Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
03/19/2005 09:30 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB152 | |
| HB186 | |
| SB87 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 152 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| * | HB 23 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 19, 2005
9:34 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 152
"An Act amending the definition of the term 'state agencies' as
it presently applies to the provisions of law that establish the
Telecommunications Information Council and as it applies under
Executive Order No. 113; relating to information systems in the
legislative branch and to the Telecommunications Information
Council; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 152 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 186
"An Act relating to quarterly payments of a permanent fund
dividend, and to a permanent fund dividend and eligibility for
public assistance; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 186 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 87
"An Act relating to motor vehicle safety belt violations."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 114
"An Act relating to the retaining of certain privileges of a
parent in a relinquishment and termination of a parent and child
relationship proceeding; relating to eligibility for permanent
fund dividends for certain children in the custody of the state;
relating to child in need of aid proceedings and juvenile
delinquency proceedings; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to construction of a legislative hall."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 152
SHORT TITLE: STATE INFO SYSTEM PLAN: LEGISLATURE
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
02/16/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/05 (H) STA, JUD
03/15/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/15/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/19/05 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 186
SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND: QUARTERLY PAYMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS
02/28/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/28/05 (H) STA, HES, FIN
03/17/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/17/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/19/05 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 87
SHORT TITLE: SEAT BELT VIOLATION AS PRIMARY OFFENSE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) BUNDE
02/02/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/05 (S) STA, JUD
02/17/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/17/05 (S) Moved SB 87 Out of Committee
02/17/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/18/05 (S) STA RPT 2DP 2NR
02/18/05 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, HUGGINS
02/18/05 (S) DP: ELTON, WAGONER
03/01/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/05 (S) Moved SB 87 Out of Committee
03/01/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/02/05 (S) JUD RPT 3DP 2NR
03/02/05 (S) DP: SEEKINS, FRENCH, GUESS
03/02/05 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, HUGGINS
03/03/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/03/05 (S) VERSION: SB 87
03/04/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/05 (H) STA, JUD
03/19/05 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
PAUL DICK, Chief
PFD Operations
Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 186.
LAUREN WICKERSHAM, Staff
to Senator Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 87 on behalf of Senator Bunde,
sponsor.
LIEUTENANT TODD SHARP
Alaska State Troopers
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of "law enforcement in
the state of Alaska" in support of SB 86.
JOHN COOPER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on SB 87; related a story of his own son's death in a
vehicle accident and said the legislature has an obligation to
the people of the state of Alaska to set standards of conduct.
JO-ANNE COTTLE
National Active and Retired Federal Employees (NARFE)
Association;
AARP Capital City Task Force
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of AARP in support of
SB 87.
DON SMITH, Administrator
Highway Safety Office
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered details for various committee
packet handouts during the hearing on SB 87, particularly
pertaining to a survey conducted to record the behaviors and
perceptions surrounding seatbelts; answered committee questions.
JAMES GARHART
aka "Lazy Mountain Jim"
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on SB 87.
CINDY CASHEN
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the council that SB
87 would save lives and money.
DARWIN BIWER, President
Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailers Association (CHARR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of CHARR in opposition
to SB 87.
KEVIN QUINLAN, Chief of Safety Advocacy
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of NTSB, asked the committee to
give a favorable report to SB 87.
DEBORAH CHOROMANSKI HULL-JILLY, Acting Chief
Community Health & Emergency Medical Services
Division of Public Health, Department of Health & Social
Services (DHSS)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the department in
support of SB 87.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:34:42 AM. Present at the call
to order were Representatives Gatto, Elkins, Lynn, Ramras,
Gardner, and Seaton. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 152-STATE INFO SYSTEM PLAN: LEGISLATURE
9:35:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 152, "An Act amending the definition of the term
'state agencies' as it presently applies to the provisions of
law that establish the Telecommunications Information Council
and as it applies under Executive Order No. 113; relating to
information systems in the legislative branch and to the
Telecommunications Information Council; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR SEATON handed the gavel to Representative Gatto while he
presented HB 152 on behalf of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee, sponsor. He indicated that Executive Order (EO) 113
moved the telecommunications information council to the
Department of Administration. He said the definition within [EO
113] included the legislature, which was an oversight. He
explained that the legislature had the choice at the time of
either not approving EO 113 or approving it and correcting the
error with a future bill. The proposed HB 152 is such a bill.
He specified that HB 152 would only correct the oversight; it
would not exempt the railroad, the permanent fund, or the
[Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)].
CHAIR SEATON took back the gavel and opened public testimony.
9:37:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if Chair Seaton knew of anyone who
objected to this bill.
CHAIR SEATON replied that he had not heard objections.
9:38:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to report HB 152 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 152 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 186-PERMANENT FUND: QUARTERLY PAYMENTS
9:39:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 186, "An Act relating to quarterly payments of a
permanent fund dividend, and to a permanent fund dividend and
eligibility for public assistance; and providing for an
effective date."
9:39:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS, as sponsor of HB 186, introduced the
bill. He explained:
[The intent of the bill is to] try and broaden the
dynamic nature of the permanent fund dividend [PFD]
benefit that all Alaskans enjoy. The concern I have
behind creating a quarterly payment program for the
[PFD] is that in my own personal experience with
people that I work with and people that I know, the
sign-up period for the [PFD] ends March 31, and we all
are paid by direct deposit or by check sometime
generally in the month of October. There are a lot of
retail inducements in the fall season, during the
permanent fund season, that some of us can't
withstand, and I have many friends by their own
volition that will share with me that they're not good
money managers and that, given the opportunity to use
a $1,000 [PFD] check, they will find themselves with
$19,000 in new term debt within a week of receiving
their [PFD].
A quarterly payment program for the [PFD], which would
pay out in October one quarter ... and another quarter
in January, another quarter in April, and another
quarter in July, would be available only for folks
that opt for a direct deposit payment. There would be
language that would discourage anybody who is
receiving public assistance, because ... the dividend
program offers one annual exemption which is in
October. Anybody who is receiving public assistance
would be ill advised to take this program because it
might affect their public assistance the other three-
quarters. ... Permanent fund folks have an objective
of trying to get everybody on direct deposit so this
dovetails nicely into their program. Our office has
worked with the [PFD] board and the Department of
Revenue in trying to tailor this program. We've had
correspondence with them for some weeks, so even if we
don't agree on all points, we have been working
closely with the [PFD] board.
9:42:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS continued:
The notion is that for some single wage earner
households or some dual wage earner households ... it
might be useful and affective for people to receive
partial payments in January to cover home heating oil
expenses; April - spring projects; July - summer
vacations. That might create an opportunity for
people to see their [PFD] other than ... an annual
dividend and/or a mechanism for saving in the
university credits.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS noted that the Anchorage Daily News
carried an editorial stating that it was not in favor of this
proposal, and that it wasn't the obligation of the PFD board to
get involved in household budgeting. He responded, "I would
question that because folks that I know that have participated
in the university's education credit program have found that's
been a very useful instrument in being able to set aside money
for their kids' education." He said that his proposal is
similar in that it would allow people to space out their
dividend.
9:43:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS reminded committee members that if nothing
is changed in the PFD program, there will be significant
dividend growth in the future. He noted that the bill would
require the permanent fund division to make $150,000 worth of
changes to the computer system. The final fiscal note is
$300,000, which he said would basically cost each Alaskan 50
cents. He stated:
Because the permanent fund is legislated, it's a
specific amount.... People that opted to participate
in this program would not accrue interest in this
program, meaning that the state would enjoy collecting
quarterly dividend interest.... After the initial
setup ... the program would be self-sustaining; it
would actually generate a positive fiscal note. And
so, you'll see when you review the attached fiscal
notes that the revenue coming into the permanent fund
increases in later years....
9:46:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remarked that this was an intriguing
idea, but she was puzzled by implementation. She asked for
further clarification about the quarterly payments.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said an individual would fill out the
application in March and receive the first quarterly payment in
October of this year, then additional payments in January,
April, and July of the next year. The individual would have the
option of changing back to single payments the next year. He
mentioned that Michael J. Burns, the Executive Director of the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, is in favor of the program.
9:49:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that the state would be basically
holding three-quarters of the checks, so [the state] would be
earning the interest.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said that's correct. He noted that if an
individual was to hold his/her PFD check for a year without
cashing or depositing it, the state would earn interest on that
check. He said the idea for the quarterly payments of the PFD
came from the longevity bonus payments.
9:53:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked what would happen if the PFD check
amounts went down. He asked, "Is there some point that if it
goes down the quarterly dividend payment would not be
available?"
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he doesn't think so. He commented,
"At a certain point it would be a wash as to whether the program
was able to be self-sustaining, but it would be within pennies."
He offered an example to demonstrate that the state will be
earning interest on the quarterly payment system.
9:56:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that most lower income people don't have
quarterly bills to pay. He asked why Representative Ramras
didn't look into making the change to monthly payments rather
than quarterly payments. He also asked if the permanent fund
division had indicated that there would be any difference in the
fees [for monthly payments].
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS replied, "The thought process [was] that
if it was a monthly payment, then we might invite an
ineffectiveness .... If it's $80 a month, I don't know whether
that's especially helpful. I think that it would make it
considerably more expensive for the permanent fund division."
He commented that people's paychecks also don't correlate with
bills either. He continued, "I think it would be a misnomer to
think that this is designed for lower income families. I think
that this is designed for middle income families." As an
example, he described the possibility that a family would choose
to receive one of the family's PFD checks quarterly for
household budgeting.
9:59:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if a garnished PFD check would have
to be garnished four times a year, or if there is some way to do
it all at once.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS deferred the question to the chief of
permanent fund dividend operations. He commented:
I don't want folks who are on public assistance who
are very important contributing members of our society
... to discourage a program that is really tailored
toward lower ... [to] upper middle income folks that
are collecting these [checks] across the state. I
think that the notion is to steer clear of sticky
pickets ... and to allow people to participate in the
[PFD] fund in a little bit more of a dynamic fashion.
10:01:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked:
I think the current [public assistance] system is that
because the person of public assistance gets $1,000
[PFD check] all at one time, that for that month they
don't qualify. And so we have this forgiveness built
into the program that reimburses them for the amount
they would lose. However, you're only entitled to
that once a year. If they take quarterly payments
then won't they get stung for payments two, three, and
four, because they don't have a forgiveness that
they're eligible for anymore?
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS replied that this is correct, and
therefore he reiterated that there would be language on the
application that would discourage anybody who receives public
assistance from participating in this program. He reiterated
that this program is designed for middle-income people, not for
people on public assistance or lower income people.
10:03:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted Representative Ramras' estimation
that the cost of setting up this program would be about
$300,000, which he had stated would equal 50 cents per person in
the state. However, she pointed out that if only 1 percent of
the applicants participate, that cost to participants would be
$50 per person. Additionally, she noted:
And yet, if it's a $1,000 dividend, the dividend would
earn something less than the unclaimed funds that are
sitting there for these 6,000 people, [and] would earn
something less than $20 apiece at [the] current
interest rate, so basically the rest of the program
and all the rest of the recipients would be bearing
more than half of the cost for a very few people who
might participate.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS replied that if this was a one-time
program, this assessment would be correct. However, he said, in
the years 2007-2011, "the change in revenue actually exceeds the
operating expense; this program actually makes money through the
general fund, and we actually over time would recoup the
$300,000 in set up costs."
10:04:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked how many applicants would have to
participate for this to work.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS responded that he didn't know what the
assumptions were in the completion of the fiscal note. He said
that each participating individual's unpaid quarterly portions
would generate for the state about $15 in interest in the
general fund, while the cost of administering the program would
cost about $3 per person. He remarked that representatives of
the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation have been asked by
residents if the PFD checks could be left in the permanent fund
and have the money invested like a mutual fund. He continued:
The other benefit that may be derived here in the Bush
and some of the more vulnerable members of our
community is: oftentimes the permanent fund payout
results in some degree of substance abuse and money
that is spent less wisely. And it's not the state
telling people what to do, but it is giving people,
... who may recognize that they don't spend money
wisely when they get it in a lump sum, [the
opportunity] to participate in a program that would
stretch it out over time.
10:07:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "When does the person receiving
the money become legally entitled to it? ... If there are going
to be quarterly payments, is the person legally entitled to that
money at the time of the first payment, or not until he's
received each quarterly payment?"
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS responded that he thought it would be no
different than a contract, where the recipient has agreed to the
terms of the contractual agreement.
CHAIR SEATON attempted to clarify Representative Gruenberg's
question; he explained that there are tax consequences if the
recipient takes the money in one year versus the next year.
10:09:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that his question was not
about tax consequences. He asked who would receive the
subsequent payments if a person died before the last three
quarters of the payment were made.
CHAIR SEATON requested that technical questions such as this be
posed to the representatives from the permanent fund.
10:10:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented:
[Representative Ramras was] talking about the people
who don't manage money who are lower income who might
use it on drugs or whatever, or people who are on
public assistance. ... When I first heard about this
bill, I thought, "Well, that's really great for people
who have a hard time managing money to get this in
little bits." ... But it looks like the way this is
worded and the way the bill is focused, it's not for
those people. It's for people who still would have
access to all their vices based on their own income if
that's what they chose to do. So, ... it seems to me
that the target population is not the people who would
really benefit from having the amounts of money spread
out over a long period of time.
10:11:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS responded that he thinks the people who
would benefit from the program are those that "voluntarily
choose to check the box and would enjoy receiving their ...
dividend on a quarterly basis." He noted that those people may
be in any income range. He gave examples of other people who
might wish to participate in this program.
10:13:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON remarked that he thinks Representative Gardner's
question is well answered on a single page handout in the
committee packet, which says, "Therefore an individual or family
receiving public assistance should not apply for the quarterly
dividend payment since the quarterly payments may make them
ineligible for any public assistance for three-quarters of the
year."
10:14:26 AM
PAUL DICK, Chief, PFD Operations, Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD)
Division, Department of Revenue, reiterated the function of HB
186. Mr. Dick said that the division would foresee
administering the program such that if a person's wages were
garnished, the division would not allow that person the
quarterly option. If a person's wage was garnished part way
through the year, the division would process the garnishment
records in full and then the balance would go to the applicant.
He noted that the division has built into the fiscal note some
costs for such scenarios.
10:16:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked what the tax consequences of this program
would be, and when money is officially considered to be
received.
MR. DICK responded that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can't
answer this question for certain until the bill is in final
form, but, he noted, "all indications seem to point to where the
bill would be taxable as a whole in that dividend year, and they
look at it as a deferment of payment. So you have a right to
the dividend in October and then you are voluntarily opting to
receive that money in quarterly payments thereafter."
10:17:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how many PFD garnishments there
currently are statewide.
MR. DICK replied that last year the division processed 73,000
garnishment records for a total of $30 million.
10:18:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that the fiscal note supposes
a 5,000-person participation in the program. She asked how that
number was reached.
MR. DICK answered that it was estimated that roughly 1 percent
would participate.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked, "So, if only 500 people
participated, it'd be a pretty expensive program...."
MR. DICK replied that the fiscal note includes staffing costs to
answer questions from the participants and from the public. He
also noted that there are some "per transaction" fees on the
direct deposits.
10:19:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the IRS will take the position
[that the PFD check is taxable as a whole in that dividend year,
even when the check is received quarterly] even if the
individual is on a cash rather than an accrual basis.
MR. DICK answered that he "hadn't really explored that with
them." He said, "I think we were looking at it as a cash basis
orientation."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked, "That sounds like an
aggressive position to me. If this bill passes, I hope that you
will do that, because otherwise these people will be taxed on
the money even though they haven't received it."
MR. DICK replied that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG continued, "As I understand the current
situation, if you're eligible and then you go through the
formality of making the application between January and March,
at that point you are legally entitled to the money, although it
may not be payable until October of that year. Am I not
correct?"
MR. DICK responded, "Assuming you're eligible, then payment
comes in October."
10:20:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how the division would handle the
remaining payments if a person died after the first payment was
received.
MR. DICK responded that he thinks the division would follow
current procedure, in which the check is issued to the estate.
10:22:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if it would be up to the
recipient to advise the division of a new address, or if the
state would be liable if the check was lost due to an address
change.
MR. DICK pointed out that the quarterly payment would only be
allowed for direct deposit checks.
10:22:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding garnished checks, asked
about intervening creditors.
MR. DICK answered, "We would pull those persons out of that
direct deposit quarterly option stream, wherever they are in
that stream. If there's a garnishment against the record, we
would process the garnishment record in whole and take the
balance [to send to the applicant]."
10:23:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that normally a garnishment order
is continued until satisfied or terminated. He asked if a
garnishment order would stay through the whole four quarters.
MR. DICK responded, "When we'd process the dividend, we would
honor that garnishment in whole and it wouldn't continue on."
He confirmed that the creditor wouldn't have to wait until the
following quarters to receive the money.
10:25:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked what kind of cost effects monthly PFD
payments would have on the division.
MR. DICK stated concern regarding a monthly payment. He said
the division could do it, but it is already involved in
different processes, which would have to be interrupted 12 times
a year in order to go through a direct deposit distribution,
including getting paperwork out to the applicants and involving
an accounting reconciliation process.
10:26:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated his understanding that once the information
is in the system, the system automatically cuts a check, whether
it happens monthly or quarterly. He commented that he would
like to see an analysis of the proposed program. In comparing
the proposed program to the longevity bonus, he remarked that
people can count on monthly checks, whereas he isn't certain
people "count on things quarterly."
MR. DICK said he would do that analysis.
10:27:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO turned to the division's annual report and
pointed out what he perceived to be a misprint. He then asked
if the cost of the program is borne by the division or by the
state. He offered his understanding that the interest gained by
holding the money goes to the state.
MR. DICK replied that the cost of the program is through
appropriation to the PFD program in annual appropriation. The
interest on the remaining quarterly payments would go to the
general fund.
10:29:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS turned to page 29 of the division's annual
report and pointed out that about 1 percent of the PFD
applicants opt into the university savings program. He asked
Mr. Dick what the division's perspective is on this program.
MR. DICK replied that he thinks it's a positive program, and he
hasn't heard any complaints about it.
10:30:00 AM
MR. DICK, in response to a question from Representative Ramras,
confirmed that the university savings program is an annual
optional program.
10:30:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked for further clarification regarding taxes on
PFD income.
MR. DICK reiterated that the full amount of the dividend is
taxed for that year.
CHAIR SEATON restated that he would like the permanent fund
division to submit an analysis of monthly versus quarterly
payments.
10:32:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remarked that a middle-income person
would be better off getting the whole PFD check in October and
using it to buy a 90-day, 120-day, and 180-day bond.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS responded:
Wouldn't it be great to get your per diem ... for
working down here [in Juneau], all on January 10, and
then budget it out? Or for that matter to get your
annual paycheck and to get it in one single payment?
The idea is just to provide another option, insofar as
we look at the [PFD]. It is a very one dimensional
product right now, and I think that it would behoove
all Alaskans to look at it as a more dynamic vehicle
for us. And frankly, people as a whole, ... we're
lazy. We don't demonstrate good savings habits.
10:34:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked what the monthly income is for a household of
four that would fall under the public assistance program.
MR. DICK answered that he is not familiar with the public
assistance program.
CHAIR SEATON asked the sponsor to find that information out.
10:35:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he would be willing to have the
committee hold the bill so that he could get those answers.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if these issues could be dealt with in
the next committee [of referral].
CHAIR SEATON replied that would be fine.
10:36:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO presented a scenario in which the PFD
program was originally set up to be a quarterly paying system
and then it was proposed that the checks be cut just once a
year. Representative Gatto asked Representative Ramras, "Would
you oppose it based on the fact that there are some people that
might waste this money and buy things that would cause them to
get in deeper debt? Or would you support that this one payment
year sounds like a pretty good idea?"
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS replied that the word "waste" is not the
word he's interested in, but the word "hopeful" is. He again
referred to the proposal as a household budgeting tool. He
noted that 98 or 99 percent of Alaskans will continue to receive
the annual checks. He stated, "It simply puts another option on
the table that doesn't cost the state anything, and the
participant simply foregoes the opportunity cost of having saved
it into a CD, and has lost the interest...."
10:37:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to report HB 186 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objections, HB 186 was reported out of
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 10:38:56 AM to 10:49:46 AM.
SB 87-SEAT BELT VIOLATION AS PRIMARY OFFENSE
10:49:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was
SENATE BILL NO. 87, "An Act relating to motor vehicle safety
belt violations."
10:50:16 AM
LAUREN WICKERSHAM, Staff to Senator Con Bunde, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 87 on behalf of Senator Bunde,
sponsor. She noted that the bill would change the current
seatbelt law from secondary to primary status. She stated that
a change in enforcement powers would lead to a 10-15 percent
increase in seatbelt use. That increase alone would save six
lives in the first year. Additionally, Alaskan residents
annually spend millions of dollars on motor vehicle crashes.
Because wearing a seatbelt usually means a crash is less
damaging, the law would save a significant amount of money in
that respect, as well. Ms. Wickersham reported that in 2002
Alaska residents spent $820 per person on motor vehicle crashes.
She noted that 85 percent of all costs involved in those crashes
are paid by society, whether directly through insurance premiums
or indirectly through emergency services and medical costs.
10:52:04 AM
MS. WICKERSHAM reported that surveys indicate nationally and in
Alaska that individuals support strong seatbelt laws. She
directed attention to a telephone survey in the committee
packet, which was taken of 586 Alaskans. The survey showed that
79.6 percent supported laws requiring seatbelt use. Ms.
Wickersham stated that Alaska has one of the highest rates of
injury and unintentional death of all 50 states, and motor
vehicle crashes are the leading type of accidents - by twice the
amount of the next leading cause. She concluded by telling the
committee members that Senator Bunde urges their support of SB
86.
10:53:17 AM
LIEUTENANT TODD SHARP, Alaska State Troopers, stated that he was
testifying on behalf of "law enforcement in the state of Alaska"
in support of SB 86. He said seatbelts reduce injuries, reduce
the risk of death, keep people from being ejected, and help the
driver maintain control of the vehicle. Lieutenant Sharp urged
the committee to listen to all the testimony being provided
during the meeting and to support primary seatbelt laws.
10:54:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said the seatbelt restricts him from being
able to fully turn to look back before changing lanes, so in a
sense it interferes with his ability to drive safely.
10:54:59 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP explained that what he had meant is that when
people are in a situation when they may be losing control of the
vehicle, the seatbelt can help keep the occupants in place. He
added that when a seatbelt is worn properly, it's not supposed
to inhibit a person's ability to drive.
10:56:00 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP, in response to a follow-up comment from
Representative Gatto, said that the same seatbelt can work for a
wide variety of people, because many modern vehicles are being
designed with alternate seatbelt adjustments and there are
adjustments that can be purchased for seatbelts.
10:56:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked about school buses and airplanes that
don't require the use of a seatbelt. He asked Lieutenant Sharp,
"Would you say there are plenty of instances where the use of a
seatbelt is certainly of no benefit?"
10:56:33 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP replied that he would not say there are
incidents where a seatbelt, when worn properly, does not assist
a person in a crash.
10:57:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that shoulder harnesses are worn
in most military-type aircraft and in many light planes.
10:57:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS expressed appreciation of Lieutenant
Sharp's service to the state and for the Alaska State Troopers
and all public safety workers. He said the same arguments [for
wearing seatbelts] could be made in regard to gun control, and
he offered an example. He voiced his concern that [the proposed
legislation] may just make things harder on people who are good
citizens and would be bad citizens who are stopped for not
following laws. He said, "Who can not agree with all the data?
We want to save lives, we want people to be happier and
healthier, but they don't want to wear [seatbelts]." He asked
Lieutenant Sharp how he would address that.
10:59:33 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP reminded Representative Ramras that the state
currently has a secondary seatbelt law. The bill would make it
a primary one, which would allow law enforcement to "make a stop
on somebody solely because they were not wearing a seatbelt";
however, probable cause still would have to be established
before the officer would try and make a stop for that particular
offense.
11:00:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked, "Sir, why would you stop me?
Because I'm not wearing it?"
11:00:26 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP said that, during his drive to the capitol this
morning, he probably passed 100 cars, but only saw one person he
could say with certainty was not wearing his seatbelt. If the
proposed legislation had already been law, he could have stopped
that one person with probable cause. In response to a follow-up
question from Representative Ramras, he said the present fine
for not wearing a seatbelt is $15.
11:02:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS, regarding the primary seatbelt law,
asked, "Does it enhance compliance or is it just kinda ... a
pain in the butt for folks?"
11:02:34 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP noted that there are already plenty of reasons
to stop a vehicle. For example, with the inclement weather in
Alaska, vehicles take abuse and many times license plates are
obscured. He said this is not about looking for a reason to
stop someone in a vehicle; it's about saving lives and
protecting people. He concluded, "The object is not me issuing
you a citation; it's simply getting you to wear your seatbelt.
And perhaps you would go away with wearing your seatbelt, and I
would go away with telling you to have a good day, knowing that
you would be driving down the street with your seatbelt [on]."
11:03:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Lieutenant Sharp to detail the procedures he
would go through during the process of stopping someone for not
wearing a seatbelt [under a primary seatbelt law].
11:03:47 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP said that, after establishing probable cause
for the stop, before initiating the stop he would already have
contacted dispatch to report the license number of the vehicle,
how many people were in the vehicle, the location, and any other
concerns. Then he said he would initiate the stop in the safest
location possible, contact the driver and ask the driver for
his/her driver's license and registration. If everything
checked out and there were no other problems, he said he would
choose at that time to issue a warning and let the person know
that there is a primary seatbelt law, or he would issue the
citation and provide the driver with a copy of it. In response
to follow-up questions from Chair Seaton, he said the $15 fine
[for the current secondary seatbelt law] is a "bailable"
offense, and he said there is not presently any "escalation" for
stopping someone for a second or third time.
11:05:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked, "Isn't there always something that
you can stop a car for?"
11:06:52 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP answered no. He said there are vehicles in
Alaska that are well maintained and "appear perfectly fine
driving down the road, without any other problem."
11:07:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO surmised that the occupants [in those well-
maintained cars] are wearing their seatbelts.
11:07:19 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP said officers generally are not looking for the
offense [of not wearing a seatbelt], because there is currently
no primary seatbelt law. He said, "We're looking for violations
that are going to establish probable cause so we can make a stop
on a vehicle.
11:07:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked for clarification regarding the man in
the vehicle without a seatbelt on, to whom Lieutenant Sharp had
previously referred.
11:07:58 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP explained that under current law he could not
stop the man for not wearing a seatbelt, because he saw no other
defects that he noticed on that vehicle at that time. In
response to a follow-up question from Representative Lynn, he
specified that if, for example, he stopped a car for speeding
and could articulate that he had observed the occupant was not
wearing a belt at present or before the stop - in the case of
someone quickly putting the seatbelt on after being stopped -
then he could issue a ticket for the speeding and for the
failure to wear a seatbelt. In response to a question from
Chair Seaton regarding someone who had not had the seatbelt on
but put it on upon being stopped, he said there would be no
further offense for lying to a police officer; the fine would
still be $15.
11:09:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS suggested that if the fine was raised to
$100, for example, that may accomplish almost as much as
[passing a primary seatbelt law].
11:10:22 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP responded that certainly more people have
adhered to other regulations in greater numbers when the
penalties for them have been increased, simply because the
penalties are so significant. Notwithstanding that, he reminded
the committee of [Ms. Wickersham's] previous testimony that in
those states that have passed a primary seatbelt law, the result
has been that a significant number of people wear their seatbelt
because there is a law and they are aware of it.
11:10:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON indicated that in the statute relating to driving
under the influence (DUI), a person is [considered to be
operating a vehicle even] when he/she is sitting in a parking
lot behind the wheel of a vehicle with its engine running. He
asked, "Is that also the case here? Is that same definition of
operating a vehicle or driving a vehicle ... applicable here, as
well?"
LIEUTENANT SHARP offered his understanding that Chair Seaton was
asking: "Whether or not your keys are in the ignition, is that
operating the vehicle?"
CHAIR SEATON said yes.
LIEUTENANT SHARP said, "That definition is the same across the
board for operating a vehicle."
11:11:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he is leery of local police in small towns who
may be "very down on somebody." He asked if [that "somebody"]
could be cited for [a driving violation] if he/she gets in the
car and has just put the key in the ignition.
11:12:13 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP responded as follows:
I think I misunderstood your question before about
operating the vehicle. It would be a moving vehicle
for your seatbelt use, and private property would be
not ... covered under this regulation. It would be on
state or public roadways.
11:12:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON said, "So, this is different than the drunk driving
statutes - operating vehicles while intoxicated." He said he
had a friend who was in a parking lot, with the key in the
ignition and the heater on. That friend fell asleep in the car
and "they got him for drunk driving," even though he was not on
a road or "doing anything." He stated that he wants to ensure
that it's clear that "this statute doesn't fall into those same
parameters."
LIEUTENANT SHARP responded, "That's my understanding."
11:12:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked if a good way to crystallize the
argument [for and against a primary seatbelt law] is that some
people feel it does not encourage personal responsibility and
think that education is more effective than enforcement, while
others believe that it would save lives. He indicated that he
had read various e-mails, as well as the written testimony of
Kevin E. Quinlan, Chief, Safety Advocacy Division, National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), included in the committee
packet. He noted that the testimony from Mr. Quinlan states
that the primary enforcement of seatbelt laws can make a
difference in seatbelt use. That increase in use has been shown
to be greater for minorities, males, youth, and those driving
pick-up trucks, and is based on the perceived risk of being
stopped.
11:15:32 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP responded that the way that Representative
Ramras described the argument was pretty good. He reiterated
that [the reason for a primary seatbelt law] is "all about
saving lives, preventing injury, and keeping people from being
ejected."
11:15:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked Lieutenant Sharp if he would concur
that there is a misperception by people that law enforcement
cares more about ticketing folks than about people's safety. He
pointed out that it's the Department of Public Safety - not the
Department of Public Ticketing.
11:16:38 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP replied that's correct. He said, "If I never
had to issue a summons like this or deal with arresting folks
..., I'd have the greatest job going, going around and saying
'hello' to folks."
11:17:09 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP, in response to a question from Representative
Gatto regarding what steps the department would take in the
event that the primary seatbelt law is passed, said he foresees
that it would undergo an education process similar to the
current "Click It Or Ticket" campaign, as well as talking to the
community and to children in public schools to advocate the use
of seatbelts and inform them of the new primary seatbelt law.
Furthermore, the department may decide to issue people warnings
rather than tickets in the beginning. He reiterated the issue
of safety and prevention of injury and death.
11:18:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said police and troopers won't have time to
address other issues if they are stopping people to talk to them
about using a seatbelt, because the department won't spend extra
money and the force will be the same. He listed several
examples of bad driving. He suggested that [a primary seatbelt
law] would make this issue the most dangerous thing that happens
and everything "below it" will be ignored. He asked if that
makes sense.
11:19:18 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP said the Alaska State Troopers are out looking
for the more significant offenses, not the minor ones.
11:19:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that, according to the previously
mentioned handout from Lieutenant Sharp, 23 percent of Alaskans
currently do not wear a seatbelt. She asked if it is known who
these people are and why they don't buckle up. For example, do
they drive older cars with no seatbelts in the back seat?
11:20:15 AM
LIEUTENANT SHARP deferred comment to someone involved in public
safety or with the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities.
11:20:44 AM
JOHN COOPER, testifying on behalf of himself, told the committee
that his youngest son was killed in car accident last Halloween.
He said there were two other people in the vehicle who were
injured. He added, "One of those said that they weren't wearing
seatbelts." He said he and the boy's mother had drummed into
their son's head the importance of wearing a seatbelt. He said,
"The autopsy report indicated injuries consistent with him
having been wearing a seatbelt, even if the other two weren't."
Mr. Cooper said that if the primary seatbelt law had been in
effect and the occupants of the car had seen a police officer at
the right time, his son's life might have been saved, and the
injuries of the other two people in the vehicle might have been
significantly reduced.
11:22:10 AM
MR. COOPER revealed that he is a consulting engineer and, as
such, writes construction contracts. He said there is a lot of
similarity of contract writing and "what you're looking at right
now," and he offered analogies between the two. He talked about
the difference in using "will" versus "shall"; the former does
not carry as much weight as the latter. Currently there is
language in the law that says, "You will wear seatbelts." He
said there is a little bit of a penalty if a person does not
wear a seatbelt, but "the ways of getting to that penalty are so
difficult that nobody will pursue them." He added, "It also
carries the message that we really don't care all that much."
11:24:09 AM
MR. COOPER said that morality and intelligence cannot be
legislated, but the legislature can set standards of conduct and
"put teeth in those standards." He opined that, regarding the
primary seatbelt law, whether or not an officer ever writes a
ticket is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the legislature
cares enough and places enough importance on the issue to put it
in writing.
11:26:31 AM
MR. COOPER said he doesn't know if a primary seatbelt law would
have saved his son's life or not. He told of an accident his
wife had in the 70s and of the injuries she sustained, which he
said probably could have been avoided if she had been wearing a
seatbelt. Mr. Cooper said he flew in the military and believes
in the four-point harness system, which he said is the ultimate
in safety. He concluded as follows:
But we do have something that is a whole lot better
than nothing. You all [have] the ability to move
forward what I see as essentially being a
specification that says, "Thou shalt." And I think
it's your obligation to the people of the state of
Alaska to set that standard of conduct, and say, "Thou
shalt wear a seatbelt."
[SEVERAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS] expressed sympathy for Mr. Cooper's
loss.
11:28:40 AM
JO-ANNE COTTLE, National Active and Retired Federal Employees
(NARFE) Association; AARP Capital City Task Force, stated that
AARP strongly supports the seatbelt law. She said, "It will
keep us old folks alive, and probably we won't get quite as
badly hurt if we get into vehicle accident."
11:29:13 AM
DON SMITH, Administrator, Highway Safety Office, Division of
Program Development, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities, said he began his service as a member of "this body"
just over 38 years ago, during the Fifth Alaska State
Legislature. He said he wishes he had known many years ago what
he knows today about highway safety issues. He reported that
since January of 1967, over ... 3,633 Alaskans have died in
highway crashes in Alaska. He directed attention to [a five-
page] handout in the committee packet, [entitled, "2005 Alaska
Highway Fatalities"], which shows the numbers of deaths per year
[from 2000 through March 2005]. Since speaking on this issue
last year before the legislature, 85 Alaskans have died in
automobile crashes on Alaska's highways. He said that it's
realistic to assume that 9 of the 85 people would probably be
alive today if they had worn seatbelts.
MR. SMITH turned to [pages 3-5] of the handout. He said the
seatbelt bill, if enacted, would reach a category of Alaskans
that primarily fall in the age group from 16 to the late 20s,
men or boys, and pick-up truck drivers. He said, "Those are the
three major statistics that the national studies have shown
would be most affected by having a seatbelt law on the books.
MR. SMITH directed attention to the last three pages of the
handout, which show a report of the deaths on Alaska's highways
in 2004. He noted that he listed only first names. He said he
thinks there are seven or eight names on the list that "relate
to either a daughter-in-law, or a son-in-law, or a grandchild."
He said, "I did it because I thought it might personalize what
we're talking about. He broke the list down into how many
people perished in various areas of the state. He asked the
committee to consider the value of the lives that were lost that
might have been saved.
11:32:47 AM
MR. SMITH talked about a survey that was conducted by Hellenthal
and Associates during the month of February. He said 586
Alaskans were randomly selected, phone calls were made, and 84
percent of the overall numbers claimed they wear their
seatbelts. He said, "Our observations show 77 percent, so it's
iffy on that number." He listed the number of people by region
who said they wear their seatbelts as follows: 76 percent in
the Kenai Peninsula, 87 percent in the Anchorage area, 84.7
percent in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) [Valley], and 82
percent in Fairbanks. Mr. Smith reported that 79.6 percent of
the people surveyed said they favor laws requiring seatbelt use.
He broke down the numbers of those who would favor a law as
follows: 73 percent in the Kenai Peninsula, 75 percent in the
Anchorage area, 75 percent in the Mat-Su Valley, and 83 percent
in Fairbanks. Only 5.4 percent of those people surveyed had
ever received a ticket. Mr. Smith continued as follows:
The correlation I think needs to be made is that it's
a perception issue. It's not that we have troopers or
city police that are out running around writing
tickets; it's the fact that people know that that's a
possibility and therefore they're going to try to
follow the law, or they just want to follow the law
because it's a good thing to do. So, it's not like
we've got police out there chasing people down.
MR. SMITH returned to the survey and reported the numbers of
those who actually received a ticket as follows: 10.7 percent
in the Kenai Peninsula, 4.1 percent in Anchorage, 7 percent in
the Mat-Su Valley, and 7 percent in Fairbanks. He said 60.8
percent of the people who were surveyed had had a family member
or friend who was hurt or killed in an automobile accident.
11:34:50 AM
MR. SMITH said it's important to know where the law is directed.
He said, "It really is reaching into the young. For some
reason, a kid turns 16 and the brain goes soft, and they forget
about [wearing their seatbelts]."
11:35:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER directed attention to the 2005 Alaska
Highway Fatalities and said two of the people listed were young
men well known to her family. One of them who was normally a
seatbelt user did not use one on that day. The other one was
wearing a seatbelt. She asked, "Of the 23 percent - give or
take - Alaskans who do not use seatbelts, who are they and would
having a primary seatbelt law change their behavior?"
11:36:10 AM
MR. SMITH said he could not say with certainty, but
traditionally, around the country, "the numbers have gone up by
about 10-12 percent," which would mean 6-8 people in Alaska that
would not have been killed. He said approximately 54 percent of
the people who were killed in [vehicle-related] accidents in
Alaska were not using their seatbelts.
11:36:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER echoed the previous question from
Representative Elkins asking if a comparable result could be had
by raising the fine and increasing education about the
importance of [seatbelt use], "without allowing the Big Brother
aspect."
11:37:14 AM
MR. SMITH said that may be an answer. He noted that Washington
state [fines those who don't wear seatbelts] $101, which he said
gets people's attention fast. He offered his understanding that
the legislature cannot legislate fines - it is a court process.
11:37:35 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 6 of the survey. He
recalled that Mr. Smith had noted that many more people in the
Kenai Peninsula had received a ticket for not wearing a
seatbelt, yet he noted it has the lowest number than any other
area in the state for using a seatbelt.
11:38:01 AM
MR. SMITH responded, "It would appear to be a correlation. It
says here 10 percent had received tickets for not wearing a
seatbelt and the number of seatbelt use was 76 percent." In
response to a follow-up question from Chair Seaton regarding
whether people are just ignoring the $15 fine, he said it's hard
to make a judgment. He said: "There's zero points; it's $15
dollars; it isn't a painful thing; but I think more of it is the
perception that Alaska requires that you wear your seatbelt and
[that] you can be ticketed." He reiterated that 21 states with
primary seatbelt laws "have seen their numbers increase."
11:39:24 AM
MR. SMITH, in response to a question from Representative Elkins,
said he doesn't know how many of the deaths listed for 2004 were
due to motorcycle [accidents], but he said he could find out.
11:39:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS reiterated that on one hand there are
people who don't want the government "in the front seat of their
car," while on the other hand, passing [SB 87] would save lives.
He stated that he has had people tell him not to [pass the
bill]. He indicated that he is torn and asked how to build an
argument "to help."
11:40:19 AM
MR. SMITH responded that the argument he would make is that it's
a very vocal minority [who are against a primary seatbelt law].
Those people, he said, are obviously organized and are
contacting their legislators. He said he believes the survey is
accurate, and it indicates that the vast majority of Alaskans do
want a primary seatbelt law.
11:40:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked, "What if it's not a vocal minority?
... How do you build a bridge between these two groups of
people without dismissing the value of the opinion of either
group?"
11:41:56 AM
MR. SMITH said the reason he requested that the survey ask
people whether or not they support a primary seatbelt law was
because that was the only way he could think to answer the
question of what percentage of people in the state of Alaska
have strong feelings about the state enacting that law. He
reiterated that 79.6 percent thought it was a good idea. He
said he doesn't know how else to answer.
11:42:36 AM
JAMES GARHART, aka "Lazy Mountain Jim," testifying on behalf of
himself, stated, "I don't think that this should take place."
He said, "I'm one-eighth Choctaw, so I'm used to meaningless
assurances." He stated that when the original [secondary]
seatbelt law was being discussed, assurances were made that it
would never become a primary law. He said if [HB 87 passes],
the original seatbelt law should be overthrown "for having been
passed with fraud and deceit."
MR. GARHART said he imagines that the six or seven people it's
said would be alive today if a primary seatbelt law had existed
at the time probably wouldn't have worn their seatbelts anyway
and would still [have died].
11:45:35 AM
CINDY CASHEN, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug
Dependence, stated that 84 percent of Alaskans are already using
their seatbelts. She noted that the gap is in teenagers and
young adults, ages 16 to the late 20s, as was noted previously.
She said last year the legislature passed a graduated driver's
license law, which provided an incentive for youth to wear seat
belts, because if they get pulled over for any infraction, they
have to start the count over for their six-month without
infractions before qualifying for their licenses. She concluded
that having a primary seatbelt law is an incentive for youth to
wear their seatbelts.
MS. CASHEN mentioned Mr. Cooper's late son, Brant Cooper, and
said, "We'll never know if he would have worn his seatbelt."
She stated that her own son, who is nearly 17, "will be wearing
his seatbelt if he knows the police might pull him over." She
added, "That's what it takes." She indicated that when youth
are in a vehicle with their parents they may even be the ones to
remind everyone to wear a seatbelt, but when they are in a
vehicle with only other youth, they get distracted. She said,
"If one of them is not wearing their seatbelt in the vehicle and
there's a crash, they become a weapon to the other people." She
said she just attended a Lifesavers Conference [on Highway
Safety Priorities], during which she saw footage of what happens
when one person is not buckled in. She remarked that "it's not
pretty; no one ever wants to see that."
11:47:45 AM
MS. CASHEN echoed Mr. Smith's remarks that there is a vocal
minority, but studies show that the silent majority supports a
primary seatbelt [law]. She speculated that the reason that
people may be opposed to the bill and don't want to be pulled
over is because they could be repeat drunk driving offenders,
for example.
11:48:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he doesn't want it said that anyone who
comments against the bill is a drunk driver. He stated that
there are school board members that have written in opposition
to the bill.
11:48:56 AM
MS. CASHEN reiterated that it's a silent majority that supports
that bill and a vocal minority that opposes it. She said, "This
is not about Big Brother; this is about saving lives and saving
a lot of money."
11:49:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON said unfortunately the survey question just asks,
"Should seatbelts be required?" He noted that seatbelts are
already required. He stated his concern that people answering
this question may be considering whether the state should not
make it a requirement or leave the law as is.
11:50:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said there is another minority group:
those who drive into a bridge abutment. He said those people
are trying to commit suicide and rarely live through it. He
said, "I don't think a primary seatbelt bill will affect that
subgroup of people." Second, he stated that vocal minorities
have rights and are entitled to make their point known. He
emphasized that he thinks the fact that these people are writing
is important.
CHAIR SEATON reminded Representative Gatto and the other
committee members that he would like to continue with public
testimony and hold committee discussion for later.
11:51:12 AM
DARWIN BIWER, President, Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailers
Association (CHARR - formerly: Cabaret Hotel and Restaurant
Retail Association, from which the acronym derived), testified
on behalf of CHARR in opposition to SB 87. He said there
currently exists a seatbelt law. The survey points out that a
high percentage of Alaskans are in favor of a mandatory seatbelt
law, which the state has. He said the question is whether
"these people want to have the primary seatbelt law." He
stated, "We feel that this is an infringement on Alaskans' right
to choose." He offered his understanding that "80-some percent"
already wear their seatbelts, whereas "70-some percent" felt
that there should be a mandatory seatbelt law. He concluded
that more people already voluntarily wear seatbelts than even
say there should be a law for requiring it. He said, "It is a
Big Brother issue; it is an issue of whether or not Alaskans
have their rights infringed by being stopped for another
reason." He said it's already been noted that there are already
many reasons to [stop someone driving a vehicle].
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said there is one group that argues that a
primary seatbelt law would save lives, because if it's a law
more people will buckle up, and another group advocates that "it
will reduce drunk driving, because drunk drivers don't want to
have another probable cause reason for being stopped." He asked
why CHARR takes an opinion on the issue. He clarified, "Is it
because they're interested in primary safety, or are they
interested in probable cause stops for ... drunk driving."
MR. BIWER responded that Alaska already has some of the toughest
drunk driving laws. For example, the [blood alcohol
concentration] (BAC) for drunk driving has been reduced to .08.
He continued:
If a police officer is unable to tell whether or not a
person is impaired by their ability to drive, then ...
why is there another reason to stop this person other
than a seatbelt? We're talkin' seatbelts that are
visible - that would be the shoulder harness. Some
seatbelts don't have a shoulder harness, and that
would not be visible to a police officer. It's not a
drunk driving issue; this is a matter of invasion of
privacy.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS indicated that he doesn't know why CHARR
and MADD are testifying, other than the fact that they have the
right to do so.
MR. BIWER answered, "Because we are members of Alaska ...
society, and we have a right to be here, as well. And we're
just expressing our opinion." He noted that [CHARR] just had a
board meeting last week and this issue was raised. As a
representative of the industry, he said he is just making the
point that [those in the industry] don't like the invasion of
privacy which [the bill] would provide.
CHAIR SEATON thanked Mr. Biwer for pointing out the statistical
comparison between those who favor a seatbelt law and those who
already wear a seatbelt.
11:56:42 AM
KEVIN QUINLAN, Chief of Safety Advocacy, National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB), announced that he is testifying with the
authority of Ellen Engleman Conners - Chair, who was appointed
by President George W. Bush two years ago. He said NTSB is an
investigation agency; it does not regulate or tell states what
to do, but asks states to do the right thing. In this case, he
added, [NTSB] is asking the committee to give a favorable report
to the bill. He reported that over 90 percent of all
transportation fatalities occur on highways, and the number one
defense against motor vehicle injuries and fatalities is to use
a seatbelt. He added that that's also the number one defense
against drunk drivers. He reminded the committee that [wearing
a seatbelt] does prevent ejections and will reduce fatalities
and injuries.
MR. QUINLAN noted that the previously referenced survey is
consistent with studies done throughout the country. He said
there's about a 70-80 percent approval rate of primary seatbelt
laws. He added that "the questions have been worded differently
than was done in Alaska." He noted that there has been much
discussion on the effect on high-risk populations. He expressed
his profound sympathy to [Mr. Cooper] over the loss of his son,
and said seat belt use among teens is so low. He added, "And we
know that it will increase with the primary seatbelt law, just
as it will increase safety belt use among alcohol-involved
drivers." He reported that, nationally, 72 percent of Hispanics
and 68 percent of African Americans support the [seatbelt] laws.
In the states that have the laws, he said, the objective is not
to write tickets but to get people to wear their seatbelts. He
said, "You certainly want to have enforcement, but more
importantly, you want to have education about enforcement."
MR. QUINLAN said the NTSB believes that [a primary seatbelt law]
is the most effective action that can be taken to reduce highway
fatalities and injuries. He said it will pay benefits every
year, much like the benefits of the permanent fund. He
expressed support of the previous testimony of Mr. Smith, Ms.
Cashen, and Mr. Cooper. He concluded that Americans are
basically law-abiding people who look to the legislature to set
the standard. He said, "If you set the standard saying that you
shall, most Americans will, and most of the remainder will
change their behavior based on enforcement and education." He
said, "You can reach 95 percent," and he listed states that
have, including: Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Washington.
He added that the only way he knows [it is possible to reach
that percentage] is through a primary seatbelt law.
CHAIR SEATON said he was stuck by reading that Mr. Cooper's
son's autopsy revealed marks indicating that he had been wearing
a seatbelt, while his friends who survived had not been. He
asked Mr. Quinlan whether he has found through his
investigations that that scenario is common or not.
12:01:42 PM
MR. QUINLAN responded that Chair Seaton is asking him to
speculate based on an investigation and crash of which he
doesn't know the details. Notwithstanding that, he said, having
been involved in a crash which totaled his own car, he did have
seatbelt injuries, including bruising and stiffness. He said he
didn't go through the windshield, and he was driving. He said,
"I don't know what particular factors might have been lifesaving
for the two other people in the car, but I find that to be
atypical."
CHAIR SEATON clarified that he was just asking if this scenario
is atypical and if there is any data available. He said he
thinks Mr. Quinlan answered the question.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there is any data that indicates
that airbag deployment has more to do with preventing injury
than seatbelts.
MR. QUINLAN answered that, as Representative Gatto well knows,
the preferred combination is the use of the seatbelt plus the
airbags, because the airbags in most cars are frontal air bags
designed for frontal crashes. He noted that "side curtain"
airbags are very effective in reducing injuries, but are most
effective when used with a safety belt. The answer to the
question, he concluded, is that "you have to use both."
12:04:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Alaska statute exempts
school busses. He asked Mr. Quinlan if he believes that [the
use of seatbelts should be required on school buses].
MR. QUINLAN replied that that's an excellent question. He said
NTSB has investigated between 5-10 school bus crashes over
several years, and in each the dynamics of the crash have been
documented, including what happened to the passengers inside the
school bus. He said school buses are designed with
"compartmentalization" to keep the student in their seat area.
The seats, as they are currently constructed, are not designed
for seatbelts. When the forces of the bus crashes were analyzed
and documented in simulations, it was determined that if
seatbelts had been used they would have actually caused more
harm than good. He concluded that while seatbelts in school
buses may be advisable, the seats would have to be redesigned
first.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the seats should be
redesigned.
MR. QUINLAN said NTSB has recommended that the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration do the research into that. In
response to a follow-up question from Representative Gruenberg,
he said the administration has begun the process, but he doesn't
know the current status.
12:07:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like that information.
He noted that during his early terms in the legislature back in
1986 and 1987, there was legislation regarding this issue. He
said he doesn't know why that research, which could save some
children's lives, has not been completed in 20 years.
MR. QUINLAN reiterated that NTSB's purpose is to be objective,
find out what's wrong, and make recommendations for change.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Alaska statute also exempts
those delivering the U.S. mail and newspapers. He asked Mr.
Quinlan if he believes that those people should be required to
wear seatbelts.
MR. QUINLAN replied that the board does not have a specific
recommendation on that. He said there may be good and valid
reasons to exempt them, and the board would certainly leave that
to the wisdom of the legislature. In response to a follow-up
question from Representative Gruenberg, he clarified that he
literally is not authorized to talk about something "where we
don't have a recommendation."
12:10:44 PM
DEBORAH CHOROMANSKI HULL-JILLY, Acting Chief, Community Health &
Emergency Medical Services, Division of Public Health,
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), testified on
behalf of the department in support of SB 87. She pointed out
that what is true about seatbelt use nationally is also true in
Alaska, based on data that both DHSS and the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) collects on motor
vehicle crashes. She reported: "In 2002, in Alaska, unbelted
occupants in motor vehicle crashes were 17 times more likely to
die than belted occupants, and 6 times more likely to sustain a
major injury." She reported that the consequences of serious
crash injuries in Alaska are also graver than in other states,
because access to medical care is more challenging. She stated
that the Alaska Trauma Registry, within Community Health &
Emergency Medical Services reports that unbelted crash victims
are more likely to sustain a serious brain injury and more
likely to be discharged with a permanent disability. Every year
there are about 100 new brain-injured Alaskans added to that
population and 30 new permanently disabled crash victims. She
reported that unbelted crash victims are also more likely to be
uninsured and to bill Medicaid for their medical care. She
continued, "About one-third of them fall into one of these
categories, but all crashes resulting in injury have an economic
impact on society." She noted that between the close of session
last May and the beginning of the current one [in January], 42
unbelted crash victims died in Alaska, and 29 suffered head
injury. Sixty percent of those injury crashes during that time
occurred in non-urban centers of Alaska, while 20 percent
occurred in small communities. She stated, "This is an issue
that affects all Alaskans."
CHAIR SEATON requested that Ms. Hull-Jilly provide the committee
with a copy of the statistics she just quoted and where the
accidents occurred.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked for the number of motorcycle
fatalities.
MS. HULL-JILLY said she doesn't know but can find out.
12:15:06 PM
CHAIR SEATON invited Mr. Smith back before the committee to
offer a perspective regarding previous testimony.
12:17:10 PM
MR. SMITH offered the following:
I think that Mr. Cooper misspoke. His son was ejected
from that automobile crash when it hit the rock wall
32 miles off the highway. And the two ... 17-year-old
girls - one was also ejected. And there has not been
a final disposition in her case, but basically she
went to Seattle and was connected to equipment. I
mean she's in terrible, terrible shape if she's not
already dead. And the third girl was paralyzed from
the neck down in that crash.
MR. SMITH, in response to Chair Seaton, said he would ask [Mr.
Cooper]. He added, "I know that his son was ejected ...."
CHAIR SEATON said he doesn't know if the seatbelt broke or not.
MR. SMITH responded, "I've not heard anything about seatbelts in
relationship with his son."
12:18:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that statute says a person may
not operate a motor vehicle unless restrained by a safety belt.
He said the term motor vehicle is defined as "a vehicle which is
self-propelled, except a vehicle moved by human or animal
power." He opined that that would include motorcycles and all-
terrain vehicles (ATVs). He asked whether the use of the term
"motor vehicle" needs to be redrafted, because he said he
doesn't think anyone intends to put seatbelts on motorcycles.
MR. SMITH agreed regarding there being no intent to put
seatbelts on motorcycles and he suggested that is an issue to be
considered. He added that he is not a lawyer.
12:19:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG - regarding the term "operate" -
reminded the committee that that can include turning on the
radio. He said he doesn't think anybody intends to require a
seatbelt to be worn while someone is sitting in a car just
operating a radio.
MR. SMITH concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that there is a long history of
"some legislation concerning ... seatbelts in school busses."
He asked Mr. Smith if he is aware of anything that has been done
in Alaska towards this issue. He added, "I wasn't very
satisfied with the answer we got."
MR. SMITH said he is not familiar with any studies done or
efforts being made. He said he received the same explanation
that the committee did regarding the construction of school
buses in a compartmentalized way.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Smith to comment on the other
previously mentioned exemption for newspaper and mail delivery
people.
12:21:40 PM
MR. SMITH indicated that the exemption is meant for the time
when those drivers are driving down a residential street and
getting in and out of the vehicle, but that it is not intended
to exempt them from wearing seatbelts while driving a longer
distance, for example, from the starting point to the delivery
area.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that now [mail] boxes are
sometimes set up in a way that allows the driver to deliver the
mail without ever having to get out of the vehicle. He
suggested that Mr. Smith might consider that issue.
12:22:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he was on a school board that looked
into the issue of seatbelts on school buses. He pointed out
that school buses are very tall, and he explained that that is a
deliberate design to keep the children well above the height of
impact from another vehicle. He said, "When it falls over on
its side, that's another story. Regarding mail delivery, he
surmised that the exemption may exist because it would be
impossible for the contracted mail carriers [who drive their own
vehicles] to deliver the mail on the right side of the vehicle
where the mail boxes are while sitting on the left.
12:24:26 PM
MS. WICKERSHAM spoke to a previous analogy that was given as to
the right to bear arms. She said she thinks Senator Bunde would
argue that the ability to bear arms is a right, driving is a
privilege. Driving is conducted on public roads. With a
privilege, she said, comes responsibility. The legislature has,
in the past, worked to create statute that protects people's
safety when they are "in a somewhat vulnerable position," and
the Division of Motor Vehicles has created regulations to
further that effort, as well. She concluded, "Senator Bunde
would argue that - being as though it's a privilege, not a right
- when it starts to negatively affect other individuals through
insurance premiums, ... medical costs, [and] ... perhaps in a
situation where one passenger isn't wearing a seatbelt and is
thrown around the vehicle injuring other people, that's when we
need to reevaluate the privilege and determine what is in the
best interest of the residents as a whole."
CHAIR SEATON remarked that, because of the unanswered questions
still at large, the bill would not be passed out of committee
today.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered a scenario whereby she is driving
and asks her husband, who is a passenger in the car, to put on
his seatbelt, which he declines to do. She asked who would get
the ticket if she were pulled over.
MS. WICKERSHAM answered that Representative Gardner's husband
would receive the ticket. However, if it was her child who was
not belted in, it would be Representative Gardner who received a
ticket. In response to a question from Chair Seaton, she
confirmed that the responsibility of the driver applies to
him/herself and "children below the age of 16."
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
12:28:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated his strong support for wearing
seatbelts and said that people who don't wear them are either
foolhardy, rebellious, or don't care about their life or the
lives of others, and he said that "all of us have probably fit
into one of those categories at one time or another." He
compared not wearing a seatbelt as being similar to playing
Russian roulette. He expressed respect for the sponsor of the
bill and to the people who testified; however, he stated that he
is unable to support the bill in its present form. He said he
thinks the state needs appropriate laws, but he doesn't want to
turn Alaska into some kind of Big Brother or "nanny" state. He
said, "We already have seatbelt laws and, at some point, I think
people need to start taking personal responsibility for their
actions." He said the kindest thing he can say about the bill
is that it is impractical. He explained, "No cop can drive down
the highway, as far as I'm concerned, and tell if a driver is
wearing his seatbelt. Ergo there's no probable cause to pull
... somebody over to write a ticket, unless we put a flashing
light on top of the car to indicate a seatbelt's not being
worn." He said he's almost afraid to have brought that up,
because someone may decide that's a good idea.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said the bill appears to give a carte
blanche opportunity for law enforcement people to pull someone
over at any time, without probable cause, and he emphasized that
he thinks that's a dangerous thing in a free society. He added,
"The fact of the matter is, ... any law enforcement officer ...
worth his salt can already find legitimate reasons to pull
somebody over." He reminded the committee that he is an ex-
police officer and, as such, he has pulled cars over for various
reasons, including basic traffic violations, driving like a
drunk, having burned out license plate lights, and operating the
vehicles unsafely in some manner. He reiterated that he
strongly supports wearing a seatbelt, but added, "Unfortunately,
we can't legislate common sense."
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated his intention of speaking directly
with Senator Bunde. He reiterated his conflict is over the two
basic issues of saving lives versus invading privacy. He
expressed his appreciation of the testimonials from Lieutenant
Sharp and Mr. Cooper, and of those who have been on location at
accidents, such as Representative Gatto.
12:32:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he appreciates both sides of the
issue. He stated his concern is that in some parts of his
district when people are pulled over, many times the police stop
goes beyond the original reason for the stop. He offered an
example that if someone doesn't have the current proof-of-
insurance card in the car, the car is impounded, which results
in an expensive and long process to get the vehicle back.
12:34:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated his concern that the terms
"motor vehicle" and "operate" need to be more narrowly defined.
He also questioned the term "safety belt", and he stated concern
that there has not been a clear answer regarding the school bus
issue. He said he participated in the House Health, Education
and Social Services Standing Committee meetings of 1985
regarding the school bus issue and the studies had not been
completed at that time. He added, "And kids have died since
then."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she tries to keep an open mind
during bill hearings. She revealed that she walked into the
hearing for SB 87 thinking she could not support the bill and
questioning whether she would support moving the bill out of
committee; however, the testimony really affected her. She said
she doesn't know if she will ultimately support the bill or not.
Notwithstanding that, she said she thinks it's unarguable that,
with rare exceptions, seatbelts do save lives. She stated that
that's not the issue and that's not what the bill addresses.
What the bill addresses, she said, is whether to have "primary
stops." She said she has a primary problem with that, and she
wishes that the survey had specifically asked that question.
She said she thinks a better approach might be having higher
fines and promoting education regarding seatbelts.
12:36:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS stated that, in its present form, he
cannot support the bill, but he would certainly support raising
the fines for not wearing a seatbelt and increasing education
regarding public safety.
12:36:51 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that SB 87 was heard and held.
CHAIR SEATON announced that a subcommittee would meet at 7:45
a.m. on Tuesday, March 22 to address HB 114. He said a new
committee substitute would be made available. Chair Seaton said
the bill would be rolled into a broad omnibus bill - HB 53. He
thanked the members of the subcommittee.
SB 87-SEAT BELT VIOLATION AS PRIMARY OFFENSE
12:39:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred back to SB 87. He noted that
some members of the Bush caucus and people from rural Alaska
have contacted him regarding SB 87. He asked [the sponsor] to
be certain that their voice is heard.
12:40:12 PM
CHAIR SEATON let the committee know that there would be a
potential amendment offered to exempt communities with fewer
than 5,500. However, considering the data given by the
Department of Health and Social Services, he said it sounds like
the majority of the accidents resulting in deaths and brain
trauma are occurring in [rural] areas. He said it will be a
difficult balancing act, but he looks forward to working with
the sponsor to find out if he wants to include motorcycles and
four-wheelers, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to [Representative Ramras']
reference to testimony from Mothers Against Drunk Driving
(MADD). He stated for the record that no member of MADD had
testifying [on behalf of MADD].
12:41:33 PM
MS. CASHEN, in response to a request for clarification from
Chair Seaton, reiterated [out of range of the microphone] that
[although she is a member of MADD], her testimony today on SB 87
was made on behalf of the National Council on Alcoholism and
Drug Dependence.
[SB 87 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
12:44:17 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|