03/01/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR20 | |
| SB216 | |
| SB222 | |
| SB284 | |
| SB301 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 252 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 301 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 249 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SJR 20 | ||
| = | SB 216 | ||
| = | SB 222 | ||
| = | SB 284 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 1, 2006
8:43 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Hollis French
Senator Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20
Proposing an amendment to the section of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to marriage.
MOVED SJR 20 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 252
"An Act relating to the definition of 'child abuse and neglect'
for child protection purposes; and providing for an effective
date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 301
"An Act relating to granting certain defendants an absolute
right to change venue in civil actions; setting venue for civil
actions based on employment at the employer's principal place of
business; allowing multiple defendants to control venue by
agreement; amending Rule 3, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 249
"An Act relating to criminal justice information."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 216
"An Act relating to bail."
MOVED CSSB 216(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 222
"An Act relating to breaches of security involving personal
information, consumer report security freezes, consumer credit
monitoring, credit accuracy, protection of social security
numbers, disposal of records, factual declarations of innocence
after identity theft, filing police reports regarding identity
theft, and furnishing consumer credit header information; and
amending Rule 60, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 284
"An Act relating to sentencing for the commission of a felony
while under the influence of alcohol."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 20
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
02/14/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/06 (S) JUD, FIN
02/16/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/06 (S) <Pending Referral>
02/21/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/21/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/21/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/28/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/28/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/28/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
BILL: SB 301
SHORT TITLE: CHANGE OF VENUE IN CIVIL CASES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SEEKINS
02/14/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/06 (S) JUD, FIN
02/22/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/22/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/22/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/01/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 249
SHORT TITLE: REPORTING BAIL AND RELEASE INFORMATION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) FRENCH
01/23/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/06 (S) JUD
02/15/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/15/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/01/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Liz Boario
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Doug Veit
Craig, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Belinda Sessions
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Tammy Davis
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Mo McBride
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Dr. Kathy Sweeney
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Susan Parkes, Deputy Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 216
Portia Parker, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections
431 N. Franklin, Suite 400
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 216
Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 284
Dave Stancliff, Legislative Aide
Staff to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 284
David Lawer, Senior Vice President
First National Bank of Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 222
Robert Fagerstrom
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 301
Michael Shider, Attorney
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 301
James Miller
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 301
Wilford Ryan
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 301
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:43:58 AM. Present were Senators
Hollis French, Charlie Huggins, Gene Therriault, Gretchen Guess,
and Chair Ralph Seekins.
SJR 20-CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SJR 20 to be up for consideration.
8:44:35 AM
LIZ BOARIO informed the committee that she was testifying for
herself as well as her husband. She echoed a remark from
previous testimony that SJR 20 was discriminatory and divisive.
She said it dishonors the hallmarks of Alaska and of the United
States Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause.
She has not heard serious argument that the resolution is not
harmful. Instead what she is hearing is the mantra regarding the
people's will, and history is full of tragic examples of
majority manipulation. She suggested there were plenty of
serious issues that need attention without people having to
create new ones where none exist. She said she is deeply
saddened to witness what she saw as a polite charade.
Constitutional amendments are historically used to make things
better for the people and SJR 20 would hurt talented people who
work for the betterment of all Alaskans.
8:48:02 AM
DOUG VEIT testified in opposition to SJR 20. He said it was
patently discriminatory; it singles out a particular class of
people and systematically deprives them of economic and social
resources simply because of their membership in the class. He
suggested there were specific reasons for the separation of
church and state. He said he has not heard any testimony of
support for the resolution that passes the logic test.
8:51:23 AM
BELINDA SESSIONS testified in opposition to SJR 20 and said she
spoke for her partner as well. She said the Alaska State
Constitution should guarantee basic rights, not take them away.
She described her 23-year lesbian relationship and said they
gladly pay taxes, attend church, volunteer in the community, and
contribute monetarily to organizations that help the needy. If
the Legislature succeeds in overturning the Alaska Supreme
Court, Alaska will be guilty of discrimination by giving some
employees better benefits packages than others. It is an
employment issue and not a marriage issue, she stated.
8:53:47 AM
MS. SESSIONS commented that equitable benefits packages would
increase the ability of the schools to recruit and retain
teachers. She urged the committee to reject the resolution.
8:54:58 AM
TAMMY DAVIS testified in opposition to SJR 20. She noted
previous testimony in opposition to the resolution has been
wrought with thoughtful, heartfelt, and intelligent comments. It
is her opinion that SJR 20 mandates unequal compensation for
equal work for individuals who choose domestic partnership as an
alternative to church or state-sanctioned union as well as those
who are not able by law to come into a legally binding marriage.
She urged the committee to support the civil liberties of all
Alaskan citizens and reject the resolution.
8:56:46 am
MO MCBRIDE testified in opposition to SJR 20. She said she is
not in one of the groups affected by the issue but feels very
strongly that the Alaska State Constitution was being
threatened. She suggested committee members transpose another
group of people into the resolution, such as Hispanics, and see
whether that seemed like a fair resolution. She said adding
exclusionary language to the Constitution is against what the
creators of the document intended. She said the Preamble states
very clearly they wanted to transmit to succeeding generations
the heritage of political, civil, and religious liberty. They
reiterated it again in the inherent rights section of Article 1.
She strongly urged the committee to reject the resolution.
8:59:38 AM
KATHY SWEENEY testified in opposition to SJR 20. She said as a
licensed healthcare official she found it unfathomable that
elected officials were writing legislation that would deny
healthcare to citizens of Alaska. She considered the irony that
recently United States Senator Lisa Murkowski addressed members
of the committee along with the entire Legislative body and
encouraged them to work towards improving healthcare for all
Alaskans.
Other legislative committees are working diligently to make
Alaska an attractive state for young professionals to come and
fulfill employment roles, she stated. SJR 20 works against that
goal.
MS. SWEENEY noted that more than 99 percent of people who
testified have opposition to the resolution. Members of the
committee have suggested the issue was one of much contention
yet she saw no evidence of it. She said abortion was a
contentious issue and if that were the issue before the
committee there would be much heated debate on both sides, yet
testimony on SJR 20 was one-sided.
9:04:02 AM
MS. SWEENEY suggested that when it comes to politics, the
majority of Americans are paralyzed by apathy and suggested it
was due to elected officials not listening to their
constituents.
CHAIR SEEKINS closed public testimony.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced a brief recess at 9:05:48 AM.
9:10:25 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked for discussion among committee members.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT commented the issue was difficult and
should not be taken lightly. It would require a super majority
to pass the Senate since it would be an amendment to the Alaska
State Constitution. He said the debate had been good and the
language of SJR 20 would be modified throughout the process and
so he moved SJR 20 out of committee with individual
recommendations.
SENATOR FRENCH objected. He said the measure was brought in
response to a unanimous Alaska Supreme Court decision that was
penned by one of the more conservative members of the court. The
proposal seeks to overturn that decision. The Court found that
the state could not deny health benefits to long-term partners
of its gay employees consistent with the Equal Protection
Clause. He said this was a clear message of equal pay for equal
work. He said he could not let SJR 20 go forward because it
chips away at the Equal Protection Clause of the Alaska State
Constitution. He said that was more than he could bear and
maintained his objection.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced a brief recess at 9:13:22 AM.
9:13:35 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS brought the committee meeting back to order and
asked for further discussion.
SENATOR THERRIAULT stated a three-two vote out of committee did
not amount to a two-thirds vote and he did not know whether the
measure would see a two-thirds vote on the Senate Floor. He
contended legislators continually hear testimony on decisions
that the Court makes and said it is the way the system is
designed. He insisted that suggesting an amendment to the
Constitution could not be unconstitutional and that the voters
should be trusted to do the right thing. He said since voters in
his district voted 4-1 in favor of the Marriage Amendment, SJR
20 deserved further discussion and should not be halted in the
first committee of referral.
9:15:49 AM
SENATOR GUESS suggested SJR 20 was not what people were looking
for. She expressed sadness that Alaskans have had to come
forward and speak about their sexuality in front of camera and
that the Legislature was going to continue that process by
moving the resolution out of committee. She said the issue was
about asking the majority to vote on minority rights and it is
wrong and discriminatory. She said she would vote to keep the
resolution in committee to die and voiced support for letting
Alaska move forward.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he interpreted the Alaska Supreme Court
opinion to mean that the 1998 Marriage Amendment did not speak
to the issue. He said footnote 38 says the Court recognized the
benefit programs became discriminatory only after the electorate
adopted the Marriage Amendment in 1998. The courts have said
that the people have forced the state to treat same-sex couples
as though they were married even though they are not. The state
needs to ask the people whether that was their intent. He said
it was the right of the people to decide whether they accept the
Alaska Supreme Court ruling.
9:19:09 AM
Roll call proved SJR 20 passed out of committee on a 3-2 vote
with Senators Huggins, Therriault, and Seekins voting yea; and
Senators French and Guess voting nay.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced a brief recess at 9:19:44 AM.
SB 216-BAIL RESTRICTIONS
9:21:12 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 216 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS spoke approval of the amendment offered
by Senator French the previous day.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH moved Amendment 2.
24-LS1300\F.1
Luckhaupt
A M E N D M E N T 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR FRENCH
TO: CSSB 216( ), Draft Version "F"
Page 1, lines 3 - 4:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. AS 11.56.310(a) is amended to read:
(a) One commits the crime of escape in the second
degree if, without lawful authority, one
(1) removes oneself from
(A) a correctional facility while under
official detention;
(B) official detention for a felony or for
extradition; or
(C) official detention and, during the
escape or at any time before being restored to
official detention, one possesses on or about oneself
a firearm;
(2) violates AS 11.56.335 or 11.56.340
[AS 11.56.340] and, during the time of the unlawful evasion
or at any time before being restored to official detention,
one possesses on or about oneself a firearm; or
(3) removes, tampers with, or disables the
electronic monitoring equipment, or leaves one's residence
or other place designated by the commissioner of
corrections for the service by electronic monitoring of
official detention for a felony.
* Sec. 2. AS 11.56.320(a) is amended to read:
(a) One commits the crime of escape in the third
degree if one
(1) removes oneself from official detention
during any lawful movement or activity incident to
confinement within a correctional facility for a
misdemeanor; or
(2) violates AS 11.56.335 or 11.56.340
[AS 11.56.340] and leaves or attempts to leave the state.
* Sec. 3. AS 11.56 is amended by adding a new section to
read:
Sec. 11.56.335. Unlawful evasion in the first degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of unlawful evasion in the
first degree if, while charged with or convicted of a
felony,
(1) the person fails to return to official
detention within the time authorized following temporary
leave granted for a specific purpose or limited period,
including leave granted under AS 33.30.181; or
(2) while on furlough under AS 33.30.101 -
33.30.131, the person fails to return to the place of
confinement or residence within the time authorized by
those having direct supervision.
(b) Unlawful evasion is a class C felony.
* Sec. 4. AS 11.56.340(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person commits the crime of unlawful evasion in
the second degree if, while charged with or convicted of a
[FELONY OR A] misdemeanor,
(1) the person fails to return to official
detention within the time authorized following temporary
leave granted for a specific purpose or limited period,
including leave granted under AS 33.30.181; or
(2) while on furlough under AS 33.30.101 -
33.30.131, the person fails to return to the place of
confinement or residence within the time authorized by
those having direct supervision."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 1, following line 12:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 33.30.141(b) is amended to read:
(b) The failure of a prisoner on a furlough to
return to the place of confinement or
residence within the time specified by those
having direct supervision over the prisoner
is an unlawful evasion under AS 11.56.335 or
11.56.340 [AS 11.56.340]."
(c)
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
CHAIR SEEKINS objected for explanation.
SENATOR FRENCH explained the amendment would establish two
classes of unlawful evasion. Unlawful evasion in the first
degree would be that which occurs when a person is being held on
a felony charge. Unlawful evasion in the second degree would be
that which occurs when a person is being held on a misdemeanor
charge. There is a reference on the bottom of page 2 to explain
what would happen to a prisoner who does not come back from a
furlough.
9:23:52 AM
SUSAN PARKES, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL),
said she supports Amendment 2 but noted Section 4 amends the
current unlawful evasion but it doesn't change the title of the
crime. She said the title of the crime needed to be changed so
that it reads "unlawful evasion in the second degree."
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT moved an amendment to Amendment 2.
Conceptually insert the suggested title for Section 4.
9:25:46 AM
Hearing no objections, the conceptual amendment to Amendment 2
was adopted.
CHAIR SEEKINS removed his objection.
9:26:14 AM
Hearing no further objections, Amendment 2 was adopted.
SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out that the Department of
Corrections would be expected to handle more escorts and asked
Ms. Parker the reason for the zero fiscal notes.
PORTIA PARKER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC) said they have very few escorting situations and the DOC
does them already. Also when the DOC performs the escorts, the
offender or the offender's family pays for it in advance.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for clarification whether the DOC would
be offering drug and alcohol treatment on site.
MS. PARKER said they accommodate the provider to come into the
facility to do the assessment.
SENATOR HUGGINS moved CSSB 216(JUD) out of committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no
objections, the motion carried.
9:28:55 AM
SB 222-PROTECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
9:31:07 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 222 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, sponsor, asked for the testimony of
David Lawer.
9:31:46 AM
DAVID LAWER, Senior Vice President, First National Bank of
Alaska testified on Section 1, Personal Information Protection
Act. He said SB 222 has far reaching implications, not only for
financial institutions but also for every person in the state.
He said the bill poses substantial risks for all people and that
violations would be brought about for situations where personal
information was not even divulged.
9:33:57 AM
MR. LAWER asserted financial institutions have intense
information security systems yet they can be breached
unintentionally. He said he left his computer on the night
before and the janitor could have accessed his accounts. He said
SB 222 would make the bank notify over 55,000 people of that
security breach.
9:36:08 AM
MR. LAWER said the bank shares personal information with other
entities such as their credit card system. Taking the bill to a
personal level, he said as a landlord, he possesses information
regarding his tenant and said he would be in violation of SB 222
if he were to leave a rent check on his desk at home. He hoped
that was not the intended consequences of the legislation. He
advised the committee that he had technical amendments suggested
by other banking officials to submit.
9:38:27 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted he and Senator Guess were studying the
different suggestions made and were attempting to strike a fair
balance. He asked the reason that the public shouldn't expect a
tighter security system at the bank.
MR. LAWER conceded the consumer should expect better security
and said his computer at work has a series of passwords as a
firewall. His worry was that simply by having a janitor alone
his office with his computer would be a breach of security as he
sees the bill written. Nevertheless, under the definition of
security breach the bank would be obliged to notify the 55,000
customers of the incident.
9:41:24 AM
SENATOR FRENCH questioned whether it would be a breach when a
person attempted to access a computer but was halted due to a
password request.
MR. LAWER said yes since there was no definition of "breach of
security" in the bill.
SENATOR GUESS stated for edification, that "breach of security"
is defined on page 3, line 29, and "information systems" is
defined on page 24, line 12 in version I.
9:43:53 AM
SENATOR GUESS said she was unclear whether Mr. Lawer was
suggesting that the bill sponsors add violations for security
breaches within Section 1.
MR. LAWER responded it was the position of the banker's
association that the violation be "the failure to disclose the
fact of unauthorized disclosure of the information," and they
need only alert the person whose information they have reason to
believe was compromised.
9:46:08 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked the number of people in the bank systems
that have access to information that would be protected under SB
222.
MR. LAWER said everyone. Every account starts with an
application and every application contains not only the
customer's name but also one or more of the other elements.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether they were required by federal law to
obtain a person's social security number.
MR. LAWER said correct.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Lawer to describe security measures as
pertained to by federal law.
MR. LAWER said they perform periodic risk assessments and in
circumstances where they detect the possibility of unauthorized
disclosure they notify customers about that circumstance. The
regulations are fluid. The bank is examined and audited
annually, including the security system and the systems of the
entities they contract with. The scope of the audit continually
increases and as a result, identifies the need for greater
security measures.
9:49:08 AM
Credit card companies are a good example. The bank is obliged to
see to the integrity of that security system as well.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether the federal regulators audit the
security practices of the bank's contractors.
MR. LAWER said yes.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether they meet the same standards as the
bank.
MR. LAWER said he suspected they meet higher standards.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether the auditors generally find areas of
weaknesses.
MR. LAWER said auditors have a different perception of
weaknesses. For instance the last audit suggested a need for
seven character passwords that include at least one number. He
questioned whether that constituted a weakness in the security
system.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Lawer his opinion of the risk of
unauthorized penetration of the bank's security system.
MR. LAWER said he believed their only exposure was internal. The
bank's computer systems cannot be accessed by anyone not
connected internally. The greater risk is of exposed physical
records and the bank has suffered a burglary in the past.
9:52:44 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Lawer whether his bank had clear
policies for employees on how to comply with all privacy
policies.
MR. LAWER said yes. They support extensive personnel policies as
well as other procedures relating to information security.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced a brief recess at 9:53:35 AM.
9:53:53 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS held the bill in committee.
SB 284-SENTENCING FOR ALCOHOL-RELATED CRIMES
9:54:31 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 284 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT advised committee members there were
questions in the previous bill hearing that his staff would
answer.
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff to Senator Therriault, brought committee
members up to speed on the bill. There are three conceptual
changes that the drafters are working on. In response to Senator
Guess's question about the definition of "alcoholic beverage,"
it would be the same as "consumption of alcohol."
9:57:05 AM
MR. STANCLIFF continued with reference to Senator French's
suggestion for considering multiple DUIs. Staff is working on
language to say if a person is convicted of three or more DUIs
that the judge, who would have the discretion to impose any
length up to a lifetime ban, could use the new sentencing
option. The Department of Law has stated that the use of alcohol
monitoring devices is exceptionally effective.
9:59:03 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said during the previous day's discussion, he
failed to bring to light that the bill would only be made
applicable under the certain crimes listed under AS 11.41.
MR. STANCLIFF added AS 11.41 is the section of statute that
deals with felonies and crimes against persons, such as murder,
rape and assault. The minimum in that section would be third
degree assault.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for testimony from the Department of
Law.
10:01:10 AM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL), noted that there would be no way for the courts to know
whether anyone has violated the conditions of probation unless
the person was arrested on another offense. He said it wasn't a
problem but just wanted to let them know.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH said SB 249, which is his bill, would
assist in letting the officers do a search to determine whether
they were violating the terms of their probation.
10:03:08 AM
MR. WOOLIVER agreed.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Wooliver whether a private citizen
would be able to report when a person was violating conditions
of probation or parole.
MR. WOOLIVER said yes and then it would be up to the police
whether they followed up on it.
SENATOR FRENCH noted an officer could then get a warrant and
arrest the person.
CHAIR SEEKINS held the bill in committee.
SB 301-CHANGE OF VENUE IN CIVIL CASES
10:05:15 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 301 to be up for consideration.
ROBERT FAGERSTROM informed the committee that he sent in a
public opinion message (POM) the day before and wished to add
that he served in United States Navy and in the Alaska Army
National Guard. He is aware of the uniform code of military
justice (UCMJ). He has served on a jury in Nome and he has also
been a defendant and a plaintiff. He said he knows the high cost
of litigation and does not believe that any Legislature has the
right to second-guess the American way of justice. He maintained
that the system does not need to be fixed and opposed the bill.
10:08:00 AM
MICHAEL SCHUEIDER, attorney, testified in opposition to SB 301.
He said the reason that court proceedings are held in the city
where the incident occurred is because the people who live there
have an interest in the conduct that occurs in their town. He
asked the committee to imagine they were legally crossing the
street when an out-of-town citizen runs them over and seriously
injures them. If SB 301 were enacted, they, along with their
lawyer and staff, doctor, and any other witnesses would be the
ones who would have to travel to the city where the offender
lived in order to hold the court proceedings.
10:10:53 AM
MR. SCHEUIDER said he is aware that the committee has heard some
outcomes that they might not approve of but the jury is the
entity that heard all the facts, not the committee members. He
said he recently tried a case in Bethel and the jury did not
award to the defense. He suggested the system works in most
jurisdictions in the United States. Insurance is a hugely
lucrative industry that gets paid to take risks and they make
money on those risks, he stated.
10:12:55 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT expressed concern over the unintended
consequences of the bill, but he disagreed with Mr. Schueider's
suggestion that the situation was fine because of the insurance
factor. He noted the committee has heard testimony that western
Alaska does not fit the bell curve and is lopsided to the point
where attorneys boast about large jury awards.
MR. SCHUEIDER responded the committee members must make certain
that things are out of balance before passing the legislation.
He respectfully suggested the committee was not hearing both
sides of the issue.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Schueider whether he was a member of
Alaska Action Trust.
10:16:10 AM
MR. SCHUEIDER affirmed he is a member, a past chairman, and a
frequent participant.
CHAIR SEEKINS said Alaska Action Trust attempted to demonstrate
that a defendant has a right to trial by its peers and a
plaintiff has the same right. He asked whether there was case
law that showed the plaintiff has an absolute right to a trial
by the plaintiff's peers and that a plaintiff gets to decide the
venue.
MR. SCHUEIDER responded the plaintiff is constrained by existing
venue rules. The circumstances and existing law define where
cases must be brought. He said it wasn't that plaintiff's have
an absolute right to choose venue, plaintiff's have the fact
that determine where venue is appropriate and the existing rules
provide fair venue for both parties in most settings.
10:18:59 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Schueider whether he agreed that the
Alaska rules of general procedure on venue are subject to state
statute, which could be modified.
MR. SCHUEIDER said by a two-thirds majority, yes. He said he
does not challenge the power of the Legislature but he contended
the bill was poor public policy and would generate many worse
outcomes than the current system.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he would look at Rule 3, which he said
subordinates the court's authority to change venue to the
Legislature without having to change the rule.
10:20:35 AM
JAMES MILLER, owner and general manager of Alaska Weather
Operations, testified in support of the bill. His company does
construction work for up to 60 communities in Alaska. He said it
was important to maintain impartial juries and that is sometimes
difficult to obtain due to village sizes and location.
10:23:38 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Miller to imagine being a landlord
whose tenants trashed his property to the tune of $5,000 and
then moved to another city. The landlord and his witnesses would
probably have to drop the claim because they would not be able
to handle all the travel costs to get to the changed venue.
MR. MILLER agreed that was a good point. He said it works both
ways. He suggested that the bill should state a provision for an
impartial jury.
10:27:22 AM
WILFORD RYAN, member of Alaska Air Carriers Association,
testified in support of SB 301. He said businesses should have
the opportunity to defend themselves in their home area.
10:30:45 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS held SB 301 in committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Seekins adjourned the meeting at 10:33:45 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|