Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/13/2002 01:12 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 375 - REVISOR'S BILL Number 0088 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 375, "An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes; and providing for an effective date." Number 0099 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the chair of the Legislative Council, sponsor of HB 375, mentioned that the committee may wish to address two or three points in the bill, one of which pertains to an amendment made during a House floor session last year. PAM FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes, Legislative Counsel, Legal and Research Services Division, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), with regard to Section 2, explained that last year there was a "floor amendment" [to HB 210] that affected AS 09.10.060(c). Before the floor amendment, that statute contained a three-year statute of limitations on civil actions for certain sexual abuse claims. The floor amendment removed the statute of limitations on [felony sexual assault and felony sexual abuse of a minor] crimes. However, originally AS 09.10.060(c) also contained reference to [misdemeanor sexual abuse and misdemeanor sexual abuse of a minor] crimes; when it was repealed and reenacted by the floor amendment to HB 210, an unintended consequence was that the reference to those misdemeanor crimes - which also had three-year civil statute of limitations - was removed as well. MS. FINLEY said: When the floor amendment came in and referred only to felony [sexual abuse and sexual abuse of a minor] crimes, those misdemeanors fell back, as nearly as I can tell, into the two-year statute of limitations for torts in general. That was not a problem, but there was another statute, which was actually expanded - what used to be the three-year statute of limitations and which no longer works because it's no longer a three-year statute of limitations for all of those cases - and that is the one that is amended in [Section 2, AS 09.10.140(b)]. It says an action based on a claim of sexual abuse under AS 09.55.650 -- and if you go to 650, there are a lot of sexual abuse cases there. Most of them are felonies, a few of them are misdemeanors. The felonies -- that's really no longer relevant because there is no statute of limitations for felonies any more. However -- so that is why I added this: "that is not otherwise allowed under AS 09.10.060(c)", to make it clear that if any of those 650 sexual abuse crimes are felonies and covered by 060(c), this is irrelevant because there's no statute of limitations at all. Number 0411 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked why that necessitated a change from three years to two years as is proposed by Section 2. MS. FINLEY said she believed it is because the statute of limitations for those misdemeanors listed in [AS 09.55.650] is now two years due to the floor amendment. Although the floor amendment said that any [felony sexual abuse of a minor or felony sexual assault crimes] has no statute of limitations, the question remains: What is the civil statute of limitations for misdemeanor [sexual abuse of a minor or misdemeanor sexual assault] crimes? REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that the intent of that floor amendment to HB 210 was to lift the statute of limitations for felony [sexual abuse of a minor or felony sexual assault] crimes, not to change the statute of limitations for misdemeanors. He added that the standing statute of limitations for misdemeanors, prior to the enactment of the floor amendment, was three years. Thus, he opined, there is no reason for it to revert to a two-year statute of limitations. MS. FINLEY explained that since the floor amendment repealed and reenacted AS 09.10.060(c), there is no longer any reference to those misdemeanor crimes nor a statute of limitations for them. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether the committee was free to amend HB 297. MS. FINLEY indicated that the committee could do so as long as "we're not making policy decisions. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised, then, that the committee could amend Section 2 so that it said three years instead of two. MS. FINLEY said that would be fine except that the problem is that Section 2 does not set a statute of limitations at three years; instead, it is an exception to the statute of limitations. She said that she would be perfectly happy to remove Section 2 from HB 375 if the legislature would rather address this issue in a comprehensive manner via other legislation. She mentioned that she would prefer the latter because AS 09.10.060(c) no longer defines sexual abuse, which also causes her concern. CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that the House Judiciary Standing Committee already has a full calendar. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he would be willing to report HB 375 from committee and allow Ms. Finley to fix it. Number 0647 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked whether there might be a constitutional problem with amending HB 375 if [Article II, Section 13] could be interpreted to mean that revisor bills cannot address policy issues. MS. FINLEY said yes; "I don't like to have anything that sets policy in a revisor's bill for that reason" as well as others. Legislation addressing policy ought to get a different kind of review than revisor's bills get, she added. Ms. Finley reiterated that she would be happy to remove Section 2 if the committee wants to focus on this issue in a more comprehensive way. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether removing Section 2 would reinstate a three-year statute of limitations. MS. FINLEY said that even if Section 2 were amended to read three years instead of two years, there is not a three-year statute of limitations elsewhere. CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised that Ms. Finley's recommendation would be to remove Section 2 from HB 375 and use a separate bill to address the issue of a civil statute of limitations on these misdemeanor crimes. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that there is other sexual assault legislation that might serve as a vehicle for addressing this issue. MS. FINLEY noted that the revisor's bill is usually passed fairly early in the session so that other bills that amend the same sections encompassed in the revisor's bill will override it. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned that if Section 2 were removed and no other legislation were passed to address the issue, there would be no statute of limitations on these misdemeanor crimes. CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised, then, that it would be better to leave Section 2 as is, and then if other legislation is passed that addresses this issue, it would override Section 2. Number 0921 MS. FINLEY then referred to Section 6 and said that it corrects what originally might have been a typographical error regarding a reference to the federal food stamp program, which has since expanded beyond 7 U.S.C. 2025. She mentioned that if she were to attempt to fix that reference this year, she would try to include all of the federal statutory references pertaining to the food stamp program. Or, she added, she could simply do it next year in another revisor's bill. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned that alternatively, the committee could simply track HB 375 as it goes through the Senate to ensure that Section 6 is altered appropriately. He noted that another option would be to amend Section 6 of HB 375 during a House floor session. MS. FINLEY added that another possibility would be to have the House Rules Standing Committee propose a committee substitute (CS). CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 1:27 p.m. to 1:29 p.m. MS. FINLEY, with regard to the food stamp issue, said that it is really up to the committee; if the committee wants to suggest that Section 6 include references up through 7 U.S.C. 2036, she could do that. Or, if the committee preferred, she said that Section 6 could remain intact until she pinpointed just which references should be included. CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that the committee could make a conceptual amendment. He asked Ms. Finley what her preference would be. MS. FINLEY said that since it is merely a citation that would be altered, a conceptual amendment ought to be sufficient. MS. FINLEY then drew the committee's attention to Sections 12 and 13, and noted that these sections pertain to the Alaska Commission on Aging (ACoA). She explained that she had received a note from [the ACoA] asking for more time in which to study the ramifications of Sections 12 and 13. Ms. Finley said that should [the ACoA] oppose these sections, they could be removed via a House Rules Standing Committee CS. Number 1193 MS. FINLEY then referred to Section 1 and said it simply reflects what the revisors have been doing for at least 16 years in situations in which legislation has a specific effective date but doesn't take effect until after that date because the governor doesn't sign it, the governor signs it after the effective date, or the veto is overridden. And although her predecessor treated those situations in the manner laid out in Section 1, she opined that it really should be stated in statute since "that is what we are doing." She mentioned that a bill passed last year has engendered litigation regarding this issue, but added that Section 1 would not affect the outcome of that litigation; it would simply be placing in statute the procedure followed thus far. She relayed that that litigation revolves around a man who was arrested the day after the governor signed a bill that extended the look-back provision from five years to ten years. The defendant has asserted that since the governor signed the bill after the effective date listed in the bill, the effective date would revert to 90 days after being signed. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether Section 1 is making a policy decision. MS. FINLEY said that it is merely putting into statute the current practice; there is no actual change to how things are done. In response to further questions, she said that this practice was not instituted because of case law; it is simply an administrative fiat because "the bills come out and we have to put an effective date on them, and that's what we've done." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether the legislature shouldn't simply wait and see what the courts determine with regard to this issue. CHAIR ROKEBERG said, "No, this is our bailiwick." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the legislature might like what the court arrives at or that the court might suggest something that inspires the legislature to act accordingly. He opined that it would be prudent to see what the courts had to say before something is placed in statute that may later turn out to be in conflict. CHAIR ROKEBERG said he could accept that argument in certain circumstances but not with regard to the legislature's power to stipulate an effective date. He then asked Ms. Finley to confirm that Section 1 would not have any impacts on the ongoing litigation. Number 1456 MS. FINLEY said that there would certainly be no legal impact, adding that in that particular case, she has already provided an affidavit regarding how such a situation has been handled in the past. She suggested that the court would most likely rule one of two ways; either the legislation takes affect the day after being signed, or after the 90 days has elapsed. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES opined that the court would be most likely rule in favor of the current practice. CHAIR ROKEBERG said that the court probably would, particularly if it is placed in statute via Section 1 of HB 375. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he wanted to applaud Ms. Finley for all her work on the arduous job of revising the statutes. MS. FINLEY, in response to a question, clarified that in the aforementioned litigation, the defendant was arrested on the effective date, which started at 12:01 a.m. the day after the legislation was signed into law. She added that the time of day a law becomes effective is specified in Section 1 of HB 375. MS. FINLEY, returning to the issue of Section 6, asked: "Did the committee want a CS on the conceptual amendment expanding the food stamp [citation] or not?" CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that the committee had not yet addressed that issue but would discuss it now. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN surmised that any change to Section 6 would not be changing policy; rather, such a change would simply be conforming the statute to reflect the proper federal citations, and would be well within Ms. Finley's purview. CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested that the committee refrain from amending Section 6 at this time, and asked that as HB 375 goes through the process, Ms. Finley report back to the committee with any recommendations for appropriate changes. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN added that any changes could be made before HB 375 is reported from the House Rules Standing Committee. Number 1722 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to report HB 375 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 375 was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|