Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/08/1995 01:34 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 8, 1995
1:30 P.M.
TAPE HFC 95-18, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 95-18, Side 2, #000 - 683.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:34 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kohring
Co-Chair Foster Representative Martin
Representative Mulder Representative Navarre
Representative Brown Representative Parnell
Representative Grussendorf Representative Therriault
Representative Kelly
ALSO PRESENT
Jan Rutherdale, Department of Law; George Bingham, State
Farm Insurance; Patty Swenson, Staff, Representative Bunde;
Geron Bruce, Legislative Liaison, Department of Fish and
Game; Jack Chenoweth, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services.
SUMMARY
HB 9 An Act relating to recovery of damages from a
minor's parent or legal guardian when property is
destroyed by the minor.
HB 9 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
HB 58 An Act establishing the Chickaloon Flats Critical
Habitat Area.
CSHB 58 (res) was reported out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal
note by the Department of Fish and Game, dated
2/3/95.
HOUSE BILL NO. 58
"An Act establishing the Chickaloon Flats Critical
Habitat Area."
PATTY SWENSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE testified in
1
support of HB 58. She noted that the legislation is
accompanied by a zero fiscal note from the Department of
Fish and Game. She explained that the purpose of HB 58 is
to establish the Chickaloon Critical Habitat Area. She
asserted that the designation will protect the waterfowl
habitat in Cook Inlet. She emphasized that, in the Fall, up
to 25,000 birds use this area daily. She added that the
area is used by hunters who access the area by float plane,
boat and four wheel drive vehicles.
Ms. Swenson stressed that "critical habitat" is the least
restrictive of all land designations. She stated that the
uses specified in the legislation are compatible and will
continue. She noted that there are no oil and gas leases
presently in the area. She observed that the legislation
received support from various groups during the House
Resources Committee hearings.
In response to a question by Representative Kohring, Ms.
Swenson noted that the designation will be permanent. She
reiterated that the area is heavily used by waterfowl.
GERON BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME stressed the importance of the area as a wildlife
habitat.
Representative Kohring noted that the area would remain open
to oil and gas activity. Mr. Bruce stated that the
designation would provide that the area is managed primarily
to protect critical fish and wildlife habitat. Other uses
are permitted as long as they are compatible to the
protection of the habitat. He noted that pipelines runs
through some critical habitats. He stressed that of 212
applications for special area permits in critical habitats,
refuges and sanctuaries only two were denied. The area
would be open to multiple use with the caveat that the uses
be consistent with the protection of fish and wildlife.
In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Mr. Bruce
clarified that Department of Fish and Game's staff will make
the determinations of compatible use in regards to permit
applications.
Representatives Kelly and Parnell expressed concern that the
guiding criteria of "compatible use" is open to broad
interpretation. Mr. Bruce stressed that it is not the
intention of the Department to prohibit hunting or
harvesting of fish and wildlife. He pointed out that the
legislation is designed to provide protection to the
environment which supports fish and wildlife population for
use by citizens.
2
In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Mr.
Bruce emphasized that the Department of Fish and Game works
with applicants to allow requested activities in a manner
which will not damage the habitat. A permit is denied only
if there is no way to allow an activity without damage to
the habitat.
Representative Brown asked how the designation changes the
land management. Mr. Bruce reiterated that the designation
makes the protection of the fish and wildlife habitat the
primary purpose for which the land is managed.
Mr. Bruce further explained that oil and gas activities
would be permitted on a site specific basis if the activity
does not endanger the habitat's ability to support
waterfowl. The area has not been offered for oil and gas
leases during the past five years.
Representative Kelly asked if the area is currently
threatened. Ms. Swenson stated that the impact due to high
population growth in the Anchorage area is the greatest
concern. Mr. Bruce added that concerned individual's who
use the area want to assure that it remains healthy for
future generations of Alaskans to enjoy. He noted that
Alaska's population grew by 40 percent from 1979 - 1992.
The Department of Labor projects a further 40 percent
increase in population over the next fifteen years.
Representative Navarre MOVED to report CSHB 58 (RES) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSHB 58 (RES) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Department
of Fish and Game, dated 2/3/95.
HOUSE BILL NO. 9
"An Act relating to recovery of damages from a minor's
parent or legal guardian when property is destroyed by
the minor."
Representative Therriault, the sponsor of HB 9, noted that
the legislation updates statutes written in 1957. He
explained that the legislation is intended to encourage
responsibility among parents and juveniles and to provide
recourse for victims who have lost property. The
legislation is based on the principal that parents or legal
guardians of juveniles who cause damages should be
monetarily responsible for the loss.
Representative Therriault recounted instances of vandalism
3
in Fairbanks schools. The legislation would increase the
amount a victim may recover from $2.0 to $10.0 thousand
dollars. The legislation also includes unintentional
damages that may be caused as a result of the intentional
action. He added that HB 9 allows part or all of the
individuals permanent fund dividend to satisfy a judgement.
Representative Grussendorf expressed concern that $10.0
thousand dollars may be a little on the high side.
Representative Therriault thought that the national average
that a victim may recover is between $10.0 to $15.0 thousand
dollars. He noted that revision of Alaska statutes in 1967
increased the recoverable amount from $500 hundred dollars
to $2.0 thousand dollars. He emphasized the effect of
inflation.
Representative Mulder spoke in support of the increased
recovery amount. He noted that his vehicle was stolen in
the past year by minors. He recalled that the damage was
$13.0 to $14.0 thousand dollars. He was limited to recovery
of $2.0 thousand dollars. He observed that the minor was
involved in other thefts after the incident.
In response to a question by Representative Brown,
Representative Therriault explained that a minor's and their
parent's permanent fund dividends could be garnished. He
observed that the dollar amount in existing statute is being
amended. The mechanism is not being changed. Permanent
fund dividend checks could be garnished in consecutive years
to pay the recovery judgement. By statute victims would be
allowed up to $10.0 thousand dollars in recovery upon
judgement from the court. A victim could petition the court
for a higher settlement.
Representative Brown asked the effect of changing the
language on page 1, lines 10 and 11 from "maliciously or
wilfully" to "as a result of a knowing or intentional act".
Representative Therriault used the example of an intentional
act of vandalism which leaves windows broken and
subsequently all the pipes in the house freeze. The vandal
would be responsible for the damage resulting from the
frozen pipes. He noted that all the terms are defined in
criminal law. He noted that "malicious" and "wilful" pre-
date the 1978 criminal code revision.
Representative Parnell questioned if the Committee wants to
make a person who has no custody or oversight rights
responsible for recovery. Representative Therriault
stressed that he did not intend to change current statutes
which determine who costs can be recovered from. He
observed that the State, as the entity of custody, would be
4
exempt.
Representative Grussendorf asked if a joy rider would be
responsible for damages incurred after a car that was taken
was discarded.
JAN RUTHERDALE, DEPARTMENT OF LAW advised that the joy rider
would be responsible for damage occurring to the vehicle
before it was returned to its owner. She noted that, but
for the actions of the joy rider, further damage would not
have happened. She emphasized that the victim needs to be
recovered.
Representative Martin noted the high rate of separated and
divorced families. He expressed concern that responsibility
be pin pointed to the parent that has custody of the minor
at the time of the act.
Representative Therriault reiterated his desire to see the
issue of custody addressed in separate legislation.
Representative Brown asked if the court would have
jurisdiction to determine what is the most appropriate
recovery under the circumstances. Ms. Rutherdale observed
that "or person having legal custody" is not meant to limit
the phrase "parents". Discussion ensued in regards to the
courts ability to determine who recovery will be judged
against.
Representative Parnell expressed support for an amendment
which would allow the court to determine who should be
responsible for any given point in time. Representative
Brown noted that a child could be visiting a parent who does
not have legal custody when the act occurs. The legal
guardian or parent may not have any control over the
incident.
Ms. Rutherdale noted that the victim can seek recovery from
either or both parents or person(s) having legal custody.
The court cannot determine who should provide recovery.
(Tape Change, HFC 95-18, Side 2)
GEORGE BINGHAM, STATE FARM INSURANCE thought that the
court's decision includes the determination of who will pay
recovery. He did not know the percentage of claims
involving minors pursued by the State Farm Insurance
Company. He stressed the effort involved in collection for
$2.0 thousand dollars.
Representative Brown noted that $10.0 thousand dollars could
be a hardship on poor families. Representative Therriault
5
stressed the hardship placed on the victim.
Co-Chair Hanley observed that the amount of recovery was
raised in 1967 to $2.0 thousand dollars. He accentuated the
impact of $2.0 thousand dollars in 1967. He noted that
recovery is being expanded to include "as a result of". In
addition, statutes governing permanent fund dividend
attachments are being revised to allow satisfaction of the
judgement.
JACK CHENOWETH, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES
clarified that the determination of who will be recovered is
independent of the amount recovered. He explained that the
plaintiff may bring action against the minor's father,
mother or both. Suit can also be brought against the legal
guardian or person having legal custody. If the suit is
brought against both parents and recovery awarded the
plaintiff may seek redress from either or both to pay up to
the ceiling established in statute through joint or several
liability.
Mr. Chenoweth thought that the minor could be sued directly.
In lieu or in addition to suing the minor the damaged party
can look to the minor's parents, legal guardian or person
having legal custody.
Representative Navarre noted that the judge does not have
discretion to limit who the suit can be brought against.
Mr. Chenoweth stated that the plaintiff determines the
identity of the defendant. If the defendant does not have
legal custody then the parent having legal custody could be
pled into the suit.
Representative Martin noted that most parents would have an
insurance policy.
Representative Foster recognized the high number of rural
children who are being cared for by relatives other than
their parents.
Representative Brown observed that "person having legal
custody" stands alone, as an independent source from which
recovery could take place. She added that "custody" does
not modify "parent". Mr. Chenoweth agreed with her
observation. Co-Chair Hanley noted that a plaintiff could
seek redress from both parents and the person having legal
custody.
Mr. Chenoweth clarified that if formal adoption has not
taken place the relative taking care of the minor cannot be
recovered against.
6
Representative Therriault emphasized that the decision to
birth a child brings responsibilities.
Co-Chair Hanley acknowledged concern by committee members
that the person or persons who has legal custody should be
the responsible party. Representative Martin reiterated
that the minor may commit the action while under supervision
of a parent having visitation rights. He stressed that the
person(s) having responsibility of the minor "at the time"
of the act should be responsible.
Co-Chair Hanley reiterated concerns detailed by committee
members. Mr. Chenoweth noted that some of the members'
concerns could be addressed through an amendment setting out
responsibility in regards to custody. Representative
Therriault reiterated his desire to address the member's
concerns in separate legislation. He emphasized that he is
attempting to raise the recovery ceiling not the mechanism.
He stressed the complexity of statutes governing the
mechanism of recovery. Representative Martin stressed the
need to reflect current societal needs in statute.
Representative Brown asked what is involved in establishing
paternity. Mr. Chenoweth observed that there is no
technical definition of "parent." The biological father of
a child could be included in a suit if their parenthood was
established in a paternity proceeding.
Representative Kelly MOVED to refer HB 9 to a subcommittee.
Representative Navarre asked if recovery could be
prioritized. Mr. Chenoweth agreed that recovery could be
prioritized. He restated that a parent whose child had been
adopted would not be responsible for recovery. The adoptive
parent would be substituted for the biological parent in
terms of any legal action.
Representative Therriault restated that his intent to change
the dollar amount associated with recovery, not the
mechanism involved. Representative Therriault MOVED to
report CSHB 9 (JUD) out of Committee with individual
recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Kelly WITHDREW his motion to refer HB 9 into
a subcommittee.
Representative Brown OBJECTED to the motion to move CSHB 9
(JUD) from Committee. She stressed that the issues of
responsibility rises to a level of debate due to the
increased dollar amount and ability to attach permanent fund
dividend checks. She suggested that the bill be held for
further consideration. Co-Chair Foster agreed that changes
7
in society warrant changes in statutes.
Representative Therriault WITHDREW his motion to move CSHB 9
(JUD) from Committee. Co-Chair Hanley noted that HB 9 would
be rescheduled for Friday, February 17, 1995.
HB 9 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
8
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|