Legislature(2017 - 2018)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/19/2018 09:00 AM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB81 | |
| HB355 | |
| HB208 | |
| HB123 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 355 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 208 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 355-FIRE; FOREST LAND; CRIMES; FIRE PREVENTION
9:12:05 AM
CHAIR COGHILL called the committee back to order and announced
the consideration of HB 355. [The Senate committee substitute,
version U as amended, was before the committee.] He advised that
Chris Maisch would like to supplement his comments on Amendment
3 that the committee adopted yesterday.
9:12:55 AM
CHRIS MAISCH, State Forester and Director, Division of Forestry,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Fairbanks, Alaska,
thanked the committee for the opportunity to readdress Amendment
3 and apologized for not providing a more complete answer at the
time.
He said you need to read subsection (b) in Section 7 in
context with Sections 5, 6, and 7. They all use language
similar to that being removed. These sections work together
to address the "other lands" piece that was removed.
He read the last sentence in Section 5 and explained that
it talks about how the division would identify the other
types of land uses that would require a permit. That would
be a regulation process which would include public comment
and discussion of those types of uses. The type of uses the
division envisions is primarily commercial uses such as
timber harvesting, land clearing for residential
development or agricultural activities. He noted that the
latter is a common source of escaped fire. The regulation
process would identify the other types of activities. Very
few activities would be restricted; lawn mowing would be
allowed.
Section 7 allows the division to enforce those regulations
and removing the part about other activities would prevent
the division from enforcing things that are already in
regulation, such as jag burning.
Those sections work with Section 15 that enumerates the
penalties. This would likely fall under the bail schedule they
hope to develop under this statute. This is where not having a
permit might fall. More serious things like an escaped fire that
developed into a project fire might fall under a misdemeanor
charge.
He reiterated the importance of looking at these sections in
context to clearly understand the impact of Amendment 3.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Maisch to work with the sponsor of the
amendment to see if he was willing to change it. If it stands,
it appears that the division will struggle with enforcing other
activities. He opined that the division should have the
authority it needs but it's important to recognize the potential
for overreach.
9:16:58 AM
SENATOR KELLY said he supported the amendment because it wasn't
clear that the regulation process for the fire permit would
include public participation, and because the discussion
indicated that a burning permit would be required throughout the
summer. He asked Mr. Maisch to comment on those two issues.
MR. MAISCH said existing statute has the qualifier that the
regulations the commissioner sets regarding fire permits are
only for extreme fire danger situations.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Senator Shower to present Amendment 4.
9:18:35 AM
SENATOR SHOWER moved Amendment 4, 30LS-1382\O.19, noting that he
withdrew it from consideration yesterday.
30-LS1382\O.19
Radford
4/17/18
AMENDMENT 4
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: CSHB 355(JUD)
Page 6, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 21. AS 41.15.950 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) A person is not required under this
section to disclose a deadly weapon under
AS 11.61.220(a)(1)(A) to a peace officer
described under (a)(1) of this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 7, line 2:
Delete "sec. 21"
Insert "sec. 22"
Page 7, line 3:
Delete "sec. 21" in both places
Insert "sec. 22" in both places
Page 7, line 4:
Delete "Sections 23 and 24"
Insert "Sections 24 and 25"
Page 7, line 5:
Delete "sec. 25"
Insert "sec. 26"
9:18:40 AM
CHAIR COGHILL objected.
SENATOR SHOWER said he learned last night that House members
support the current draft of Amendment 4. It is a much simpler
version than was presented during the process in that body.
CHAIR COGHILL summarized that the amendment talks about the
requirement to disclose a deadly weapon under AS
11.61.220(a)(1)(A). He asked if that relies on the definition of
a peace officer in AS 11.81.900.
SENATOR SHOWER said that's correct. The discussion yesterday was
about AS 41.15.950 and that the state essentially declares that
for the purpose of enforcing this chapter, an employee of the
department or anybody authorized by the commissioner is
identified as a peace officer. The bill allows investigation
authority so they can show up on a property in an authoritative
role and write tickets. What the amendment tries to do is
prevent a confrontation by clarifying that people do not have to
disclose a firearm to these government representatives who are
identified as peace officers but are not trained by law
enforcement.
9:20:52 AM
CHAIR COGHILL commented that the amendment would probably be
more beneficial to the individual who was carrying a firearm
than a peace officer who is a fire prevention officer. He asked
Mr. Maisch the department's view of the amendment.
MR. MAISCH agreed that fire prevention officers (FPO) are
defined as peace officers in the context of enforcing Title 41.
He said his perspective is that disclosure of weapons is
important to FPOs for general safety reasons. These officers
often work alone in remote locations and they would have a
better overall sense of the situation if they knew someone was
carrying a firearm. He clarified that they would not enforce
that statute because they are not trained for that.
9:22:33 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI that his concern is that it's very broad.
He didn't believe that most people would perceive that a peace
officer/FPO is somebody to whom they need to affirmatively
reveal, but it would be a crime if they didn't.
9:23:18 AM
CHAIR COGHILL removed his objection. Finding no further
objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
9:23:30 AM
SENATOR SHOWER moved Amendment 5, 30-LS1382\O.24.
30-LS1382\O.24
Martin/Radford
4/17/18
AMENDMENT 5
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: CSHB 355(JUD)
Page 4, line 1:
Delete "knows of a fire or"
Insert "[KNOWS OF A FIRE OR]"
9:23:50 AM
CHAIR COGHILL objected for an explanation.
SENATOR SHOWER said this amendment, too, tries to keep the
enforcement authority from being overly broad. His concern is
that anyone who knows of a fire potentially makes too many
people culpable.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Maisch to comment on the amendment.
9:24:53 AM
MR. MAISCH said we would oppose this amendment because it
removes the duty to report a fire. It's important for anybody
who has knowledge of a fire to disclose that so the response is
quicker and control potentially more efficient. Public
cooperation is important.
CHAIR COGHILL commented that it is basically the duty to report.
MR. MAISCH answered yes.
CHAIR COGHILL asked what the penalty is for failure to report.
MR. MAISCH replied a person could potentially be cited but it's
unlikely that would happen. Quick response and suppression of a
fire is a matter of public safety.
CHAIR COGHILL clarified that this removes the language from
existing statute.
MR. MAISCH agreed.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he didn't like placing an affirmative
duty on innocent bystanders and is always wary of granting
prosecutorial discretion on such things, but a fire could
devastate a community. Thus, he's leaning in favor of granting
that discretion and opposing the amendment.
9:26:57 AM
CHAIR COGHILL maintained his objection. He commented on
emergency situations in his area caused by fires that went
unreported.
SENATOR KELLY said it seems that the duty to report is due care
so he's okay with the amendment.
9:28:12 AM
CHAIR COGHILL said he was maintaining his objection because
removing the phrase leaves the due care to prevent or control to
the person who set the fire.
SENATOR KELLY indicated that he was switching his position on
the amendment.
CHAIR COGHILL asked for a roll call.
9:29:14 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Shower voted in favor of
amendment 5 and Senators Coghill, Kelly, Wielechowski voted
against it. Therefore, amendment 5, O.24, failed by a 1:3 vote.
9:29:20 AM
CHAIR COGHILL held HB 355 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 123 - Explanation of changes (ver. O to ver. B).pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 - Letters of Opposition.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 - Letter of Support - Fairbanks Chamber.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 - Letters of Support.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 - Sectional Analysis (ver. B).pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 - Supporting Document - ADN Article.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 - Supporting Document - Health Care Price Transparency Laws.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 - Supporting Document - How Price Transparency Can Control the Cost of Health Care.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 123 |