Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
05/11/2007 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB90 | |
| HB217 | |
| HB118 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HB 217 | |||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 90 | ||
| = | HB 118 | ||
CSHB 217(JUD)-TOURISM DISCLOSURES AND NOTICES
2:14:27 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of CSHB 217(JUD).
REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES, sponsor of HB 217, said her staff
member would present the bill.
2:14:52 PM
JAMES WALDO, staff for Representative Holmes, explained that HB
217 attempts to correct an error that occurred in ballot 2
language. It breaks down into three parts; the first part adds
some disclosure requirements that were not in the initiative
language. Second it changes one disclosure requirement that was
in the initiative language and third, it applies those
requirements to shore side retailers in addition to onboard tour
sales. At the very end, it increases penalties for violators of
this law.
He explained that section 2 adds the new disclosure requirement
by requiring any sale of an onboard tour to be cast in the
proper light. It lets people know that there is a
retail/wholesale relationship between the cruise line and the
shoreside tour vendor so they know some of the money they are
paying for the ticket is actually staying with the cruise line.
Next he said it requires the cruise lines to inform passengers
that there are other options at a port of call that would have
different features and perhaps different prices - basically
allowing them to understand that there is a whole world of other
options out there other than just the five that might be
promoted on the ship. So that they can seek out those other
options, he said, it next requires the cruise line to provide
the contact information at the future port of call which will
have all of the contact information in a listing of all the tour
vendors.
MR. WALDO explained it also changes disclosure of the exact
commission rate, which is what that language in the initiative
said, to disclosure if the commission is over a 20 percent
threshold. The idea behind this is to basically let the consumer
know he is paying a commission over a certain level.
Beyond those changes, he said, it applies this language to shore
side retailers, as well - like Diamonds International that pays
a great deal of money to be advertised on the ships. He
explained that many Alaskan businesses aren't advertised on the
ships. This issue was left out of the ballot measure.
Finally, Mr. Waldo said, the bill corrects the penalty
provision, because the initiative classified it as an unfair
trade practice, but capped the maximum penalty at $100. However,
the usual penalty for an unfair trade practice is $1,000-
$25,000.
2:20:18 PM
TIM MCDONNELL, Temsco Helicopters, Juneau AK, supported HB 217.
BOB JANES, Owner, Gastineau Guiding, Juneau AK, supported HB
217.
JEREMY KEIZER, President, Alaska Travel Industry Association
Juneau Chapter, supported HB 217. He said that while ATIA wanted
no disclosure requirements, this bill strikes a mutually
beneficial arrangement with the initiative sponsors and the
stakeholders and it is as close to the top floor as they could
get.
2:22:39 PM
HOLLY BURKHOLDER, Juneau AK, supported HB 217.
2:23:00 PM
KAREN HESS, Chilkat River Adventures, Haines AK, supported HB
217.
STEVE HITES, Skagway Streetcar Company, said HB 217 is the
lesser of two evils so he supported passing it. He said the
relationship between the cruise line and the tour operator is a
simple retail wholesale one. He strongly felt that any reference
in section (b) to commission or percentage should be struck from
this bill. He said no other retail store in America has to
reveal its mark up or even have it assumed. He expressed his
sentiment thus:
To have an arbitrary 20 percent figure inserted in the
bill there is absolutely incorrect. It's wrong.
Private enterprise is exactly that. It is private and
to disclose inaccurately my private business
agreements with my customer puts me at a disadvantage.
This disclosure discriminates against one retail
business - the cruise line shore excursion sales desk.
And it discriminates against the local Alaska
wholesale businesses that sell shore excursions to the
cruise lines. It is unconstitutional and violates our
rights....
CHAIR FRENCH thanked him for his good comments. He asked the
sponsor about language on page 1, line 9 and page 2, line 9 that
referenced oral disclosures to individuals buying excursions
onboard the cruise ships. He wanted to hear about the debate
that occurred and the position of the initiative sponsor with
deleting this disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES responded that this change was made in the
House Judiciary Committee. The discussion was that originally
disclosure was required both orally and in writing on the theory
that these packages were presented by a person who would also be
there to explain it. But then it was explained that on a lot of
occasions this information is actually slipped under the
passengers doors or left on a table in their cabins. So it seems
to require oral disclosure was not appropriate. They decided
that by requiring all disclosures to be made in writing would
make it easier to prove whether it was or wasn't happening
anyway.
CHAIR FRENCH asked the position of the initiative sponsors.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES replied that they had not voiced any
objections to her about this. One of them testified in favor of
the bill as it stands now and the other sponsor wrote a letter
of support.
2:29:26 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE moved to report CSHB 217(JUD), version N, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note(s). There were no objections and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|