03/15/2016 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB273 | |
| HB229 | |
| HB162 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 273 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 229 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 162 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2016
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative David Talerico
Representative Liz Vazquez
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 273
"An Act relating to the transfer of the title to a vehicle,
including certain manufactured homes and trailers, on the death
of the owner; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 273 (STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 229
"An Act relating to regulation notice and review by the
legislature; and relating to the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 162
"An Act relating to administrative revocation of a driver's
license; and repealing Rule 603(a)(3), Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure."
- MOVED HB 162 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to the jurisdiction of standing committees.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 273
SHORT TITLE: VEHICLES: TRANSFER ON DEATH TITLE
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
01/22/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/16 (H) STA
02/04/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/04/16 (H) Heard & Held
02/04/16 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/09/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/15/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 229
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE
SPONSOR(s): CHENAULT
01/19/16 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/16
01/19/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/16 (H) STA, FIN
02/04/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/04/16 (H) Heard & Held
02/04/16 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/11/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/15/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 162
SHORT TITLE: DMV REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE
SPONSOR(s): WILSON
03/23/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/23/15 (H) STA, JUD
02/09/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/09/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/15/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DENEEN TUCK, Staff
Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 273 on behalf of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor, on which
Representative Lynn serves as chair.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 229, as prime sponsor.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of
Representative Chenault, prime sponsor of HB 229.
JIM POUND, Staff
Representative Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 229.
SUSAN POLLARD, Chief Assistant
Legislation & Regulations Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on Amendment 2 to HB
229.
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 162, as prime sponsor.
NICOLE THAM, Driver Services Manager
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 162.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:04 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Spohnholz,
Kreiss-Tomkins, Talerico, Stutes, Keller, and Lynn were present
at the call to order. Representative Vazquez arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 273-VEHICLES: TRANSFER ON DEATH TITLE
8:04:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 273, "An Act relating to the transfer of the
title to a vehicle, including certain manufactured homes and
trailers, on the death of the owner; and providing for an
effective date."
8:05:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 273, Version 29-LS0322\I, Bannister,
3/10/16, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version I
was before the committee.
8:05:29 AM
DENEEN TUCK, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 273 on behalf of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee, on which Representative Lynn serves
as chair. She stated that the Version I has conforming language
pursuant to Alaska's Uniform Rules relating to real property
transfer on death, under AS 13.48.010. She added that the
language in the proposed legislation was changed to be
consistent with all Alaska transfer on death statutes, as a
result of discussions with Beth Chapman, a probate attorney.
Ms. Tuck listed the changes as follows: the title was changed
to reflect the language of the statute; a new Section 2 was
added; the old Section 2 was renamed Section 3; page 3, line 25
through page 4, line 10, reflects the new conforming language
consistent with transfer on death statutes; and lines 5-7 on
page 4 of the original bill version, previously under subsection
(l), are now lines 29-31 on page 4 of Version I, under
subsection (o).
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER advised that Terry Bannister from
Legislative Legal and Research Services, and Nicole Tham from
the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), are on line for questions.
8:08:40 AM
MS. TUCK explained that the proposed legislation would carry
forth the concept of transfer on death by enabling Alaskans to
plan their estates without the time, difficulty, and expense of
a probate. She indicated that HB 273 would add the transfer of
a vehicle to the other transfer on death provisions in Title
XIII - namely, the transfer of bank accounts, brokerage
accounts, and real estate. Ms. Tuck asserted that the transfer
on death deed (TODD) process is simple and has been successful.
She also mentioned that Ms. Chapman assisted with clarifying
language in the current bill to address litigation concerns.
She went on to say that there were 35 states with similar
legislation. Ms. Tuck added that the proposed legislation was
drafted through the work of Representative Gruenberg and the
DMV. She stated that watercraft and snow machines would not be
included under the proposed legislation, but motorcycles would
be included.
8:13:06 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 273.
8:13:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 273, Version 29-
LS0322\I, Bannister, 3/10/16, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 273(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:14 a.m. to 8:16 a.m.
HB 229-REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE
8:16:19 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 229 "An Act relating to regulation notice and
review by the legislature; and relating to the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee."
[Because of their length, some amendments discussed or adopted
during the meeting are found at the end of the minutes for HB
229. Shorter amendments are included in the main text.]
[Left pending from the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting of 2/4/16, was a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled
29-LS1104\A.1, Gardner, 2/3/16, with an objection for the
purpose of discussion by Representative Gruenberg. The pending
objection to the motion to adopt Amendment 1 was treated as
withdrawn and Amendment 1 was treated as adopted.]
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to rescind the committee's actions
on Amendment 1 [labeled 29-LS1104\A.1, Gardner, 2/3/16]. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
8:17:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 229, as prime sponsor. He stated that HB 229
relates to regulation notice and review by the legislature. He
cited the state's declining revenues and the need to identify
ways to reduce the cost of the legislature and state government.
He further offered that the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee, although active and effective at times, was not
always so, and HB 229 proposes to abolish the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee and turn regulation review over to
other committees.
8:18:43 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked the sponsor if, after a regulation is drafted
by the department, it would be turned over to the committee of
jurisdiction.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT confirmed that the department already
sends regulations to certain legislators for review; however,
under the proposed legislation a regulation would be sent to the
committee of jurisdiction. The committee of jurisdiction would
then have the option of scheduling a committee hearing on that
regulation.
8:19:51 AM
TOM WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State
Legislature, testifying on behalf of Representative Chenault,
prime sponsor of HB 229, said state statute requires that
regulations be forwarded to all incumbent legislators and
remarked that he is not sure if that occurs.
8:20:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 29-
LS1104\A.4, Gardner, 3/10/16]. [Amendment 2 is provided at the
end of the minutes on HB 229.]
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER declared his support for HB 229 and
concurred with Representative Chenault's testimony. He
explained that the intent of Amendment 2 was to establish a
process for referring a regulation to a standing committee and
to clarify the powers of the chair in this process. He further
offered that the proposed amendment would give the chair the
power to delay implementation of a regulation until the
committee takes action on the regulation.
8:22:43 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked the sponsor how much money would be saved
through the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT responded that the fiscal note indicates
a savings of about $53,000.
8:23:51 AM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that the intent of Amendment 2 was to
reinstate authority to the legislature in light of the Alaska
Supreme Court ruling on State v. A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary, which
reads that the legislature cannot annul a regulation by
resolution. He further explained that the court decision stated
that in order for the legislature to repeal a regulation, it had
to be done through a legislative process - that is, by an
introduced bill that passes through both houses and is sent to
the governor for signature. He offered that under Amendment 2,
a regulation would be sent to the presiding officers of each
house, who may pass it to the chair of the committee of
jurisdiction to decide if that regulation needs to be reviewed.
He voiced his belief that 95 percent of regulations are not
problematic but about 5 percent need modification. He stated
that under Amendment 2 if, after review, a committee was not
satisfied with the regulation, the committee could ask the
department to amend it to comply with legislative intent. If
the department refused, the committee could put the regulation
on hold until the regular session when the legislature could
attempt to repeal it through the legislative process. He said
that if the legislature fails to repeal the regulation through
legislation, implementation of the regulation would occur the
day after the end of the regular session of the legislature. If
the committee takes no action on a regulation within 35 days of
receipt, the department could proceed with implementation.
8:27:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ commented that the 35-day limitation for
the committee response may be too short, especially considering
unavailability of legislators during interim.
MR. POUND commented that the average normal comment period on a
regulation is 40 days. The intent was to stay within that time
period.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ voiced her concern that the procedure as
stated would suppress the legislature's ability to annul any
regulation at any time and would put the legislature in a
position subservient to the executive branch.
MR. POUND stated that the legislature was currently in that
position. He reminded the committee members that the
legislature has gone to court over regulations and lost.
8:31:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested the sponsor speak to Amendment
2.
MR. WRIGHT deferred to Susan Pollard.
8:32:55 AM
SUSAN POLLARD, Chief Assistant, Legislation & Regulations
Section, Department of Law (DOL), stated that DOL had concerns
with the suspension provisions in Amendment 2. She paraphrased
page 2, Section 4 (e), by saying that in certain instances a
standing committee of the legislature could suspend a regulation
for a period of time based on when the next legislative session
is, and the legislature could choose to act or not act during
that time. She posited that the suspension part of the
amendment brings up concerns from the 1980 case, State v.
A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary. She explained that in the cited court
case, the Alaska Supreme Court considered a now repealed
regulation related to the power of the legislature to repeal a
regulation by way of concurrent resolution. She conceded that
the issue of that case was slightly different from the language
in the proposed amendment; however, she claimed that in State v.
A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary, the court considered the instances in
which the legislature can act to effectuate something which
affects the public and determined that moving by concurrent
resolution to suspend a regulation was not sustainable under the
Alaska Constitution. She noted that Amendment 2 attempts to
sidestep the State v. A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary ruling by including a
suspension provision as opposed to an annulment provision, but
does not, however, remove legal questions or the possibility of
litigation, depending on the situation.
8:37:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered two comments for Ms. Pollard's
response: one, the process has yet to be established; and two,
the suspension in the proposed amendment would be for a time
specific and not an annulment.
MS. POLLARD responded that it is unknown at this point if the
proposed amendment's suspension of regulation would run afoul of
State v. A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary. She offered that currently the
legislature has the power to review and annul regulations by
changing statute.
8:38:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Pollard to state again
the defendant in the case that she cited.
MS. POLLARD answered that it was a non-profit group referred to
by the acronym A.L.I.V.E.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Pollard if the concern
was that suspension of a regulation until the end of the next
legislative session would effectively put the regulation in
limbo for 11 months and may have an adverse effect on the
public.
MS. POLLARD said DOL's concern is that whenever the legislature
acts outside of the legislative enactment process and the
constitutional requirements considered in the State v.
A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary court case, it runs the risk of a legal
challenge to that action. She conceded that there may be a
practical effect, alluded to by Representative Kreiss-Tomkins,
of regulations in long-term suspension and public perception
regarding those regulations; however, she contended that was not
the concern to which she referred.
8:41:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered that there are two
concerns to be addressed in consideration of Amendment 2: one,
the constitutional concern; and two, the pragmatic concern of
regulations in limbo impacting the public. He related it to a
hypothetical situation - a regulation passed by the Board of
Fisheries and suspended by the House Resources Standing
Committee, which would essentially put the regulation in limbo
until the adjournment of the next legislative session.
MS. POLLARD agreed that his example reflects the procedure
described in Section 4 of Amendment 2.
8:42:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if the concern was regarding a
possible lawsuit due to the delay in implementing regulations
and, if so, what the basis of that lawsuit would be.
MS. POLLARD opined that it is difficult to speculate. In State
v. A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary the Department of Revenue (DOR) was
enforcing a regulation against the plaintiff in the case.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked Ms. Pollard to explain the
enforcement aspect - that is, if the legislature could delay the
enforcement of an existing regulation through suspension.
MS. POLLARD claimed that the issue of the status of the
regulation during suspension, including enforcement of the
regulation, is a question not yet answered and is the basis of
the hearing.
8:45:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER attested that proposed regulation is not
law. He stated his belief that Alaskans have the right to the
process and the legislature is uniquely positioned to hear
concerns about regulations. He further contended that the
Department of Health & Social Service (DHSS) regulation -
disallowing guns in private care homes - raises constitutional
concerns, and when confronted DHSS's response was to extend
approval time for that regulation to outside of session time.
He recommended that the legislature have input into the
regulation process before a regulation takes effect.
MR. WRIGHT suggested that in the example Representative Keller
mentioned, the legislature has the prerogative to write statute
to nullify the regulation. In regard to Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins' concern, Mr. Wright recommended that the Board of Game
and the Board of Fisheries be exempt from the proposed amendment
because, in his opinion, regulations coming from end-of-season
decisions cannot wait a whole season for implementation. He
cautioned that there may be unknown consequences to Amendment 2
and careful thought and more work is needed before adoption.
8:49:20 AM
MR. WRIGHT, in response to Chair Lynn, stated that he has
concerns about Amendment 2, but supports the bill moving out of
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that he supports Amendment 2 and
fears that HB 229 without it further distances the legislature
from the regulatory process.
8:52:08 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:52 a.m. to 8:55 a.m.
8:55:27 AM
MR. WRIGHT requested that the agencies look at Amendment 2 to
determine any fiscal impacts.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested the chair schedule HB 229 for
the next House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting and
promised to consult with the agencies.
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 229 was held over.
AMENDMENTS
The following amendments to HB 229 were either discussed or
adopted during the hearing. [Shorter amendments are provided in
the main text only.]
Amendment 2 [29-LS1104\A.4, Gardner, 3/10/16] (pending):
Page 1, line 1, following "legislature;":
Insert "providing for legislative review,
amendment, approval, disapproval, annulment, and delay
of proposed agency regulations;"
Page 1, lines 4 - 6:
Delete all material.
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "Sec. 2"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, lines 1 - 8:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 24.05.182(a) is amended to read:
(a) A standing committee of the legislature
furnished notice of a proposed action under
AS 44.62.190 or 44.62.320(d) shall, consistent with
the committee's jurisdiction as provided in the
uniform rules of the legislature, review the proposed
regulation, amendment of a regulation, or repeal of a
regulation before the date the regulation is scheduled
by the department or agency to be adopted, amended, or
repealed.
* Sec. 3. AS 24.05.182(d) is amended to read:
(d) A standing committee that receives a copy of
a proposed regulation, amendment, or order of repeal
under AS 44.62.320(d) shall, within 35 days after
receipt of the proposed regulation, amendment, or
order of repeal, approve or disapprove the proposed
regulation, amendment, or order of repeal. If the
standing committee does not take action within 35 days
after receipt of the proposed regulation, amendment,
or order of repeal, the proposed regulation,
amendment, or order of repeal shall be considered
approved. If a standing committee determines that a
regulation, amendment to a regulation, or repeal of a
regulation does not properly implement legislative
intent and disapproves or returns the proposed
regulation, amendment, or order of repeal to the
department or agency, the standing committee's
findings shall, within 35 days after receipt of the
proposed regulation, amendment, or order of repeal, be
transmitted to the
(1) department or agency;
(2) regulations attorney at the Department
of Law; and
(3) senate secretary and the chief clerk of
the house of representatives [ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE].
* Sec. 4. AS 24.05.182 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(e) A proposed regulation, amendment, or order of
repeal that is disapproved under this section or that
is returned to the department or agency with a
proposed amendment, other than an emergency regulation
adopted under AS 44.62.250, shall be suspended until
the adjournment of the next regular legislative
session following the date of the committee's
disapproval. The notice of disapproval under this
section expires upon adjournment of the regular
legislative session during which the disapproval or
amendment was made or, if the legislature is not in
regular session, the next regular legislative session
following the date of disapproval, unless the
legislature enacts a law that annuls the proposed
regulation or order of repeal.
(f) If the standing committee that is reviewing a
proposed regulation, amendment, or order of repeal
under this section disapproves the regulation,
amendment, or order of repeal or proposes an amendment
to the regulation, amendment, or order of repeal, the
department or agency that proposed the regulation,
amendment, or order of repeal may request leave of the
standing committee to withdraw or amend the proposed
regulation, amendment, or order of repeal.
(g) In determining whether to approve,
disapprove, or amend a proposed regulation, amendment,
or order of repeal under this section, the standing
committee shall consider
(1) whether the absence of a regulation
would significantly harm or endanger public health,
safety, or welfare;
(2) whether a less restrictive regulation
would address the regulatory concerns while adequately
protecting the public;
(3) whether the regulation would directly or
indirectly increase the cost of any goods or services;
(4) whether the increased cost of
implementing and enforcing the regulation would be
more detrimental than the purpose of the regulation;
(5) whether the regulation was designed
solely for the purpose of the protection of the public
and would have the primary effect of protecting the
public; and
(6) any other factors the committee
considers to be appropriate."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, lines 4 - 7:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, line 24, through page 4, line 19:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 10. AS 44.62.180 is amended to read:
Sec. 44.62.180. Effective date. A regulation or
an order of repeal filed by the lieutenant governor
becomes effective on the 30th day after the date of
filing unless
(1) otherwise specifically provided by the
statute under which the regulation or order of repeal
is adopted, in which event it becomes effective on the
day prescribed by the statute;
(2) it is a regulation prescribing the
organization or procedure of an agency, in which event
it becomes effective upon filing by the lieutenant
governor or upon a later date specified by the state
agency in a written instrument submitted with, or as
part of, the regulation or order of repeal;
(3) it is an emergency regulation or order
of repeal adopted under AS 44.62.250, in which case
the finding and the statement of the facts
constituting the emergency shall be submitted to the
lieutenant governor, together with the emergency
regulation or order of repeal, which, in that event
only, becomes effective upon filing by the lieutenant
governor or upon a later date specified by the state
agency in a written instrument submitted with, or as
part of, the regulation or order of repeal;
(4) a later date is prescribed by the state
agency in a written instrument submitted with, or as
part of, the regulation or order of repeal;
(5) a standing committee of the legislature
disapproves the regulation or returns it to the
department or agency with a proposed amendment, under
AS 24.05.182, in which case, if the proposed
regulation, amendment, or order of repeal takes
effect, it takes effect on the later of
(A) adoption by the agency of an amendment
proposed by a standing committee of the legislature;
or
(B) one day following adjournment of both
houses of the legislature as provided under
AS 44.62.325."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 31, following "legislators":
Insert "and to the presiding officer of each
house"
Page 6, line 4, through page 9, line 9:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 12. AS 44.62.190(b) is amended to read:
(b) If the form or manner of notice is
prescribed by statute, in addition to the requirements
of filing and furnishing notice under AS 44.62.010 -
44.62.300, or in addition to the requirements of
filing and mailing notice under other sections of this
chapter, the notice shall be published, posted,
mailed, filed, or otherwise publicized as prescribed
by the statute. In the notice furnished to the
legislature under AS 44.62.190(a)(6), new language
added to an existing regulation shall be underlined,
and language deleted from an existing regulation shall
be bracketed and capitalized.
* Sec. 13. AS 44.62.195 is amended to read:
Sec. 44.62.195. Fiscal notes on regulations. If
the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation has
an economic effect on a department, agency, or person,
the proposed regulation or order of repeal must
include a fiscal note prepared by the department or
agency in accordance with this section [WOULD REQUIRE
INCREASED APPROPRIATIONS BY THE STATE, THE DEPARTMENT
OR AGENCY AFFECTED SHALL PREPARE AN ESTIMATE OF THE
APPROPRIATION INCREASE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR FOLLOWING
ADOPTION, AMENDMENT, OR REPEAL OF THE REGULATION AND
FOR AT LEAST TWO SUCCEEDING FISCAL YEARS].
* Sec. 14. AS 44.62.195 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) A fiscal note required under this section
must include, where applicable,
(1) a determination of the present need for
the regulation and the expected need for the
regulation;
(2) a determination of the costs and
benefits of the regulation and an explanation by the
department or agency of whether the proposed
regulation is the most cost-effective, efficient, and
feasible means of allocating public and private
resources to achieve the stated purpose;
(3) the effect of the regulation on market
competition;
(4) the effect of the regulation on the
cost of living, employment, and doing business in the
geographical regions where the regulation would have
the greatest effect;
(5) the source of revenue to implement and
enforce the regulation;
(6) a summary of the short-term and long-
term economic effects of the regulation, including an
analysis of the persons or groups that would bear the
costs of the regulation and the persons or groups that
would benefit directly or indirectly from the
regulation;
(7) the difficulties the department or
agency encountered, if any, in estimating the persons
or groups that would benefit from the regulation or
bear the costs of the regulation;
(8) the effect that adopting or failing to
adopt the regulation would have on the environment and
public health.
* Sec. 15. AS 44.62.245(c) is amended to read:
(c) The state agency shall also send the notice
described in (b)(2) of this section to
(1) a person who has placed the person's
name on a distribution list kept by the agency that
lists persons who want to receive the notice; the
agency may allow a person to request that distribution
of the notice be by electronic means and shall honor
that request if appropriate means are available;
(2) the regulations attorney in the
Department of Law; and
(3) the presiding officer of each house of
the legislature [THE MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE].
* Sec. 16. AS 44.62.320(b) is amended to read:
(b) At the same time a regulation is filed by
the lieutenant governor, the lieutenant governor shall
submit the regulation to the presiding officer of each
house of the legislature [CHAIRMAN AND ALL MEMBERS OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR
REVIEW UNDER AS 24.20.400 - 24.20.460] together with
the fiscal information required to be prepared under
AS 44.62.195.
* Sec. 17. AS 44.62.320(c) is amended to read:
(c) At the same time as a regulation is
submitted to the governor under AS 44.62.040(c), the
state agency shall submit the regulation to the
presiding officer of each house of the legislature
[CHAIR AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW UNDER
AS 24.20.400 - 24.20.460] together with the fiscal
information required to be prepared under
AS 44.62.195.
* Sec. 18. AS 44.62.320(d) is amended to read:
(d) Within 10 days after receiving a regulation
under (b) or (c) of this section or under
AS 44.62.190(a)(6), the presiding officer of each
house of the legislature shall provide copies of the
regulation to the standing committee with jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the regulation as provided
in the uniform rules of the legislature for review
under AS 24.05.182 [, THE CHAIR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY SUBMIT TO THE
GOVERNOR, BY LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM OR LETTER,
COMMENTS ON THE REGULATION].
* Sec. 19. AS 44.62 is amended by adding a new
section to article 7 to read:
Sec. 44.62.325. Legislative annulment of
regulations. (a) The legislature may, in the regular
legislative session during which a disapproval or
amendment is made or, if the legislature is not in
regular session, the next regular session following
the disapproval or amendment of a proposed regulation,
amendment, or order of repeal by a standing committee
under AS 24.05.182, annul the proposed regulation,
amendment of the proposed regulation, or order of
repeal by law.
(b) If the legislature, following adjournment of
the regular legislative session during which a
disapproval or amendment is made or, if the
legislature is not in regular session, the next
regular session following disapproval or amendment of
a proposed regulation, amendment, or order of repeal
by a standing committee under AS 24.05.182, has not
enacted a law that annuls the proposed regulation,
amendment of the proposed regulation, or order of
repeal, the proposed regulation, amendment of the
proposed regulation, or order of repeal takes effect
one day after adjournment of both houses of the
legislature."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, line 13:
Delete "(AS 44.62.040 - 44.62.319) [AS 44.62.040
- 44.62.320]"
Insert "(AS 44.62.040 - 44.62.320)"
Page 9, line 20:
Delete "AS 24.05.182(b), 24.05.182(c),
24.05.182(d);"
Page 9, line 22:
Delete "AS 40.25.120(a)(11); and AS 44.62.320"
Insert "and AS 40.25.120(a)(11)"
CHAIR LYNN announced that HCR 15 would be rescheduled for the
next House State Affairs Standing Committee.
[HCR 15 was held over.]
HB 162-DMV REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE
[Contains discussion of HB 205.]
8:57:19 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 162 "An Act relating to administrative revocation
of a driver's license; and repealing Rule 603(a)(3), Alaska
Rules of Appellate Procedure."
8:57:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 162, read the following sponsor statement
[original punctuation provided]:
When you make poor choices and decide to drive under
the influence you will face criminal prosecution. Upon
conviction by a jury of your peers you might face a
sentence of imprisonment, fines, and use of an
ignition interlock device after you regain the
privilege of a driver license. If you are found not
guilty of all charges, the court shall grant you
access to driving license privileges. However, the
state of Alaska possesses two separate bodies of
authority to determine the rights and privileges of
Alaskan drivers.
Under AS 28.15.165, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
is authorized to conduct an administrative revocation
of a driver's license when a chemical test of a
person's breath shows an alcohol level of 0.08 or
more, or the person refuses to take the chemical test.
The administrative process by the DMV may occur
whether or not there is a criminal charge for a court
to process. If you wish to contest the administrative
revocation you can schedule an administrative
revocation hearing over the phone to review DMV's
action. The hearing for review of action by the DMV is
limited to the issue of whether the law enforcement
officer had probable cause to believe that the person
was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of
drugs or alcohol. The DMV hearing officer will conduct
the hearing, examine witnesses, review evidence, and
make a final ruling on the issue. Administrative
revocations by the DMV may be concurrent or in
addition to any penalties applied by the courts and is
at the discretion of the DMV hearing officer.
The state of Alaska possesses two separate bodies of
authority to determine the rights and privileges of
Alaskan drivers. The state of Alaska court system
provides for a trial by a jury of your peers which
will review the evidence and deliberate on criminal
sentencing. In comparison, the DMV's authority to
impose conditions on the issuance of a limited license
is designed to promptly address public safety and does
not necessarily involve the considerations of the
verdicts of the courts. In the end, anyone who
presents probable cause to a law enforcement officer
is considered guilty. Even if found not guilty by a
jury of your peers through the Alaska Court System,
the DMV has the authority to place additional burdens
on the individual. HB 162 solves this dual burden of
driver license revocations by repealing the DMVs
independent authority to administrative revocation of
a driver's license and place it solely within the
court.
9:00:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that the proposed legislation
does not seek to change the procedures related to driving under
the influence (DUI), but rather, to allow a person charged with
DUI and exonerated by the court system to have his or her
license returned and not receive any further penalties from the
DMV.
9:01:31 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked for clarification that someone arrested for
DUI, who is found not guilty of DUI by the court, could still
have his/her license revoked by the DMV. He asked also if that
situation constitutes double jeopardy.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed that there is an administrative
review by the DMV in addition to the court proceeding; however,
she added that it is not double jeopardy because it is
considered to be similar to a civil case, as opposed to a
criminal case subject to court procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed her support for HB 162.
9:03:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ expressed that she also supports HB 162.
She asked for clarification that through the proposed
legislation there would have to be a judicial process before the
DMV could revoke a driver's license.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that someone who is stopped for
DUI by a law enforcement officer and given a ticket must then go
to court; however, as she explained further, even if the
individual is found not guilty by the court, he or she is still
subject to the findings and penalty of a DMV administrative
review.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if the proposed legislation would
affect federal funding.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that she was unable to find any
evidence that HB 162 would result in loss of federal funding.
She questioned why there was a zero fiscal note attached as she
speculated that the proposed legislation would eliminate the
need for the two administrative hearing officers within the DMV.
9:05:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded to Chair Lynn's request for
clarification on the issue of federal funding by saying that the
federal government has, at times, linked federal funding with
certain legislation, such as seat belt laws; however, she
reiterated that she has found no evidence that the proposed
legislation would affect any federal funding. She also
emphasized that HB 162 does not change laws or consequences
regarding DUI, but maintained that the DMV is not the proper
place for adjudication.
9:06:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated his support for HB 162 and
maintained his belief that in Alaska the administrative and
judicial branches are stronger than the legislative branch, in
part because the governor appoints the commissioner of the
Department of Law (DOL). He opined that "anything we can do to
separate justice from the enforcement and the legislative
process ... cleans up our act."
9:07:14 AM
NICOLE THAM, Driver Services Manager, Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV), Department of Administration (DOA), stated her concern
that the committee and the public understand that it is not the
DMV's duty to administratively revoke driver's licenses but that
the Thirteenth Alaska State Legislature - to deal with the
problem of drunk driving and increase safety on Alaska's
roadways - adopted administrative license revocation. She added
that one of the primary purposes of administrative license
revocation was to impose swift licensing sanctions on impaired
drivers to deter drunk driving.
9:08:13 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Ms. Tham to explain why there would be an
administrative revocation in the case where the court found a
person not guilty of a DUI.
MS. THAM responded that there were two separate proceedings:
the court proceeding to punish the criminal action and the civil
proceeding - administrative revocation - to remove the drunk
driver from the roadway.
CHAIR LYNN asked for further explanation as to the basis for the
DMV acting as a "second" court hearing when there has been a
criminal proceeding that determined the driver was not impaired.
MS. THAM explained that even if the action is dismissed in
court, the two main issues - probable cause for arrest
("probable cause") and the validity of the breathalyzer test -
are the only two issues that the DMV considers in its hearing.
CHAIR LYNN contended that a stop for probable cause is a
judgment call by an officer that the driver is impaired, but a
subsequent court finding that the driver was not impaired
suggests two different court proceedings.
MS. THAM explained the process as follows: An officer will stop
a driver if there is probable cause and administer a
breathalyzer test. If the breathalyzer test result shows an
alcohol concentration of .08 or greater, indicating that the
driver is actually impaired, or if the driver refuses the
breathalyzer test, the administrative proceeding is initiated.
The driver is then served a notice and order of revocation which
explains the process, why their driving privileges are being
revoked, and serves as a seven-day temporary license. The
driver has seven days to request an administrative hearing for
review of the action against his/her driving privileges, and, if
a hearing is not requested, the action is put on the record.
She concluded by stating that often the separate court
proceeding does not occur until months later.
9:11:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES reiterated her belief that the DMV's
second-guessing the court's determination appears comparable to
a double jeopardy and creates more hardship for the individual
who has already had to go through the court process.
9:12:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if, in Ms. Tham's opinion, the court
system of Alaska is incapable of swift sanctions.
MS. THAM responded that the court proceeding is completely
independent of the DMV, and that the DMV is required by
statutory provision to take action against a driver for a
breathalyzer test result of .08 or greater who received a notice
and order of revocation. She added that Alaska is in line with
43 other states, the District of Columbia, and the two
territories of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin
Islands, in adopting licensing sanctions to deter drunk driving
and remove impaired drivers swiftly from the road. The
administrative revocation of the DMV often precedes the court
action, because the DMV action is taken within seven days of the
notice and order being served unless the action is stayed
because the driver requested an administrative hearing. In most
cases the DMV action precedes court action.
9:13:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked why there is a zero fiscal note
attached to HB 162.
MS. THAM explained that the DMV does other hearings for motor
vehicle and driver's license issues, and although the bulk of
the hearings involve administrative revocation of driving
privileges, there are hearings related to title disputes,
personalized plate disputes, and medical cancellation.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER reiterated his belief that the proposed
legislation should have a positive fiscal note due to the stated
reduction in duties.
MS. THAM responded that the full fiscal implication of HB 162 is
unclear at this time.
9:15:10 AM
MS. THAM, in response to Representative Vazquez's question about
when the notice of revocation is issued, relayed that it is
issued at the time of arrest.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked what the wait time was for an
administrative hearing, if requested.
MS. THAM replied that the hearing requests are processed as soon
as they are received, and hearings are scheduled about 30-45
days beyond that point. She added that once the hearing is
granted the action is stayed and is not applied to the driver's
record until an affirmed decision at the hearing. If dismissed,
the action is not added to the record.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if there is notice of the right to
appeal the decision in court once the administrative decision is
issued.
MS. THAM responded yes and added that the decision may be
appealed through the superior court within 30 days of the
decision of the hearing.
9:17:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ requested Ms. Tham explain the instances
in which the DMV does not adhere to a court decision but
proceeds to revoke the license of an individual even though
he/she was found not guilty by a court.
MS. THAM explained that since the administrative action usually
precedes the court action, the administrative action is not
dependent at all on the court action. She added that the
criteria for the DMV action has a lower threshold than that of
the court system - the DMV criteria being probable cause and the
results of the breathalyzer test.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for confirmation that the DMV has a
separate basis for taking action against someone's license from
that of the court system.
MS. THAM confirmed that under AS 28.15.165 that statement was
correct.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if the DMV action occurred
regardless of the court's decision.
MS. THAM answered in the affirmative.
9:18:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many full-time hearing
officers are tasked with the administrative hearings described.
MS. THAM responded that there are two full-time hearing officers
who review DMV hearings of all types, and there are six
administrative licensing staff who perform some aspect of the
administrative revocation process.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked what portion of staff time
is spent on license revocations.
MS. THAM expressed that it would be difficult to estimate the
amount of time, and she said she would provide the committee
with that information.
9:20:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked how many times the DMV suspended
someone's license when the court determined him/her not guilty
of DUI.
MS. THAM stated that the DMV has data on the number of
administrative revocations and administrative hearings, but no
data on criminal conviction, as that would be with the court.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Tham to cite the number
of administrative revocations per year and the average number of
revoked licenses in Alaska at any given time.
9:22:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ expressed that although she sees the
merit of swift action by the DMV, she doesn't understand how
anyone who has his/her license revoked by the DMV after a
judicial action exonerates him/her is being afforded due
process. She added that she did recognize the merit of an
administrative process that is more responsive than the longer
and more cumbersome criminal process.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked rhetorically, "Aren't you innocent
until proven guilty?" She further attested that a DMV action
that precedes a court decision counters that principle.
9:24:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ voiced her opinion that the matter under
discussion was one of balance. She declared that public safety
is an important consideration - that is, the issue of drivers
suspected of DUI being allowed on the roadways. She also
conceded that having one's driving privileges revoked is a
serious impediment in Alaska. She opined that a long
administrative process is problematic but that the judicial
system would move even slower. She expressed a desire to hear
testimony from the court system.
CHAIR LYNN suggested the possibility of these issues being
addressed in the House Judiciary Standing Committee, which is
the next committee of referral for HB 162.
9:27:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested the number of license
revocations annually in Alaska.
MS. THAM answered that in 2008 there were 5,902 administrative
revocations for DUI, and in 2014 there were 3,563, a 40 percent
reduction. She asked the committee members to consider the
decrease in DUIs in light of all the deterrents to drunk
driving, either singularly or in combination, namely sanctions,
convictions, administrative revocations, and all the other
requirements. She stressed that only 25-29 percent of people
who get an administrative revocation request a review.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked if administrative
revocations exist in other states.
MS. THAM repeated her claim from earlier that administrative
revocations exist in 43 other states, the District of Columbia,
and the two territories of the Northern Mariana Islands and the
Virgin Islands.
9:29:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Tham and the sponsor if
either knew how HB 162 differs from or relates similarly to the
criminal justice reform bill [HB 205, Criminal Law/Procedure;
Driv Lic; Pub Aid] heard in the House Judiciary Standing
Committee the previous day, and he mentioned specifically the
provisions in HB 205 that relate to the revocation of driver's
licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that she spoke with Senator Coghill's
legislative aide, who asserted that the content of HB 162 was
not included in HB 205 and there was no conflict between the two
proposed legislations.
MS. THAM mentioned that she was aware of discussions about
proposed legislation addressing the issue of limited licenses.
She also noted discussions concerning the review of criminal
laws and practices within AS 28, which includes the dual system
of administrative and judicial license revocation.
9:31:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES opined that she understands that having a
driver's license is a privilege. She expressed her concern that
the DMV is overstepping the bounds of its expertise. She went
on to give the example of a homeless man living in a non-
operational truck who received a DUI for drinking in his truck.
She said that the court dismissed the DUI, but the DMV required
the individual get a full mental evaluation before returning his
driver license to him.
9:32:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ declared that her greatest concern is the
situation in which the court has ruled and the DMV overturns the
decision. She opined that she also understands the validity of
the DMV removing an impaired driver from the street with swift
action. She stated further that the courts are bogged down and
cannot swiftly take action as can the DMV. She maintained that
the issue is "when the court takes action and finds someone not
guilty for whatever reason, that DMV not be able to usurp that
judicial decision." She repeated her belief that there is
validity to having an administrative process that is more
flexible and faster than the judicial system.
9:35:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked Representative Vazquez if she would
be comfortable relying on the three House State Affairs Standing
Committee members, who also serve on the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, to bring her issues up in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee hearing. He restated her issue as
the balance between the considerations for public safety against
administrative authority for license revocation. He expressed
that the desire for the court system to handle license
revocation was not at all a reflection on the administrative
review system but said that he thought it was an unnecessary
duplication.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ suggested a possible amendment to tighten
the timeframe for the administrative license revocation review
process.
9:37:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that she understood
Representative Vazquez's concern but asserted that the court's
timeframe is governed by that process and the DMV's timeframe
precedes that of the court. She offered to work with committee
members to consider amendments to alleviate their concerns. She
reiterated her belief that the court system process should be
the only process and it should precede license revocation.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES agreed with Representative Wilson's
assessment of the current license revocation procedures and
said, "You don't punish somebody for something before you know
they've done it." She reiterated that she supported the bill.
9:40:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Nancy Meade if she knew the
usual wait times and process times for someone charged with a
DUI [in the court system].
9:41:47 AM
NANCY MEADE, General Council, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, responded to
the question posed by Representative Kreiss-Tomkins by stating
that the average time for disposition of misdemeanor DUIs - that
is, first and second DUIs - is four months, and the average time
for a felony DUI is nine months. She stated that there was
great variation among the times. She also reiterated Ms. Tham's
assertion that the number of DUIs has decreased and the number
of DUIs in 2015 was 3,650.
9:42:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked how many of the 3,650 convictions
were felony.
MS. MEADE responded that in 2015 there were 223 convictions for
felony DUI and 3,371 convictions for misdemeanor DUI. She
explained that these numbers referred to convictions and not
charges. She added that there is a low acquittal rate for DUI
charges.
9:43:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for the acquittal rate for the
misdemeanor cases.
MS. MEADE replied that she didn't know but could provide that
information to the committee along with the dismissal rate.
9:44:20 AM
MS. MEADE repeated the number of DUIs for Representative
Spohnholz, which is about 3600. She added one point of
clarification regarding HB 205. She said that although HB 205
does not have a provision similar to HB 162, it does have
several provisions about giving limited licenses back to people
who have had a DUI. She directed the committee's attention to
Section 83 of HB 205, which says that if a court acquits someone
of a DUI and their license had been revoked administratively,
the court decision would stop that administrative revocation at
that point in time. She added that almost always the
administrative revocation takes place before the court
disposition of the case.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked the sponsor if the proposed
legislation would treat felony and misdemeanor DUIs differently.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON answered that they would be treated alike
in the proposed legislation - the intent being to put
jurisdiction back into the court system.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for acquittal rates for the
different categories of DUI.
MS. MEADE agreed to provide that information to the committee.
9:46:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked Representative Wilson for the
current procedures when someone is stopped by an officer and
refuses a breathalyzer test.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ alleged that no one with that expertise
is present who can answer Representative Talerico's question.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that a person suspected of a DUI
does not walk away. She contended that someone suspected of a
DUI is given notice of the DMV procedures and timeline before
any judicial proceeding. She stated her belief that this
scenario constitutes a presumption of guilt before a person has
been to court and received due process.
9:49:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ voiced her assumption that the acquittal
rate is about 5-10 percent. She offered that someone arrested
for serial assault or serial murder would have to wait for
judicial action. She also noted that an employee accused of
serious misconduct is suspended immediately. She suggested that
the balance for public safety and interest is a consideration
for immediate action in those cases.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated that a person should be
innocent until proven guilty. She claimed that she knows of no
other scenario where you must go through an administrative
hearing and be punished before a court proceeding. She cited
the example of a shoplifter.
9:51:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ countered that in the case of suspected
shoplifting and certainly more serious accusations there may be
a number of pre-trial conditions set by court before the
judicial process, including bail, loss of freedom of movement, a
court-appointed custodian, travel restrictions, and
imprisonment, all to safeguard the public interests.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON maintained that the court determined those
conditions, not the DMV.
9:54:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if the court could restrict driving
as a pretrial condition in a simple but swift process.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ expressed concern for the added burden to
the court to be tasked in that way but acknowledged the
possibility of the court restricting driving as a pretrial
condition.
CHAIR LYNN asked Representative Vazquez to work with the sponsor
to address her concerns before HB 162 was heard in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, if it moved out of the current
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked if HB 162 would increase the
workload of the court system.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that HB 162 would not increase
the workload for the court system and relayed that the court
system offered no fiscal note for the proposed legislation.
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony on HB 162.
9:56:28AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated his belief that there is
room for improvement in the degree of diligence with regard to
the fiscal note.
9:57:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 162 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 162 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
9:58:51 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:59.