Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 17
02/28/2007 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB77 | |
| HB14 | |
| HB35 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 77-MARRIAGE BROKERS AND ADVERTISERS CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 77, "An Act relating to marriage brokers and advertisers and to dating and social referral services." 3:06:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN made a motion to adopt CSHB 77, Version 25-LS0350\C, Mischel, 2/27/07, as the working document. There being no objection, Version C was before the committee. 3:07:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, joint prime sponsor, stated that Version C addresses concerns brought up at the previous committee hearing. 3:08:02 PM HANNAH MCCARTY, Staff to Representative Beth Kerttula, Alaska State Legislature, joint prime sponsor, detailed the changes made by Version C. The first change requires that the client provide a criminal record for each state of residence. She explained that the national criminal history record is only provided to government agencies, and therefore the requirement to obtain this is removed. Version C also deletes the reference to "free legal advice," on Page 2, line 11, as this is not available in Alaska. Finally, the language requiring that traditional matchmakers operate "not for profit" is deleted. 3:10:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to how internet activity would be regulated. MS. MCCARTY replied that it can be difficult to monitor this type of activity. However, this is a "good public policy statement." REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA added that the majority of marriage broker activity is conducted over the internet. Therefore, an attempt must be made to regulate internet activity. She pointed out that the internet counts as an "in-state" contact, and therefore the state may regulate this activity. 3:12:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, in regard to the criminal justice report requirement, asked how this would apply to military personnel, or individuals whose jobs have required that they transfer to another country. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that the criminal justice report requirement was added because it may not be possible to obtain a national criminal history record, and is similar to the requirements other states have in place. She surmised that the federal law applies to military personnel. MS. MCCARTY added that it may be possible to add "and each country" to the requirement. However, this may add additional complications. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN stated that he is concerned with this, as he is not aware of the current federal law. He opined that this is a viable concern. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied that the current informational services are limited. She surmised, then, an international criminal history record requirement would not be easily enforced. She shared her understanding that the military regulates its personnel, adding that she is willing to discuss these concerns with the military and with the Department of Public Safety (DPS). 3:17:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to Page 3, lines 5-6, offered her understanding that this penalty applies to the marriage broker. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied that this is correct. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that it would be difficult to collect the penalty from an individual who is in another country. She asked whether this could be collected from a broker operating in another state. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied that this would depend on several factors. She opined that the state the broker is registered in would be the most appropriate. 3:18:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to whether the majority of marriage brokers are in the U.S. or in other countries. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied that the majority that she has seen online are U.S. companies. 3:18:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in regard to the criminal history requirements, opined that the client may not know how to obtain this information. She questioned who would need to be contacted, and how the client would obtain the contact information. 3:19:21 PM KATHRYN "KATHY" MONFREDA, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification Bureau, Division of Statewide Services, Department of Public Safety (DPS), explained that on the DPS web site, there is a link to other states central repositories. The individuals can then follow the instructions on how to gather this information for a particular state. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how this law would apply to an individual convicted of a violent felony as a juvenile. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied that juvenile records are exempt. In response to an additional question, she explained that if the juvenile was tried as an adult, this would result in an adult record; however, if it was a juvenile act, this would be a sealed record and the state would not have access to it. MS. MONFREDA agreed that this is correct. She pointed out that DPS does not have access to these records. She opined that this might be covered in the self disclosure portion of the application. [Following was a brief discussion regarding testimony.] 3:22:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report CSHB 77, Version 25- LS0350\C, Mischel, 2/27/07, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 77(L&C) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. The committee took an at-ease from 3:22 PM to 3:25 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|