Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/28/2000 01:48 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 218
"An Act relating to property loaned to or held by
museums."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed
committee substitute, work draft 1-LS0786\D, 2/28/00 (copy
on file).
Mr. Hand testified in support of the legislation on behalf
of the sponsor. He acknowledged the good job that Alaska's
many museums do in preserving the state's rich cultural
heritage. Unfortunately, there are numerous artifacts in
Alaska's museums that are currently in a quandary because
the owners or lender of the property have lost contact with
the museum. Lenders pass away or move without maintaining
notice with the museum. Sometimes, there is little or no
documentation as to the origins of items. This leaves
museums in a difficult position since without contact with
the lender or defined ownership by the museum, it is very
difficult to properly care for these artifacts. Artifacts
require care and maintenance over time. Some artifacts
require maintenance/upkeep that could be potentially
damaging to the property. It is even possible that an item
has degenerated to a point where the best thing to do, is to
dispose of the property. Without contact with the lender,
museums are put in the unenviable position of having to care
for these items without authority to do so. He maintained
that museums cannot reasonably be expected to properly care
for an item while simultaneously incurring liability for
doing so. House Bill 218 establishes a process through which
museums may clarify title on unclaimed objects.
Mr. Hand outlined the process through which museums may
clarify title on unclaimed objects. At least 7 years must
have passed after the expiration date of the loan without
any contact between the lender and museum. The museum must
first send a notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the lender's last known address. If, after 30
days, no notice of delivery has been received, the museum
then publishes notices for a period of 4 weeks in a general
circulation newspaper in the area of the museum and in the
area of the lender's last known address:
- The notice states that the museum intends to take
title to the property.
- The bill specifically stipulates the information
that must be included in the notices.
Mr. Hand explained that if no response is received within a
period of 65 days, the museum then sends another certified
mailing to the last known address of the lender. If again
there is no response, the museum then undertakes another
round of newspaper notices for a period of two weeks. A
lender still has legal recourse through a reclamation period
of 2 years after the museum has taken title to the property.
The bill also stipulates that a museum must take responsible
steps in order to keep proper written records regarding
loaned property, including notifying any lenders about a
change of location of the museum. Also, under this act,
museums must notify all new lenders of this statute.
Mr. Hand concluded that the legislation provides for a
course of action museums can follow in order to alleviate
very serious problems that seemingly every museum in the
state is encountering. There is strong support from those in
the museum community who are working very hard to preserve
Alaska's cultural heritage.
Vice Chair Bunde questioned if notification costs could be
absorbed with a zero fiscal note. He questioned how many
certified letters would be sent to artifact owners. Mr. Hand
observed that the department felt that the cost of newspaper
notification would be minimal and could be included in the
cost of doing business. He did not know how many letters
would have to be sent.
Vice Chair Bunde asked if loan contract agreements have
provisions for forfeiture. Mr. Hand did not know. He added
that the legislation would address undocumented items.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT provided
information regarding the proposed committee substitute. He
noted that the first change occurred in section 2 of the
bill. Section 2(a)(1) and (2) differentiate between loans
with and without expiration dates. Redundant language was
taken out of section 2(a)(2); the museum can take possession
if there is no expiration date and seven years have passed.
The telephone number of the museum representative was added
in subsection (b) on line 11, page 2.
Mr. Tibble continued to explain changed made in the proposed
committee substitute. The third change occurred on line 21,
page 2: "or" was added to clarify that notice would be
provided by newspaper in the judicial district the museum is
located and in the judicial district in which the lender's
last known address or the county, borough or geographical
organization of their last known address. The final change
was on page 3, line 9: "at least" before "once a week" was
added to provide consistency.
Mr. Hand observed that the requirement for a telephone
number was also added on page 4, line 5; and "at least" was
also added page 4 and line 10. The sponsor agreed with the
changes made in the proposed committee substitute.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to ADOPT work draft 1-LS0786\D,
2/28/00. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Austerman questioned how estates would be
handled. Mr. Hand clarified in the case of an estate that
the heirs would be the titleholder of the property.
Representative Phillips questioned why seven years was
chosen and asked if it would be retroactive. Mr. Hand
explained that the provision would be in affect for items
that have been in the museum's custody for the previous
seven years without contact from the lender. They would not
have to begin another 7-year period. The seven-year period
was chosen arbitrarily based on provisions in other states.
KAREN CRANE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES AND
MUSEUMS spoke in support of HB 218. She observed that out of
25,000 objects that there are 85 objects that would be
affected; 24 are unclaimed; the rest are undocumented.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 42, SIDE 2)
Ms. Crane explained that the cost of contacting owners would
occur over a number of years. She did not anticipate that
all 85 objects would be addressed in the first year. She
observed that old airplane parts are among the unclaimed
objects. These could be transferred or sold. It is expensive
to maintain objects that the state does not hold title to.
The legislation would cleanup problems encountered by the
department.
Representative J. Davies asked if there is a problem with
the affective date of the bill. Ms. Crane indicated that
effective date is not a problem.
Vice Chair Bunde asked about forfeiture provisions. Ms.
Crane responded that there is a forfeiture provision
containing the same seven-year period. The timeline chosen
for the legislation was modeled after the American
Association of Museums.
DONNA MATHEWS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MUSEUMS ALASKA, ANCHORAGE
testified via teleconference in support of the legislation.
She noted that the legislation would affect private museums
around the state. All museums have some items that cannot be
cared for, disposed of or transferred to other interested
parties. The legislation provides strong guidelines for
future practices and is clear and specific.
DIANE BRENNER, ARCHIVIST, ANCHORAGE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND
ART, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in support of
the legislation. She noted that in 1969 an old organ was
brought to the museum for a temporary display. The owners
disappeared. The museum wishes to dispose of the organ. The
legislation would allow for disposal.
BEA SHEPPARD, BOARD MEMBER, MUSEUMS ALASKA, JUNEAU testified
in support of the legislation. She noted that Museums Alaska
has supported the change for many years. She observed that
abandoned property must be handled by an auction. In many
cases museums wish to retain the property or turn them over
to other museums.
Representative Austerman questioned if there is a policy of
trying to contact heirs. Ms. Sheppard responded that in many
cases the museum does not know whom to contact.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the current practice is to
enter into a written agreement. Ms. Crane explained that the
current practice is to accept loans for a period of a year;
if the museum desires to keep the object longer the loan is
renegotiated. It is easier to find the heirs to the estate
or the legal owners after only a year.
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a timeline showing
the proposed schedule for acquisition (copy on file). He
questioned if the process could be streamlined. Ms. Crane
stressed the relationship of trust with owners and donors.
Ms. Sheppard observed that the legislation is based on
similar legislation in other states. She felt that the
legislation is a good compromise and emphasized the need for
private institutions.
Vice Chair Bunde asked if the contract requires owners to be
contacted at the end of a year. Ms. Crane noted that the
obligation is on the museum to contact donors. Notification
occurs before the year has ended.
Vice Chair Bunde observed that museums would obtain title to
objects that are in need of care and that there would be
additional costs associated with the assumption of these
objects.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the museum could take
possession prior to seven years. Ms. Crane interpreted the
legislation to require the museum to wait for seven years
before taking possession. Ms. Crane felt that seven years is
a reasonable period and reiterated the need to maintain
trust with owners. She did not feel that the problem would
occur in the future. Ms. Sheppard noted that the one-year
period only pertained to the state museum and that there are
up to 70 other museums in the state.
Representative J. Davies asked if the legislation would
preclude museums from entering into different contract
arrangements. Ms. Crane responded that the museum would
follow state guidelines.
Co-Chair Therriault did not know if passage of the
legislation would preclude other contractual provisions.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the museum would take
possession before the requirement for the second notice
expired. Ms. Crane thought that the legislation would
provide for possession after the 65th day.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the Committee would prefer
a timeline that would be shorter and less expensive.
Vice Chair Bunde spoke in support of a compromise between 60
days and seven years. Co-Chair Therriault clarified that it
was not his intent for the museum to take possession as soon
as the expiration of the contract occurred. Vice Chair Bunde
noted that the Department of Public Safety has a one-year
time period for dealing with property that comes into their
possession.
Vice Chair Bunde asked how many items the state museum has
acquired in the last seven years without a contract. Ms.
Crane stated that there have not been any acquisitions
without a contract in the last seven years.
Representative G. Davis pointed out that the statute would
be unnecessary after the backlogs of past acquisitions have
been addressed.
Representative J. Davies expressed concern that museums not
be precluded from entering into shorter contracts. Page 5,
line 11 states that the provisions in the legislation would
govern over conflicts in other state law.
Co-Chair Therriault did not expect that the museum would
hear from anyone that has not contacted them over the past
seven years. He questioned if the expense of two newspaper
notifications was warranted. He stressed that the intent is
to take care of the backlog of items and felt that the
legislation could be streamlined to shorten the time period
and reduce the costs of notification.
Ms. Crane acknowledged that the intent of the legislation is
to address old objects. Ms. Sheppard agreed that the concern
is to take care of the backlog.
Co-Chair Therriault acknowledged that the intent is to
address backlog but pointed out that the legislation would
pertain to future purchases as well.
HB 218 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|