might get crossed. However, it is fairly common for
landlords to provide cable service to apartments.
Number 134
SENATOR MILLER asks how the bill would apply to people who only
have one converter box, but their house is wired for more than one
television.
MS. KNUTH replies that is not considered theft of service either.
There was technical language in HB 315 that, at one point, made it
sound as though that situation would be theft of service. But the e
bill has been redrafted to clearly exclude that situation. Now,
under federal regulations, if a person buys one subscription, it no
longer matters how many outlets a person has in their home.
Number 121
SENATOR TAYLOR asks if there are any laws relating to theft of
talent.
MS. KNUTH responds there should be laws relating to theft of
talent.
SENATOR TAYLOR states the cable companies that used to operate in
his area would have someone sit in a motel room in Seattle, record
the programs on television, then send the tapes to Alaska.
Subscribers in his area paid through the nose for this service.
Senator Taylor wants to know if that shouldn't be illegal, since
they were pretty much participating in theft of service also.
Senator Taylor believes it should be a class A felony for cable
operators involved in the stealing of talent.
Number 088
MS. KNUTH says she would have to look into that question.
Number 086
MR. MUSSER adds that area of discussion was raised in previous
committees. There is a distinct difference between someone
receiving a direct signal directly from a satellite transmission,
and an individual using a device designed to receive a signal from
a cable company.
Number 073
SENATOR TAYLOR says the Alaska Marine Highway System used to show
movies to people. The companies who owned the rights to those
movies informed the state that, because passengers were charged a
fee to be on board, showing those movies was part of the commercial
enterprise of transporting passengers. As a consequence, the state
would have to pay those companies a fee for showing movies.
Senator Taylor asks Ms. Knuth if she can get back to the committee
on the issue of stealing talent.
Number 038
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says the committee will not be moving HB 315 today.
He appreciates the comments.
Number 034
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up HB 323 (RELEASE OF CERTAIN DEATH CERT.
INFO) as the next item before the Senate State Affairs Committee.
The chairman calls the prime sponsor to testify.
Number 027
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY, prime sponsor of HB 323, reads the
sponsor statement for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY states tissue donation to improve the quality
of another's life is a consolation for those who have lost loved
ones.
TAPE 94-22, SIDE A
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY states HB 323 would allow tissue and organ
donation facilities to obtain the pertinent information from the
Department of Health & Social Services within the required time
frame, allowing for successful donation. Representative Toohey
reviews the process by which donation will occur.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY states the Alaska Medical Association, the
Department of Health & Social Services, and the court systems are
strongly supportive of this legislation. HB 323 has two zero
fiscal notes, and passage in the House of Representatives was
unanimous. Representative Toohey introduces Mr. Saakvitne and Mr.
Johnson.
Number 033
JENS SAAKVITNE, Director of Life Alaska, states that Life Alaska is
a non-profit tissue procurement agency based in Alaska and serving
Alaskans. Mr. Saakvitne states that Alaska had 13 organ donors in
1993. During that same time period, Alaska had a total of 87
tissue donors. Those 87 tissue donors supplied tissue for 223
transplants for Alaskans. There were approximately an additional
1,000 transplants that took place outside the State of Alaska. All
tissue that is donated through Life Alaska is offered first to
Alaskans, before being released outside the state.
MR. SAAKVITNE states there have been eighteen donors so far in
1994. He says even when a donor card exists, Life Alaska would
support the wish of the family, if the family did not want to make
a donation. During a recent three day weekend when there was one
donation made, there were an seven additional deaths of young
persons that Life Alaska never learned about until it was too late
for a donation to be made. So the intent of HB 323 is to create
fuller, and in some cases, more rapid communication between the
coroner's office and Life Alaska.
MR. SAAKVITNE states similar tissue donation programs are in place
in Colorado, California, Texas, Florida, Missouri, and Ohio. He
believes there may be other states with tissue donation programs of
which he is not aware. He was personally involved with the
Colorado program for about eleven years. He is not aware of any
complaints from families that have been contacted for donation.
Only trained people contact families for donations. Mr. Saakvitne
states he has taught family approach on a national basis. He
describes a typical contact to the committee. Life Alaska has put
some families in contact with crisis intervention, victim's for
justice, and sent out vast amounts of bereavement literature to
grieving families. This support from Life Alaska continues,
regardless of what a families decision may be regarding donation.
We would like to take steps through this legislation to make sure
most families are at least given the option to make a donation.
Number 125
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Mr. Saakvitne if any donations would ever be
made from fetal tissue.
Number 130
MR. SAAKVITNE responds no donations would ever be made from fetal
tissue. Donations are made from full-term birth and on. There
have been donations from several babies who were only a few weeks
old. He does not see Life Alaska ever being involved in fetal
tissue donation, either currently or in the future.
Number 142
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Mr. Saakvitne if, in that case, it would not
hurt Life Alaska's mission if the committee were to clarify that in
the legislation.
Number 145
MR. SAAKVITNE replies it would only hurt Life Alaska's mission
insofar as to slow down the legislation.
Number 148
SENATOR TAYLOR expresses concern that donor cards attached to
driver's licenses do not appear to be working.
Number 152
MR. SAAKVITNE responds donor cards are currently not found in most
cases, even though there are laws that state hospitals, law
enforcement, and medical personnel are supposed to check for donor
cards. In practice, that very rarely happens. What a donor card
does frequently do, is bring the issue to discussion in a family.
Technically, donor cards are a legal document, and Life Alaska
could go ahead and take donations based on the donor card, if the
existence of the card is known. In point of fact, Life Alaska does
try to make it a family decision.
Number 166
SENATOR TAYLOR states he has a donor card affixed to his Alaska
Driver's License, and is frustrated to hear the donor card system
is not working as it should be.
Number 185
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asks Senator Taylor to realize that organs
have to be removed from a living body, while tissue can be removed
within 24 hours after death. That is the difference between organ
donation and tissue donation. Tissue is very valuable, especially
small children's heart valves, bones, and corneas. HB 323 relates
primarily to tissue donation.
MR. SAAKVITNE states that, until two years ago, there was no tissue
donation option unless a person was also an organ donor. This has
changed, but it will be a long term educational process, on which
Life Alaska is really working.
Number 210
SENATOR TAYLOR states that information released from the coroner is
what will trigger the donation process.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Mr. Johnson from the Department of Health &
Social Services to testify.
Number 218
MARK JOHNSON, Coordinator, Emergency Medical Services, Division of
Public Health, Department of Health & Social Services states the
department supports HB 323, as does the Alaska Council on Emergency
Medical Services. Mr. Johnson believes, with the new medical
examiner system, that this process will work much better in the
future than it has in the past.
Number 235
SENATOR TAYLOR asks Mr. Johnson to explain how HB 323 will change
things.
MR. JOHNSON replies, under current statutes there are
confidentiality requirements that make it more difficult to give
information to Life Alaska. This will relieve the coroner's office
of those requirements.
Number 242
SENATOR TAYLOR states those requirements are that the coroner
notify next of kin. He asks if the coroner would be able to notify
Life Alaska even before it has notified next of kin.
Number 256
MR. SAAKVITNE responds they could, but it has been Life Alaska's
agreement and wish that Life Alaska not be given the information
until a family has been contacted. That would be his worst
nightmare.
SENATOR TAYLOR adds Life Alaska's phone call could be the next of
kin's first phone call, that is what he was getting at, and that
would be really rough.
MR. SAAKVITNE states currently, the only information he receives
from the coroner's office is name and time of death.
SENATOR TAYLOR states notification of family members is not a
simplistic thing. One doesn't just make a phone call, especially
when dealing with older persons who might not be able to handle the
stress of hearing of the death of their child. Senator Taylor
foresees potential problems with the press hounding Life Alaska for
information.
Number 299
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there was a reason HB 323 does not have an
immediate effective date.
(Apparently, there is no particular reason HB 323 does not have an
immediate effective date.)
CHAIRMAN LEMAN announces HB 323 will be held so the committee can
do some work on it.
Number 305
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up HB 402 (PROOF OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE)
as the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs
Committee. The chairman calls the first witness.
Number 314
LINDA GIGUERE, Aide to Representative Hudson and the House Labor &
Commerce Committee, states HB 402 was introduced at the request of
the Alaska Independent Insurance Agents Association. Ms. Giguere
reads the sponsor statement for HB 402.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN calls the next witness.
Number 349
HOWARD JAEGER, Shattuck & Grummett Insurance Agency, states HB 402
would correct a problem that has arisen with SR22 drivers, and
perhaps make it more economical and workable for the insurance
industry.
Number 355
SENATOR TAYLOR thinks the situation HB 402 attempts to solve is
good, and that HB 402 should not be passed. Senator Taylor thinks
policies should cover drivers, not cars.
Number 367
MR. JAEGER responds he thinks the problem is, historically
insurance has been sold on a per vehicle basis.
SENATOR TAYLOR interjects that is so the insurance companies can
charge a person for a new policy every time. Europe, Canada, and
Australia do not handle insurance in that manner.
MR. JAEGER replies that if perhaps the whole industry were to
change, that could be done. It is done that way to so that
agencies could figure out the amount of risk they were looking at
and how to arrive at an exposure of the potential for loss.
SENATOR TAYLOR comments he thinks the insurance industry is
currently utilizing two standards upon which to determine premiums
at this time.
MR. JAEGER says if a person is a preferred driver, that person will
be charged the same liability rate for a corvette or a chevette,
but would be charged different damage rates.
Number 404
CHAIRMAN LEMAN does not know if Mr. Jaeger's last comment is
correct, because he is charged different liability rates on several
of his vehicles. He shares some of Senator Taylor's concerns.
Number 418
SENATOR TAYLOR states he likes this bill.
SENATOR DONLEY says Senator Taylor cannot do what he wants to do
with HB 402 under the present title, because it addresses SR22
cases.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN calls the next witness.
Number 431
JOHN GEORGE, National Association of Independent Insurers says he
will try to answer some of the questions that have been asked
today. He believes there is one company that will write an
operator policy, as opposed to a vehicle policy. However, if a
person who has coverage on themselves loans their car to another
person, that car is not insured. If the person who is loaned the
car has a traditional insurance policy, that would cover them while
driving any vehicle, so their coverage would cover the vehicle
borrowed from someone who had an operator's policy. Traditionally,
though, insurance follows the vehicle. Anyone driving that vehicle
is covered, unless of course, the vehicle was stolen.
MR. GEORGE states that the problem the insurance companies have, is
they are required to file a form with the Division of Motor
Vehicles, using DMV's wording, saying, "No matter what vehicle this
person is driving, he is covered." So this person insures his 1956
volkswagen, and also drives an 18-wheeler, professionally. So the
insurance company just insured the liability insurance on an 18-
wheeler if that person has an accident and does not have other
insurance.
SENATOR TAYLOR asks if he is covered while driving a rental car.
SENATOR DONLEY replies he is covered.
SENATOR DONLEY adds there is a huge other side to this story. He
says he went to the house to testify on HB 402 and was not allowed
to testify and present the other side of the story. He makes a
special request to the committee that if the bill is brought back
up in committee it be specifically listed in the committee
schedule. He would very much like the opportunity to present his
testimony to the Senate State Affairs Committee.
Number 468
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says he will put it in the committee schedule at
least 24 hours in advance of the hearing, and will give Senator
Donley a call also.
MS. GIGUERE notes that Senator Donley testified on HB 403 in the
House Labor & Commerce Committee.
Number 475
CHAIRMAN LEMAN adjourns the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting
at 11:16 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|