Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
03/01/2013 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB100 | |
| HB81 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 81 - 2013 REVISOR'S BILL
1:27:10 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 81, "An Act making corrective amendments to the
Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes; and
providing for an effective date."
1:27:38 PM
KATHRYN KURTZ, Revisor of Statutes, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), after noting that the purpose of a revisor's bill
- prepared annually under AS 01.05.036 - is to correct or remove
deficiencies, conflicts, and obsolete provisions in statute,
relayed that the changes proposed via HB 81 are limited to
matters wherein legislative policy is clear. The Department of
Law (DOL), she also noted, has reviewed the bill and provided
helpful comments. [Referring to the sectional analysis included
in members' packets,] she explained that Section 1 would add the
term, "destination resort license" to the list of alcoholic
beverage licenses [issued under AS 04.11]; this proposed change
corrects an omission that occurred when this type of license was
originally established in statute. Section 2 would update a
reference [in AS 04.11] to an educational accreditation
organization that has since changed its name. Section 3 would
remove [from AS 08.70.110] a reference to nursing home
administrators licensed under specific emergency regulations
that were repealed in 1977; the DOL has indicated that no one is
operating under such a license anymore, making the statutory
reference obsolete. Sections 4 and 6, respectively, make
corrective changes to AS 11.46.495 and AS 11.56.810 - [certain
definitions pertaining to] offenses against property, and the
crime of terroristic threatening [in the second degree],
respectively - so that the term, "oil or gas pipeline or
supporting facility" is consistent throughout the statutes and
comports with how it's already being used.
MS. KURTZ explained that Section 5 - by adding a missing
preposition, "to" - would correct a typographical error found in
AS 11.51.100(a)(3), which addresses [one manifestation of] the
crime of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree;
the altered pertinent language would then read in part, "the
other person causes physical injury to or engages in sexual
contact with the child". She offered her belief that adding the
word, "to" via Section 5 is necessary because it doesn't make
sense for the statute to be addressing situations wherein the
other person, together "with" the child, causes physical injury
to a third party. Section 7 would replace the word "education"
with "educational", so that the then-corrected term, "regional
educational attendance areas" is used consistently throughout
statute. Sections 8 and 9, respectively, would change the term,
"election district" to the term, "house district" in
AS 15.10.120(a) and AS 15.15.430(a)(3) - addressing appointment
of election board, and scope of the review of ballot counting,
respectively - so as to match usage of that term elsewhere in
statute. Sections 10-17 remove the phrase, "but not limited to"
following the word, "including" [as used in certain provisions
of AS 18.60; these proposed changes are reflective of the fact
that AS 01.10.040(b) already stipulates that the words,
"includes" and "including" shall be construed as though followed
by the phrase, "but not limited to"].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned the committee's attention back
to Section 5's proposed change, and questioned whether the
existing statutory language was drafted as it was so that it
could also apply in situations wherein the person with whom the
child has been left causes physical injury to anyone.
1:32:44 PM
MS. KURTZ offered her belief that that isn't how that language
was meant to be interpreted. Again, Section 5 addresses the
statute pertaining to the crime of endangering the welfare of a
child in the first degree, and when one reads the pertinent
provision in its entirety, it makes sense that it's addressing
situations in which the other person causes physical injury to
the child who'd been left with him/her. And in such situations,
it would be the child's parent, guardian, or the person who is
legally charged with caring for the child, who would be guilty
of the crime of endangering the welfare of a child in the first
degree, because he/she would have left the child with a person
known for hurting children and who then causes physical injury
to the child.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that Section 5's
proposed change might narrow the scope of AS 11.51.100(a)(3) too
much, thereby causing problems for prosecutors.
CHAIR KELLER said he could see why Section 5's proposed change
was included in the revisor's bill, and characterized existing
AS 11.51.100(a)(3) as really broad and confusing.
MS. KURTZ - remarking that the goal of a revisor's bill is to
clarify the law, not change its scope - noted that Section 5
could be deleted and its proposed change to AS 11.51.100(a)(3)
dealt some other time via a substantive bill, should the
committee want to specifically address the scope of the crime of
endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that Section 5 is
proposing a substantive change rather than just correcting a
typographical error.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT disagreed, but acknowledged that perhaps
the scope of existing AS 11.51.100(a)(3) should be addressed at
some point, separate from a revisor's bill.
1:41:34 PM
MS. KURTZ - in response to questioning comments about
Section 4's proposed change regarding the term, "oil or gas
pipeline or supporting facility" as used in Title 11 - noted
that Title 1 stipulates how singular terms and plural terms,
such as "facility" and "facilities", for example, are to be
construed. Returning to her presentation of HB 81, she
reiterated her explanation of the changes proposed by
Sections 10-17 to AS 18.60; added that those sections of the
bill are intended to clean up the pertinent statutes - primarily
addressing [safe employment and definitions related to] safety
glazing materials - without changing their meaning; and surmised
that the language being deleted - that being the words, "but not
limited to" - was probably initially included just because it
was copied from similar legislation in another state that didn't
specifically outline in statute that the terms, "includes" and
"including" shall be construed as though followed by the phrase,
"but not limited to", as AS 01.10.040(b) does for Alaska law.
CHAIR KELLER expressed discomfort with the changes proposed by
Sections 10-17 to AS 18.60, in that without the words, "but not
limited to" following the word, "including", the proposed
statutory provisions might be misinterpreted.
MS. KURTZ pointed out, however, that in drafting legislation,
Legislative Legal and Research Services has been complying with
AS 01.10.040(b) and has been giving consideration to how the
words "includes" and "including" are used throughout the
statutes. Furthermore, regardless of how a given term might be
defined in the dictionary, whenever a term is defined, or
otherwise specifically addressed, in statute, its meaning is
then clear from a legal standpoint and the courts would look to
the statute, not the dictionary, should a question regarding
meaning arise.
MS. KURTZ, continuing with her presentation of HB 81, explained
that Section 18 would delete [from AS 18.63.040(b), which
addresses certificate programs for hazardous painting,] a
specific reference to a repealed regulation, and replace it with
the words, "the department in regulation"; the altered pertinent
language in statute would then read, "standards adopted by the
department in regulation". [In following the Manual of
Legislative Drafting when drafting legislation,] drafters try
not to incorporate specific references to the administrative
code because the provision in the code may be renumbered,
[repealed,] or amended at any time, [thereby leaving a defective
reference in statute]. Section 18's proposed change is in lieu
of merely referencing a different regulation.
CHAIR KELLER offered his belief that Section 18's proposed
change would broaden the statute.
MS. KURTZ again pointed out that currently, the statute
references a regulation that no longer exists, and that although
the reference could be updated, the statute would still have the
same flaw - that of referencing a specific regulation that could
change at some point. Simply updating the specific reference
could be done, however, should the committee prefer that
approach instead.
1:47:24 PM
CHAIR KELLER indicated a preference for taking such an
alternative approach, regardless that then having to stay
abreast of changes in regulation would increase Legislative
Legal and Research Services' workload.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX indicated concurrence with Chair Keller's
points regarding Section 18.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that currently, Section 18's
proposed change is in accord with the Manual of Legislative
Drafting's stipulation to not include in statute references to
specific regulations, whether federal or state, because they can
frequently change.
MS. KURTZ concurred.
CHAIR KELLER relayed that he would research the issues raised by
Section 18's proposed change further.
MS. KURTZ, returning to her presentation of HB 81, explained
that Sections 19-21, 24-27, and 31 address references to the
commissioner of the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT&PF) in several provisions of Title 35, which
pertains to public buildings, works, and improvements.
Specifically, Section 27 - adding a new paragraph (10) to
AS 35.95.100 - would define the term "commissioner" as used in
Title 35 to mean the commissioner of transportation and public
facilities, [and Sections 19-21, 24-26, and 31 would make
conforming changes, with the latter section deleting an
identical definition that currently applies only to chapter 27
of Title 35]. It is clear from reading these provisions of
Title 35 that that is what is meant when the term,
"commissioner" is used, and so with the adoption of these
sections of HB 81, all of the provisions of Title 35 could then
simply use the term, "commissioner".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized [the changes proposed by
Sections 19-21, 24-27, and 31] as making a lot of sense.
1:51:35 PM
MS. KURTZ explained that Sections 22 and 23 would remove
obsolete date references from provisions [of Title 35] that
address rural school facilities, and the Robert B. Atwood
Building, respectively. Section 28 would update the statute
pertaining to what must be included in the Alaska Online Public
Notice System, to reflect that the DOL no longer makes a
distinction between the attorney general's formal opinions and
his/her memoranda of advice; this is also reflected on the DOL's
Internet web site, and it is not anticipated that this proposed
change would create a problem. Section 29, by adding the word,
"energy" to paragraph (1) of AS 44.88.070 - addressing the
purpose of the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority (AIDEA) - would correct an oversight that occurred
when the statutes addressing the AIDEA were amended in 2012 [via
Senate Bill 25] with regard to establishing a sustainable energy
transmission and supply development program. Section 30
resolves an internal conflict created in AS 47.12.310 when a new
subsection (i) was added in 2004. Subsection (a) of
AS 47.12.310 stipulates that certain information is privileged
and may not be disclosed, and lists exceptions to that
stipulation. Subsection (i) provided for an additional
exception, and so a reference to subsection (i) should have been
added to subsection (a)'s list of exceptions back in 2004.
Section 30 corrects this oversight.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that a memorandum dated
January 15, 2013, in member's packets addresses the change
proposed by Section 4 of HB 81, that of making the definition of
the term, "oil or gas pipeline or supporting facility" in
AS 11.46.495 comport with how that term is used elsewhere in
statute; the memorandum says in part, "Upon review, it was found
that the term appeared in more than one section of statute and
it was consistently singular." He indicated that Section 4's
proposed change is fine with him.
CHAIR KELLER mentioned that the committee would review the
changes proposed by Sections 5 and 18 of HB 81 further.
[HB 81 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 100 Hearing Request.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 ver. U.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 Fiscal Note Court System.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 Support Document--Review of Geographic Cost Differentials.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 81 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81 Sectional Summary.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81 ver. N.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81 Fiscal Note-Department of Law.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 81 |