Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/24/1995 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 251 - NATIVE CORPORATIONS Number 061 CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to the last committee hearing on HB 251 and said the committee adopted some amendments. Those amendments have been included in the committee substitute (CS), Version M, dated 4/17/95. He informed the committee there is another CS, Version O, dated 4/24/95. Number 072 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG moved the CS for HB 251(L&C), Version 9-LSO662/O, Bannister, dated 4/24/95, be adopted. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection. REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON objected for the purpose of a question. He asked if somebody could outline the differences between Versions M and O. CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Version M and said he would explain what has been deleted. He said there are very few changes, however, Version M was not adopted. He noted the committee did adopt some amendments. Chairman Kott said Section 1 was deleted in its entirety. Section 2 is now Section 1 of Version O. He said the committee had adopted an amendment that provided for a petition holder to come up with 10 percent, 1/10 of all the shares (indisc.) at the meeting. The new CS has raised that to 15 percent. The rest of Section 2 is standard, with the exception of corporation. On line 7, page 3, the 90 days has been increased after filing to 80 days. That was a compromise allowing for additional time. Chairman Kott referred to (o) on line 17, and said the one year was increased to two years. He referred to Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Version M, which dealt mainly with civil and penal application, and said it has been deleted. Section 7 of Version M, the definition of "Native corporation," has been omitted. He said those are the changes between the two versions. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said there were some things that he felt fairly strongly about in Version M. One of them was the one year versus the two years. He asked what the rational was for going back to two years. CHAIRMAN KOTT said after he spoke with the prime sponsor of HB 251, they decided two years would be more palatable to allow a little more time to ensure the corporation's work was not interrupted. They could carry out the business of the corporation on behalf of the shareholders. It would provide for a little less disruption. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the committee has correspondence from the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. He noted a constituent of his gave him some correspondence that reports to be from the department with some departmental suggestions. CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated he has a lot of correspondence in his packet. He noted the correspondence Representative Elton referred to doesn't ring a bell. Chairman Kott said he supposes the department, as they are allowed to testify on the new version, may offer some recommendations if they see fit. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if he could copy his information and give it to the committee members. CHAIRMAN KOTT said the committee would take a brief at ease at 3:27 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 3:33. Number 175 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG said he had a concern about the authenticity of the information. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said what he wanted to do was give everyone a copy, and then ask the department about the information. Number 188 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if Representative Elton still had an objection to adopting Version O. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he would remove his objection. CHAIRMAN KOTT said if there is no further objection, the committee would use work draft, Version O, as the CS. Number 195 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK said it seems to her that the bill is getting more and more complex. She said the committee is receiving more and more information. There was work draft M and now there is work draft O. She asked if the committee will be looking at the letter they were given. CHAIRMAN KOTT said that is correct. He said the department would explain their noted exceptions based on the letter as compared to Version O. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said it seems to be getting more and more controversial. She made a motion that the bill be held, tabled, until some work can be done on it during the interim. She said it is getting too complex. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected to Representative Masek's motion. CHAIRMAN KOTT called a recess at 3:38 p.m. Representative Porter arrived at 3:40 p.m. CHAIRMAN KOTT called the meeting back to order at 4:00 p.m. He said there is a motion pending. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she would like to restate her motion to table the bill. CHAIRMAN KOTT said the motion is to table the bill, HB 251. He asked if there was an objection. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kott and Rokeberg voted against tabling HB 251. Representatives Masek, Elton and Sanders voted in favor of tabling the bill. So HB 251 was tabled.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|