Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
04/25/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB187 | |
| HB207 | |
| HB217 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 225 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 217 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 207 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 213 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 25, 2007
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 187
"An Act relating to holders of business license endorsements for
sales of tobacco products."
- MOVED CSHB 187(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 207
"An Act relating to questionnaires and surveys administered in
the public schools."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 217
"An Act relating to required onboard disclosures and displays
about tours, flightseeing operations, other shoreside
activities, and visitors bureaus; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 217(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 225
"An Act relating to misconduct involving weapons and bail."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 213
"An Act relating to an aggravating factor at sentencing for
crimes committed at certain shelters and facilities."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 187
SHORT TITLE: TOBACCO SALES VIOLATIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JOHANSEN
03/12/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/12/07 (H) JUD, FIN
03/26/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/26/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/18/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/18/07 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/25/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 207
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILSON
03/19/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/19/07 (H) HES, JUD
04/03/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/03/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/10/07 (H) HES AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/10/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/10/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/12/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/12/07 (H) Moved CSHB 207(HES) Out of Committee
04/12/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/13/07 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 2DP 2NR
04/13/07 (H) DP: CISSNA, WILSON
04/13/07 (H) NR: FAIRCLOUGH, NEUMAN
04/25/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 217
SHORT TITLE: TOURISM DISCLOSURES AND NOTICES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOLMES
03/22/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/22/07 (H) EDT, JUD
04/03/07 (H) EDT AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 106
04/03/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/03/07 (H) MINUTE(EDT)
04/10/07 (H) EDT AT 5:00 PM BARNES 124
04/10/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/10/07 (H) MINUTE(EDT)
04/17/07 (H) EDT AT 5:00 PM BARNES 124
04/17/07 (H) Moved CSHB 217(EDT) Out of Committee
04/17/07 (H) MINUTE(EDT)
04/18/07 (H) EDT RPT CS(EDT) NT 4NR 2AM
04/18/07 (H) NR: JOHANSEN, LYNN, DOLL, NEUMAN
04/18/07 (H) AM: GATTO, KOHRING
04/25/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID SCOTT, Staff
to Representative Kyle Johansen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an explanation of the committee
substitute for HB 187 on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Johansen.
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff
to Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 207 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Wilson.
EMILY NENON, Director
Alaska Government Relations
American Cancer Society (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 207.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 207.
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 207.
JAY BUTLER, M.D., Director
Central Office
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 207.
TAMMY GREEN, Deputy Director
Central Office
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 207.
MARIE DARLIN, Coordinator
AARP Capital City Task Force
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 207.
ANDREE McLEOD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 207.
MATT FELIX, Executive Director
Juneau Affiliate
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. (NCADD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 207.
CHIP THOMA
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 217, provided
comments and responded to questions.
STEVEN HITES, Owner
Skagway Street Car Company, Inc.
Skagway, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217.
ROBERT WYSOCKI, President & CEO
Huna Totem Corporation
Hoonah, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217.
DENNIS DeWITT, State Director
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 217.
JOSEPH W. GELDHOF
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 164, provided
comments as one of the joint prime sponsors of the ballot
initiative pertaining to cruise ship taxation, regulation, and
disclosure.
JOHN DUNLAP, Manager
Allen Marine Tours
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217, Version V,
and proposed amendments.
FREDERIC DRAKE, Owner
Snorkel Alaska
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217.
ROB SCHEER
Great Alaskan Lumberjack Show;
Experience Alaska Tours
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217.
RON PECK, President and Chief Operating Officer
Alaska Travel Industry Association (AlaskaTIA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217.
ALLAN TESCHE, Co-Owner
G Street House Bed and Breakfast
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217.
JOHN FERGUSON
JC Penney Company, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217.
BRUCE BUSTAMANTE, President and CEO
Anchorage Convention & Visitors Bureau (ACVB)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 217.
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
the proposed amendments to HB 217, Version V.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:10:40 PM. Representatives Holmes,
Dahlstrom, Coghill, and Ramras were present at the call to
order. Representatives Lynn, Gruenberg, and Samuels arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 187 - TOBACCO SALES VIOLATIONS
1:11:16 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 187, "An Act relating to holders of business
license endorsements for sales of tobacco products." [In
members' packets were two proposed committee substitutes for HB
187: Version 25-LS0719\M, Luckhaupt, 4/23/07; and Version 773-
07-0086 bil.doc, Drinkwater, 4/2/2007, (3:34 PM).]
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 187, Version 25-LS0719\M, Luckhaupt,
4/23/07, as work draft. There being no objection, Version M was
before the committee.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered a recap of the progress made on HB 187 thus
far and the issues it has raised.
1:14:17 PM
DAVID SCOTT, Staff to Representative Kyle Johansen, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, relayed on behalf of Representative
Johansen that Section 1 of Version M [still] stipulates that a
hearing must be held before a business license endorsement can
be suspended, and that Section 2 makes a hearing "meaningful" by
expanding the evidence that the administrative law judge shall
consider. He noted that in using the term "meaningful," he is
referring to the Alaska Superior Court case, Holiday Alaska,
Inc. v. State of Alaska, wherein the court indicated that in
order for an administrative hearing to be meaningful, the
accused must be granted the opportunity to fully contest issues
of central importance.
MR. SCOTT indicated that Section 3 of Version M establishes new
subsections (t), (u), and (v) to AS 43.70.075. Proposed
subsection (t)(1)-(5), he offered, "basically creates policy for
license holders ... to comply with if they want [an
administrative law judge] to even consider a reduction in
sentence." Specifically, proposed paragraph (1) stipulates that
a license holder must adopt and enforce a written policy against
selling tobacco products to persons under the age of 19;
proposed paragraph (2) stipulates that a license holder must
have informed his/her employees of applicable laws; proposed
paragraph (3) stipulates that the license holder must require
his/her employees to sign a form acknowledging that they have
been informed of and understand the aforementioned written
policy; proposed paragraph (4) stipulates that the license
holder requires his/her employees to verify, via photographic
identification, the age of those purchasing tobacco products;
and proposed paragraph (5) stipulates that a license holder must
establish and enforce disciplinary sanctions [against employees]
for noncompliance.
MR. SCOTT, in response to a comment, observed that there is a
proposed amendment which would stipulate that a period of
suspension may not be reduced to a period of less than 10 days.
He added that the administrative law judge will have the
discretion, but is not required, to reduce the suspension
period. He then relayed that proposed subsection (v) of Section
3 allows the license holder and the department to agree to an
informal disposition of suspension, and allows the department to
reduce the period of suspension but only for a first time
offense.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES pointed out, though, that proposed
subsection (u) stipulates that a reduction in the period of
suspension may not be granted more than twice in a 12-month
period for any one location.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that there is a proposed
amendment addressing that point.
1:19:23 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 25-
LS0719\M.1, Luckhaupt, 4/24/07, which read:
Page 4, following line 14:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(w) A period of suspension may not be reduced
under (t) or (v) of this section to a period of less
than 10 days."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that Version M allows for
the possibility of having the period of suspension reduced if
the license holder is able to bring forth information proving
that he/she complied with proposed AS 43.70.075(t)(1)-(5), and
Amendment 1 merely stipulates that a period of suspension may
not be reduced to a period of less than 10 days. He posited
that Version M addresses the issue of due process for license
holders, while Amendment 1 addresses his concern that any
suspension period not be reduced to less than 10 days. He
added, "When this bill goes to the [House Finance Committee] I
hope that those members do not go below the 10-day minimum,
because I think that stiff penalties have contributed to curbing
minors consuming and purchasing tobacco."
CHAIR RAMRAS, in response to a question, pointed out that the
language on page 1, line 11, of Version M provides for a 20-day
suspension period [for a first offense].
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that endorsement holders who have
done nothing wrong and do everything stipulated in proposed
subsection (t)(1)-(5) but still have an employee who chooses to
sell tobacco to a minor are being treated the same as those
endorsement holders that choose not to train their employees.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that all employers are culpable for the
actions of the employees they hire, and offered some examples.
"At some point we have to draw the line, and in this case, ... I
would like to draw it around ... being firm on making it a
significant penalty [to] conducting commerce if you're not
careful in the people that you hire and the way that they are
going to engage in tobacco sales," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS again expressed disfavor with the concept
of treating all endorsement holders the same.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:26:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
1. P. 2 - L. 25 delete:
"a hearing office"
and add:
"an administrative law judge"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the language to be
deleted should instead read, "a hearing officer", and that
Amendment 2 is a technical amendment acknowledging that those
working in the office of administrative hearings are called
administrative law judges, not hearing officers.
CHAIR RAMRAS, noting that there were no objections, announced
that Amendment 2 was adopted.
1:27:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 3, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
1. P. 4 - L. 5 delete:
granted more than "twice"
and add:
granted more than "once"
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 3.
CHAIR RAMRAS objected for the purpose of discussion, and offered
his understanding that Amendment 3 would stipulate that a
reduction in suspension may be granted only once within a 12-
month period. He then removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected and asked whether a reduction
may only be granted once.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said no, and concurred that a reduction
may only be granted once in a 12-month period. He opined that a
license holder shouldn't be able to break the law and then seek
mitigation of the penalty more than once during a 12-month
period for any one location.
CHAIR RAMRAS concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES pointed out that current law doesn't
provide endorsement holders with any opportunity to seek a
reduction in the suspension period, and added, "We are loosening
the tobacco laws.
CHAIR RAMRAS, noting that there were no further objections,
announced that Amendment 3 was adopted.
1:29:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 4, which, along with a handwritten change, read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, line 14
Add a new subsection to read:
(w) conviction for a violation of AS 11.76.100,
11.76.106, or 11.76.107 by the agent or employee of
the person who holds the business license endorsement
is rebuttably presumed to constitute proof of the fact
that the agent or employee negligently sold a
cigarette, a cigar, or tobacco, or a product
containing tobacco to a person under 19 years of age.
The person who holds the business license endorsement
may overcome the presumption by establishing by clear
and convincing evidence that the agent or employee did
not negligently sell a cigarette, a cigar, or tobacco,
or a product containing tobacco to a person under 19
years of age in violation of AS 11.76.100, 11.76.106,
or 11.76.107 as alleged in the citation issued to the
agent or employee. The presentation of evidence
authorized by this subsection does not constitute a
collateral attack on the conviction described in this
subsection.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Conceptual Amendment 4
would add a new subsection (w) to proposed AS 43.70.075, and
offered that in the Holiday case, the court said:
In order to satisfy due process requirements, the
litigant must be given more than just a hearing. That
hearing must be "meaningful." In determining "whether
a hearing is a meaningful one, [the court is] guided
by 'considerations of fundamental fairness.'" Thus at
an administrative hearing concerning the suspension of
a driver's license "the accused must be granted the
opportunity to fully contest issues of 'central
importance' to the revocation decision."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the same principle applies
with regard to [suspensions of tobacco endorsements].
Conceptual Amendment 4 will clarify that the employer can also
rebut the presumption of the conviction that the employee sold
the tobacco product to someone under the age of 19.
MR. SCOTT relayed that the sponsor is primarily concerned with
correcting the lack of due process in existing law, and offered
his understanding that the sponsor would not object to
Conceptual Amendment 4.
CHAIR RAMRAS remarked that Conceptual Amendment 4 seems to favor
the employer.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred, adding that it favors the
employer's due process rights.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted.
1:33:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 5,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
1. P. 3 - L. 26 add:
", 11.76-106, and 11.76-107"
2. P. 3 - L. 31 add:
", 11.76-106, and 11.76-107"
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, after reviewing the language in
Section 3 of the original version of the bill, withdrew
Amendment 5.
CHAIR RAMRAS recapped the changes that were made to the bill.
1:34:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report the proposed CS for HB
187, Version 25-LS0719\M, Luckhaupt, 4/23/07, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 187(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 207 - STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS
1:35:29 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 207, "An Act relating to questionnaires and
surveys administered in the public schools." [Before the
committee was CSHB 207(HES).]
1:37:01 PM
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff to Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska
State Legislature, sponsor, explained on behalf of
Representative Wilson that HB 207 will change the parental
consent requirements in schools from active to passive for
anonymous surveys only. Active parental consent requires
written permission to participate in the survey. Active
parental consent overburdens the school system and significantly
increases costs involved in conducting student surveys.
Research and experience suggests that the vast majority of
parents would consent to their children participating in such
surveys. Most of the research indicates that failures to
provide written permission are driven by apathy, oversight, or
student error, not be parents' refusal. Many schools are unable
to use the data they collect because there are not enough
participants.
MS. ROONEY explained that passive parental consent notifies and
informs the parents about the nature of a survey, and allows
parents to refuse to allow their child to participate in the
survey. School-based surveys continue to be a reliable method
for gathering valuable population-based information on youth;
this data helps policymakers, educators, program planners, and
parents to better understand important health and social issues
that affect young people's chances of success. Routine
standardized surveys such as the national and state Youth Risk
Behavior Survey (YRBS), which is conducted by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), track trends over time and
help guide and evaluate important health and prevention
programs. State and federal grant programs that rely on these
surveys include programs pertaining to tobacco prevention and
control; obesity prevention; heart disease and stroke; diabetes;
safe and drug-free schools; other substance abuse prevention;
injury prevention - including violence and suicide prevention;
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and sexually transmitted
disease (STD) prevention; and more.
MS. ROONEY offered that the overall statewide response rate to
YRBS in 2005 was 55 percent, thus falling short of the required
response rate of 60 percent. The state was unable to use the
data or publish a report because the data would not be
representative of the high school population. When the state
doesn't get such reports, it loses the ability to have timely
data and track trends over time, and is not able to compare
Alaska data with national data during the same time period.
Under the bill, notification of surveys and their content will
still be sent to every parent of a child that is a candidate
participant just as occurred under active parental consent - a
parent will have the option of reviewing the survey and how it
will be administered before it is actually administered.
Therefore, any parent who doesn't want his/her child to
participate will be able to opt out. This type of parental
consent provides both protection and flexibility for parents and
schools.
1:41:29 PM
EMILY NENON, Director, Alaska Government Relations, American
Cancer Society (ACS), relayed that she is very happy that the
committee is hearing HB 207, adding that the ACS supports using
the best means possible to gather health-related data from
Alaska's youth. That health-related data is of interest to the
ACS; as a science-based organization, the ACS uses youth data to
assess the challenges to children's life-long health patterns,
to set goals and action plans to meet those challenges, and to
monitor the success of its efforts. There really is no debate
over the value of the data collected in such surveys, she
remarked; instead, the debate centers on how the data is
collected. House Bill 207 has been drafted in such a way that
it retains the key parent and student protections of [existing]
statute. In addition to retaining all of the parental
notification requirements, it also makes it practical for
schools to obtain survey data. In conclusion, she reminded the
committee that the surveys are anonymous and voluntary.
1:43:45 PM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), relayed that the AASB advocates for children and
youth, and assists local school districts in providing a quality
education with an emphasis on student achievement through
effective local governance. The ability of the AASB to identify
the issues, look for solutions, and measure results is
contingent upon being able to acquire the information garnered
by these surveys. There are three programs the AASB is involved
in, and all are contingent upon being able to gather information
through various surveys regarding the attitudes and behaviors of
children and youth. He offered, "If you're making an investment
in trying to get communities engaged in helping kids be
successful, you'd like to know that your efforts ... can be
validated and that progress is being made." He concluded by
saying that the AASB supports HB 207.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that under HB 207,
parental consent is required for surveys that are not anonymous,
and that a child can simply decline to participate in a survey
or his/her parents may, in writing, deny permission for their
child to participate.
MR. ROSE added that the parents' written denial of permission
must be submitted to the school principal.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered his understanding of the difference
between active and passive permission, and surmised that not
many notices given to children to take to their parents are
returned.
MR. ROSE said that the AASB is trying to access confidential,
anonymous information, but seeking active permission can inhibit
obtaining that information.
1:49:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
relayed that the College of Nursing at the University of New
Mexico Health Sciences Center found that when active parental
consent is required, parental permission is typically obtained
for only 30-60 percent of the students; in comparison, when
passive consent is used, 93-100 percent of the students
participate. Extensive follow-up may result in 55-100 percent
of parents giving permission but at a significant cost - $20-$25
per student. She relayed that according to the superintendent
of schools in Anchorage, a lot of money is spent on a yearly
basis in trying to obtain permission, but even then
participation is still too low.
CHAIR RAMRAS observed that there is no fiscal note attached to
HB 207.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, in response to a question, offered her
understanding that requiring active consent results in the
exclusion of minorities, of students having problems in school,
and of students already engaged in or at risk of problem
behavior.
1:52:55 PM
JAY BUTLER, M.D., Director, Central Office, Division of Public
Health, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), relayed
that the YRBS is an epidemiologic surveillance tool designed by
the CDC and administered in schools every other year by state
and local health agencies around the country. Alaska has
participated in the YRBS since 1995. Typically, the YRBS in
Alaska is administered to students in 42 high schools in
approximately 20 districts, with just over 2,000 students
eligible to participate. The YRBS asks students about a number
of health-related activities that those in the public health
field would like to encourage such as seat-belt and helmet use,
daily consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, and exercise,
as well as a number of activities that those in the public
health field would like to discourage such as tobacco use,
alcohol use, drug use, and sexual activity.
DR. BUTLER said that in the field of public health, this data is
used to develop and evaluate public health programs designed to
help keep kids healthy and help them become healthy adults.
Student responses are anonymous, and it's not possible to trace
an individual questionnaire back to any given student. For the
YRBS in Alaska, a predefined response rate of 60 percent is
required for statistical validity. The 2003 YRBS survey
provided representative data but only after considerable time
and investment in incentives, and the overall response rate in
2005 was only 55 percent despite incentives provided to help
schools offset the additional administrative burden associated
with active consent; as a result, the 2005 survey did not
provide useful data.
DR. BUTLER said that an evaluation of YRBS data illustrates that
participation rates have been greater in areas using passive
consent. Of the roughly 45 states across the country that
participate, only 2 or 3, including Alaska, have statewide
requirements for active consent. House Bill 207 won't change
the ability of local school districts to create their own
policies regarding consent for student surveys. He pointed out
that there are advantages and disadvantages to both active and
passive consent. Active consent increases parental
participation in the survey process and ensures that consent has
been based on a conscious decision by the student's parent.
Additionally, involvement of parents could build community
support for participation in the survey process which those in
the field of public health view as a methodological advantage.
DR. BUTLER said that passive consent, on the other hand,
improves participation rates and can provide more representative
data; it allows administration of the survey at less cost and
with less burden on schools and teachers. Additionally, with
passive consent, it is [thought] that nonparticipation is due to
parental objection to the survey, not just that parents were not
made aware of the survey because students didn't bring the
notice home.
DR. BUTLER, in response to questions, acknowledged that the
subject matter of some surveys is considered sensitive by some
parents, and their concern is taken seriously. The proposed
switch to passive consent is not meant to take away the ability
of parents to preclude their child from taking a survey.
Furthermore, there is no attempt to cover up the content of a
survey; in fact, the survey is made available to parents if they
request it.
1:58:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether the surveys ask questions
about sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and safe sex. He
noted that some parents believe that their children should not
be exposed to such questions at school.
DR. BUTLER offered that with the YRBS, the nature of the
questions posed to high school students regarding sexual
activity are [preset]. There is a question of whether the
student has been sexually active, and, if so, how many partners
the student has had, and how many the student has had in the
past three months; all these questions includes an answer option
of, "I am not sexually active." There is also a question of
whether the student, within the past 30 days, has been under the
influence of alcohol while sexually active, and there is a
question of whether the student used any type of birth control
or prophylactic during sexual activity. He said that in terms
of the YRBS, he is very comfortable with the wording of the
questions; the questions are in no way leading and are mild in
comparison to the lyrics of songs played over the PA system at
schools.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that the questions are probably
fairly well crafted to address today's issues. He said,
however, that because of the sensitive nature of the issues
addressed in such surveys, he would rather presume that the
parent has the right to grant permission and that the school has
to obtain that permission. He acknowledged that some parents
might be apathetic to the surveys, and that some children simply
won't give their parents the notification and parental consent
form, but there are other parents who, if given the opportunity,
will say "no" to allowing their children to participate in such
surveys. He indicated that he doesn't want to assume that the
non return of parental consent forms can be attributed to a
failure on the part of the parents; instead it may simply be
that the parent is refusing to grant permission.
DR. BUTLER said that there have been studies done regarding the
lack of response to parental consent forms.
2:02:45 PM
TAMMY GREEN, Deputy Director, Central Office, Division of Public
Health, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
concurred that there have been follow-up studies done to
determine why parental consent forms aren't returned, and a fair
amount of those questioned said they simply forgot to fill out
the form. These studies also determined that given the choice,
those parents who will object to granting their children
permission to participate in a survey will respond regardless of
whether consent is active or passive. Notwithstanding these
studies, she offered, there is no way to know for sure, in each
case, why the parental consent form was not returned. It is the
school district's responsibility, she opined, to make sure that
parents are informed about surveys and are given the chance to
look at them; parents should never feel that there has been an
attempt by the school to hide anything about the surveys.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that if active consent is not the
method used, parents will be left behind on this issue.
2:04:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether the parental consent forms are
provided in languages other than English.
MS. GREEN said she is not sure but thinks that they are not
provided in other languages, adding that she will research that
issue further. In response to another question, she offered her
belief that under the bill, parents must be notified regardless
of whether the survey is anonymous.
CHAIR RAMRAS observed that the bill is not specific regarding
whether the required notification must detail the subject matter
of a survey.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that under
existing statute, a questionnaire that inquires into family or
personal affairs may not be administered, regardless of whether
the questionnaire is anonymous, unless written permission is
first obtained from the parent or guardian, and that under the
bill, an anonymous questionnaire, regardless of the subject
matter, can be administered unless the parent specifically says
that his/her child cannot participate.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he is comfortable with switching to a passive-
consent approach, but wants to ensure that schools actively
pursue notifying parents about the subject matter of any
upcoming surveys.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that his belief is that the
parent should have to specifically grant permission, each time,
before a student is given a survey regardless of whether it is
anonymous.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that under
the bill, two weeks' notice to the parent is required regardless
of whether the survey is anonymous.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed a desire to alter the bill such that
schools will be required to notify the parents of the subject
matter of any upcoming survey regardless of whether a passive
consent approach is used.
2:12:03 PM
MARIE DARLIN, Coordinator, AARP Capital City Task Force, after
relaying that the AARP has submitted a letter of support for
HB 207, offered that the AARP's membership includes grandparents
who are very concerned about the issues raised in surveys as
those issues relate to their grandchildren. She said that the
type of information garnered by surveys is important, and noted
that the question of how to conduct such surveys was an issue
for the Juneau school board even in the '60s and '70s when she
served on it. She posited that any school board is going to pay
very careful attention to notifying parents about what questions
a survey contains. This bill will result in better
participation rates, she indicated, and noted that parents will
have two weeks notice to consider whether to withhold consent.
MS. DARLIN expressed hope that any school district that adopts a
passive consent approach will send out a copy of the survey so
that parents will be aware of the questions that will be asked.
It should be the school board's responsibility, rather than the
student's, to ensure that parents are properly notified and
informed about the types of questions a survey contains and what
the resulting information will be used for. The issue is one of
getting useful information in the easiest way possible, and
allowing parents the ability to deny permission would seem to
take care of their concern because even then the responsibility
is given back to the parents. In conclusion, she said that the
AARP supports HB 207.
2:15:34 PM
ANDREE McLEOD said she opposes HB 207, and relayed that in 1999,
her son participated in a survey without her being aware that he
was doing so; as a result she went to the Anchorage school board
to try to get the policy changed, but because of the funding
associated with such surveys, it was really hard to get anything
accomplished at the school-board level, and so she had to go to
the state level to get the law changed. She opined that HB 207
diminishes the role of parents' interaction in their children's
schools, adding, "We need to maintain the parents' authority in
their child's education, not less." She went on to say: "I see
this as a fundamental issue of parents versus schools and who
has the right. Parents have the right to their child's
experience in the schools. They own it. And they give consent
to do certain things at the schools."
MS. McLEOD pointed out that the YRBS is not only given to high
school students, but to students even younger. She relayed that
back in 1999, she was about 43 or 44 years old, and that when
she read the YRBS to see what kinds of questions were being
asked, she found that the numerous questions regarding sex left
her, even at the age of 44, with the thought that she ought to
be having sex. Such surveys ask a lot of questions about
private family affairs, and, prior to 1999, these questions were
being asked of children without their parents knowing it. It
was a very hard-fought battle to get that situation changed,
particularly given that funding issues played a big part. She
opined that passage of HB 207 will again result in violating the
parents' role in their children's school experience, and that
the bill actually goes against what its stated intent is.
2:20:01 PM
MATT FELIX, Executive Director, Juneau Affiliate, National
Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. (NCADD), said
that the Juneau Affiliate of NCADD depends a lot on grants and
contracts, and so is concerned about the lack of data and the
lack of accuracy in the data. Currently there are two major
surveys that the NCADD depends upon to obtain federal grants,
but one of those surveys is not conducted in Alaska because the
state doesn't use passive consent and so it is too expensive to
conduct; the data that that survey gathers pertains to drug and
alcohol use, and it would be great, from his organization's
perspective, he relayed, to have that data so as to be able to
compare Alaska with other states and so as to be able to apply
for certain federal grants. Currently the YRBS "is the only
thing that we have" and its accuracy is inadequate at this point
for use in obtaining federal monies. He added, "I think we all
realize that we do have a serious problem ... with [drugs] and
alcohol." In response to a question, he said he strongly
supports HB 207.
MR. FELIX, in response to questions, offered that the survey
questions are worded and the statistics are gathered in such a
way so as to minimize the margin of error, and that funding is
one of the main reasons for seeking accurate data.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that some of his constituents
might be intimidated by having to submit a written denial of
permission to the school principal as is required by the bill,
and questioned whether the committee ought to alter the bill
such that it would be possible to submit the written denial of
permission to either the principal or the teacher.
MR. ROSE relayed that the 53 school districts in Alaska address
this issue in different fashions; for example, in some small
communities, the school districts send out self-addressed,
stamped return envelopes along with the notice. He mentioned,
however, that in larger communities there are a number of
children who don't have parental oversight, and so each school
district has to address the issue as appropriate, though smaller
school districts can be far more flexible in obtaining active
consent.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 207. He then asked the
sponsor to comment on the concerns raised thus far.
2:27:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON provided members with a copy of a YRBS,
and noted that of the 99 questions asked, only 7 of them pertain
to sex. She assured committee members that the proposed change
in the law is not about funding; instead it is about prevention
and about having the knowledge that can be used to protect
children. Although there are state programs that seek to combat
obesity and drug and alcohol abuse, as examples, the state can't
do everything, and the federal government is willing to provide
funds if the data accurately reflects a need.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said that speaking as a parent of four
and a grandparent of [soon-to-be four], she intends to be
involved in her grandchildren's schools, and asked whether
volunteers could simply be used to phone parents and remind them
to fill out the active consent form. She said that she is not
so much concerned about the subject matter of the questionnaires
as she is about a parent's right to know what is going on at
school. She surmised that HB 207 could deprive parents of that
right if they are not made aware of surveys that there children
are being asked to participate in. Regardless that people
complain that it is not the schools or teachers' responsibility
to raise kids or discipline them, teachers are often stuck doing
such things anyway because they care, but as a parent, she is
not expecting the state to do those things for her.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that CSHB 207(HES) would be set aside.
HB 217 - TOURISM DISCLOSURES AND NOTICES
2:33:12 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 217, "An Act relating to required onboard
disclosures and displays about tours, flightseeing operations,
other shoreside activities, and visitors bureaus; and providing
for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB
217(EDT), and included in members' packets was a proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 217, Version 25-LS0696\V,
Bannister, 4/19/07.]
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that he has a potential conflict of
interest because of his close economic association with the
cruise ship industry, and that he has submitted a written
request for an advisory opinion from the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics regarding his participation in the
legislative process as it relates to HB 217.
CHAIR RAMRAS then turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.
2:35:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 217, Version 25-LS0696\V,
Bannister, 4/19/07, as the work draft. There being no
objection, Version V was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, speaking as the sponsor, relayed that
HB 217 will address some unintended consequences of [the
recently passed ballot initiative regarding cruise ship
taxation, regulation, and disclosure], specifically with regard
to the provisions pertaining to disclosure; HB 217 proposes to
mitigate those unintended consequences while maintaining the
ballot initiative's intent as described in the voter information
pamphlet to provide for real disclosure and consumer protection.
Version V provides for disclosure additional to that which was
required by the ballot initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES relayed that Version V addresses the tours
that are sold on board a cruise ship, and requires four levels
of disclosure. When a tour is being sold on board a cruise ship
by somebody who is aboard the cruise ship, he/she must disclose,
both orally and in writing, that the sale is a paid promotion -
a commission is being paid - and that there may be other
alternatives available at the port of call; must provide
information regarding visitors bureaus in the ports of call -
including the physical address, web site address, and telephone
number; and, if the commission exceeds 25 percent of the total
sale price, must disclose that information as well.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said Version V maintains the ballot
initiative's requirements that all of the aforementioned
information be disclosed both orally and in writing and that the
written information be in 14-point off-color font. Under the
language of the ballot initiative, the only information that had
to be disclosed was the exact dollar amount of the commission,
but the problem with that is that one would be able to use that
information to calculate the tour's actual price as charged by
the vendor, and this puts tour companies at a competitive
disadvantage.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked why 25 percent was chosen as the
threshold.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES explained that 25 percent was chosen as
being a commission high enough that the consumer would want to
know about it. In response to another question, she clarified
that under both the ballot initiative and HB 217, either the
amount of the commission or the percentage of the total price
the commission constituted had to be disclosed; that under CSHB
217(EDT), only the fact that the percentage of the commission
exceeded 33 percent had to be disclosed; and that under Version
V, only the fact that the percentage of the commission exceeded
25 percent has to be disclosed.
2:43:07 PM
CHIP THOMA, after relaying that he has been involved in issues
related to cruise ships for a number of years, said that he
supports Version V of HB 217. Version V removes specificity
regarding the amount of commissions, thereby giving all tour
vendors a level playing field; he opined that that is what the
voters wanted. He noted that 81,000 people voted "yes" on the
ballot initiative, which included disclosure provisions for the
benefit of consumers - the passengers aboard the cruise ships.
MR. THOMA relayed that extensive testimony in the House Special
Committee on Economic Development, International Trade and
Tourism indicated that for at least one tour vendor, 70 percent
of his shore excursion customers "come to him" via the company's
web site. Thus, Mr. Thoma surmised, the current problems
related to having sufficient disclosure on the cruise ships will
be decreasing as time goes on because fewer passengers will be
purchasing such excursions while on board the cruise ships. He
characterized this required disclosure as good because it will
give consumers more information. He cautioned against providing
an exemption from these disclosure provisions for those cruise
ship companies that use private docks, noting that most of the
ports currently being used by cruise ships in Alaska also have
private docks associated with them.
MR. THOMA, in conclusion, said he supports Version V, and urged
the committee to forward the legislation.
2:46:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether other entities selling
shore excursions need to disclose information about the
commissions they receive or whether commissions earned in other
industries need to be disclosed.
MR. THOMA said not to his knowledge, with the exception of real
estate commissions.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS characterized the commission disclosure
provision in Version V as being better than what was provided
for via the ballot initiative, but expressed concern, however,
that requiring disclosure about commissions will affect the
marketplace in unintended ways.
MR. THOMA pointed out that the disclosure provision in Version V
only applies to tours sold on cruise ships. According to
testimony heard in a prior committee, he relayed, the cruise
ship, not the tour vender, determines what the commission will
be.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he would prefer to call it a
"markup" rather than a commission, and offered his belief that
companies will mark up the price of something as much as they
can get away with. Referring to the language in paragraph (2)
of Section 1 - "other alternatives at different prices and with
different features" - he questioned whether companies paying
different insurance premiums, for example, are really selling
the same product. "How much detail on a business deal do you
want to get involved with," he asked.
MR. THOMA said none.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS argued that that is exactly what is
occurring via the bill's disclosure provisions, adding that
there can be a world of difference between companies and what
they provide even if they are seemingly selling the same
product. He expressed disfavor with the concept of requiring
cruise ships to promote businesses they don't like.
MR. THOMA pointed out that with regard to the commission
disclosure provision, [only the fact that a commission is more
than 25 percent of the total cost of the tour] will be
disclosed, reiterating that this provision only pertains to
tours sold on board cruise ships.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS reiterated his argument that cruise ships
will be forced to advertise tour companies they don't approve
of.
MR. THOMA offered his understanding that cruise ships won't be
required to advertise other tour companies, merely that the
cruise ships will be required to disclose that other options may
be available.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES concurred with that summation.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS characterized that as "advertising"
nonetheless.
2:53:58 PM
STEVEN HITES, Owner, Skagway Street Car Company, Inc., after
relaying that his company offers sightseeing tours in Skagway
and has been doing so for 21 years, and that over 40 percent of
his company's business is "sold on the ship," expressed support
for HB 217. Referring to the language in paragraph (1) of
Section 1 - "that the onboard sale is a paid promotion by a
shoreside vendor" - he offered his belief that the intention of
this provision is to [promote] disclosure and the truth.
However, he pointed out, the truth is that the term "paid
promotion" is not correct: "we don't pay the cruise line
anything, there is no promotion, this is actually confused with
an onboard shopping program that ... [existed prior]; the ship
is a store, they buy wholesale products from us and pay us for
what ... they sell." He suggested, therefore, that the language
be changed to, "that the onboard sale is a retail-wholesale
relationship between the vessel operator and shoreside vendor".
2:55:55 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS said he would be introducing an amendment that will
address that concern, agreeing that the term, "paid promotion"
is inaccurate, and offered an example of a retail-wholesale
relationship he was familiar with.
MR. HITES said he also supports having the language in
paragraphs (2) and (3) of Section 1 remain the same because that
language accurately reflects the relationship and the situation.
With regard to paragraph (4) of Section 1, he said that if the
goal is to have the disclosure be truthful, then the word
"commission" is not really accurate because what is actually
happening is that a wholesale product is being marked up by a
retailer, and although that markup can be expressed as a
percentage of the retail price, "the '25 percent' is not
accurately portraying the universe and the marketplace." He
went on to say:
I have a tour sold by a major cruise line that has
early- and late-season sale pricing offered ... in the
shoulder season ... - both ... spring and fall. They
sell this tour of mine for 10 percent less than they
do in the height of the season. They lower their
retail price to move more of my product - I'm
basically a volume seller of product to a store. The
result is that they sell my tour for what is
essentially only a 10 percent markup. This is a fact.
Therefore, my point is, I know of no other retail
business that is required by Alaska state law to
disclose the percentage of a retail markup. Can any
of you name one? If so, we are putting an arbitrary
number here. If you absolutely have to, then, for
heaven sakes please make it a number [that's] as low
as possible because the lower the number the more you
disclose the truth, because it's not that relationship
at all.
MR. HITES then referred to the language on page 1, line 8 -
"both orally and in writing" - and said that thousands of his
company's sales are made online, and since current technology
allows tickets to be printed and delivered to the passenger
without him/her ever seeing the crewmember delivering the
ticket, it would make more sense for the language to be changed
to, "orally or in writing".
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that there is a proposed amendment that
will address that specific concern.
MR. HITES, in conclusion, offered that time is of the essence
given that the first cruise ship is scheduled to come to Alaska
on May 5th, opined that the legislature does have a legal right
to amend an initiative, and asked that some form of HB 217 be
passed from committee on to the House [floor].
3:01:27 PM
ROBERT WYSOCKI, President & CEO, Huna Totem Corporation, offered
that Icy Straight Point is a private port - a private
destination on private property where guests disembark, embark,
and take most of the tours on the corporation's property. This
is a very different model than any other Southeast Alaska port,
he opined, adding that only one ship at a time docks at Icy
Straight Point, all of the port's assets are owned by Huna Totem
Corporation, and there is no outside investment. He went on to
say:
We focus a lot on nature, culture, and history in a
different way than every other port. As a private
destination, we had to invest millions and millions of
dollars to create the destination. Again, the port is
not the City of Hoonah - it's Icy Straight Point - and
we had to invest heavily in creating an attraction and
set of tours that would attract cruise guests.
MR. WYSOCKI said that the only way the corporation recovers its
substantial investment is through tour revenue, and so it's very
critical that the corporation experience a very high volume of
tourists, and with substantial enough margins, in order to be
able to recoup its investment and survive. He explained that
the ballot initiative addresses two points that don't actually
apply to the corporation: one, there are no independent tours
being offered at Icy Straight Point, and, two, there is no
convention and visitors bureau there. He then mentioned that
this year, for this project, the corporation will bring in over
$1.5 million to the community of Hoonah; with the decline in
fishing and logging revenues, the Icy Straight Point project is
considered to be the economic engine of Hoonah.
MR. WYSOCKI relayed that this coming year, it is estimated that
over 15 percent of all cruise ship passengers that visit Alaska
will come to Icy Straight Point. He said that the Huna Totem
Corporation absolutely supports disclosing to guests its
relationship with its cruise partners - "they are retailing our
wholesale product." "Our cruise guests are on lines that had to
take an extra risk with us in marketing and carrying a port that
nobody knew about," he added; for the Icy Straight Point
destination, cruise ship companies offer their expertise and do
much more marketing on the corporation's behalf - "they earn
every penny of their retail markup." The community of Hoonah is
very supportive of Huna Totem Corporation's project.
MR. WYSOCKI explained that the cruise ship lines have verified
that the corporation is offering a quality product, is properly
insured, will take proper care of their passengers, and that
passengers will have recourse should something go wrong.
Economic development in rural Alaska is very challenging, and
those that are willing and able to pursue such development take
a substantial risk and therefore deserve to be able to compete
fairly. He opined that although the intent of the ballot
measure was to provide for community involvement and to allow
convention and visitors bureaus to "spread around" competition,
the Huna Totem Corporation is in an entirely different
situation. In conclusion, he asked the committee to consider
the concerns of his corporation as HB 217 proceeds through the
process.
MR. WYSOCKI, in response to questions, offered his understanding
that although Icy Straight Point is currently the only such
private port - private destination - another one is "in the
works" for Southeast Alaska.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that there is a proposed amendment that
will address Mr. Wysocki's concern.
3:08:27 PM
DENNIS DeWITT, State Director, National Federation of
Independent Business (NFIB), relayed that the NFIB supports HB
217 as being better than current statute, appreciates the work
done on the bill, but concurs with some of the concerns
expressed earlier. He opined that it is important that cruise
ships not be required to list the names of other tour vendors
that might be offering similar tours, and expressed favor with
Version V's language that requires a cruise ship line to notify
passengers that there might be other alternatives available at
different prices - not that the other alternatives will be
available at lower prices. He relayed that the NFIB does have
concern, however, that Version V has reduced the commission
disclosure threshold to 25 percent; the NFIB instead supports
the 33 percent threshold provided for in CSHB 217(EDT).
MR. DeWITT opined that even Version V of HB 217 is substantively
better than current law. The NFIB is anxious to see the
aforementioned amendment regarding retail-wholesale language, he
said, adding that he has never shopped with an eye towards what
the retailer's markup rate is; rather, he shops with an eye
towards what the retailer's retail price ultimately is. He
offered his belief that the notion that sharing information
about the difference between retail and wholesale price is
helpful to the consumer has not been substantiated in the
marketplace. In conclusion, he too said that time is of concern
given that the cruise ship season is about to start.
3:11:46 PM
JOSEPH W. GELDHOF relayed that he is one of the joint prime
sponsors of the aforementioned ballot initiative pertaining to
cruise ship taxation, regulation, and disclosure. He
acknowledged that what he and his co-sponsor intended in
sponsoring the ballot initiative has very little legal weight in
terms of legislative intent, adding his belief that the only
legitimate legislative intent that the courts would be looking
at would be encompassed in the initiative's transmittal letter
to the lieutenant governor. Also acknowledging that the
legislature has the authority to amend a law adopted via ballot
initiative, he opined that in this instance, the legislature
should change the law that he helped write and enact. He
elaborated by saying that the shoreside vendors in Alaska have
articulated a concern which a lot of people who worked on the
initiative believe should be corrected. How that concern gets
addressed has been the source of a lot of heated discussion, but
the goal of telling Alaskans that deliver flightseeing tours
that they don't have to have the cruise ships disclose the
commission that they receive, or the amount of the commission,
is worthy of pursuing.
MR. GELDHOF said that Representative Holmes is to be commended
for working through this issue and coming up with what he
characterized as a realistic amendment - a compromise - to the
current law that will work in the real world. He also pointed
out that the president of Princess Tours, Charlie Ball, has been
helpful in attempting to marshal support among those in the tour
industry with various view points, and opined that Mr. Ball's
views ought to be considered by the legislature. Mr. Geldhof
concurred that there should be a threshold for commission
disclosure, whether that threshold is 10 percent or higher, and
that there should be disclosure regarding the fact that there
are alternatives to particular tours available. On that point,
he suggested that convention and visitors bureaus be responsible
for listing specific alternatives, not the cruise ship industry.
He also suggested that the committee change the penalty for
violation from $100 to $1,000. Mr. Geldhof offered his belief
that Mr. Ball would accept those changes, and concluded by
saying that HB 217 needs to passed and passed soon because local
tour vendors need the relief proposed by the bill.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that he disagrees with all the concepts
embodied in the ballot initiative.
MR. GELDHOF, in response to comments and a question, said he is
not sorry to have included the disclosure provisions in the
ballot initiative because he believes that markets work best
when there is "as close as we can come to" perfect information
being disclosed, and that such disclosure is particularly of
benefit to the consumer. He added, "Our goal was not to set up
an unworkable system that would punish or harm ...; it was to at
least provide some information or cue consumers that there was a
- frankly, in some cases, based on my knowledge - very
significant commission." He offered that if one were to look at
the mortgage-finance industry, for example, one would find that
the federal government has required some form of disclosure
regarding commission percentages.
MR. GELDHOF, in response to a question regarding whether lawyers
should be required to disclose the range of fees that they might
charge different clients, said:
I think there are many instances where - as a matter
of good, sound public policy - consumers ... need to
be cued that at the point of sale, the transaction
costs are very high. And that's all we're trying to
do, and I think Representative Holmes has come up with
an approach that doesn't disclose the commission or
the amount; ... [this approach] meets the needs of the
vendors, here, but provides ... sort of perhaps a
yellow flag in some situations that maybe there's
reason to think that you might want to shop around.
That's all we're saying.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed out that as a licensed real estate
broker, he is required by law to disclose his commissions, which
are negotiable.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM, noting that constituents have told her
that to alter the aforementioned ballot initiative would be to
ignore the will of the people and that the people knew exactly
what they were voting for, asked Mr. Geldhof how he would
respond to constituents who demand that the legislature not
alter the aforementioned ballot initiative.
MR. GELDHOF suggested that legislators could simply respond by
saying:
We have preserved the spirit of disclosure - the
requirements that consumers are protected - and we've
avoided a situation where ... our local venders may
have had to disclose information they were reluctant
to [disclose because it] ... may have interfered with
their contractual relationships or their financial
relationships with a very large industry ....
3:26:42 PM
JOHN DUNLAP, Manager, Allen Marine Tours, relayed that his
company operates passenger vessels throughout Southeast Alaska
and employs over 200 during the peak of the season, and that
over 90 percent of his company's customers are cruise ship
passengers. He said he believes that the disclosure language of
Version V meets the intent of the voters better than the
language in the ballot initiative, adding that he concurs with
some of the points made earlier by prior speakers. He said he
supports passage of HB 217 and the proposed amendments that have
been referenced thus far. In conclusion, he thanked the sponsor
for her work on the legislation.
3:28:41 PM
FREDERIC DRAKE, Owner, Snorkel Alaska, said he supports HB 217,
adding that 100 percent of his customers have come from cruise
ship shore excursion sales. He mentioned that at one point he
was employed by a cruise ship line as a shore excursion manager
and so he is familiar with that aspect of the industry as well.
His company really relies on the cruise ships' ability to
promote his company's tours, he said, adding "we give them a net
rate we're happy with, they go ahead and mark it up to whatever
they want, but I'm in support of that because they go through
all the marketing, they print all the brochures, they have web
sites, [and] they handle all of our sales." In conclusion, he
said that his company supports HB 217 as being a way to address
the problems with the ballot initiative.
3:30:40 PM
ROB SCHEER, Great Alaskan Lumberjack Show; Experience Alaska
Tours, said he supports HB 217, Version V. Referring to the
commission disclosure threshold, he explained that for his
company's various products, it took about eight years to develop
a price structure that allowed for a retail markup that
warranted cruise line industry support of venders such as
himself. Therefore, that provision of the bill could give some
vendors an unfair market advantage and could result in
dissuading passengers from participating in an excursion just
because there is a markup in price. He said he supports
lowering the commission disclosure threshold to 10 percent and
notifying passengers that the tours are being offered as part of
a wholesale-retail relationship. He surmised that such a low
threshold would be triggered for almost all tours and so
wouldn't create an unfair advantage for some vendors. In
conclusion, he thanked the sponsor for her work on the bill, and
offered his belief that the tour vendor industry does need
relief from the problems raised by the ballot initiative.
3:35:04 PM
RON PECK, President and Chief Operating Officer, Alaska Travel
Industry Association (AlaskaTIA), relayed that over 80 percent
of the AlaskaTIA's membership is made up of visitor-related
businesses with less than 100 employees. He opined that as
currently written, the ballot initiative requires disclosure of
confidential business information and poses a significant threat
to a single sector of the tourism business. He indicated that
he is in support of HB 217, adding that the AlaskaTIA has
[adopted] a resolution in support of the bill as well.
Referring to page 1, line 13, he suggested that the word "or"
replace the word "and", because not all visitors bureaus have
"referral" offices on site at the dock. In conclusion, Mr. Peck
said the AlaskaTIA supports Mr. Hites comments regarding the
wholesale-retail relationship, and urges the committee to move
forward with the bill given that the cruise ship season is about
to start.
3:37:31 PM
ALLAN TESCHE, Co-Owner, G Street House Bed and Breakfast, after
noting that he sees hundreds of out-of-state visitors every
year, many having come to Alaska on cruise ships, said he
supports HB 217. He suggested, however, that members give
further consideration to the word, "orally" as used on page 1,
line 8, because a number of shore-based excursions are booked
electronically onboard cruise ships, and so to require oral
disclosure might prove cumbersome. With regard to the issue of
the commission disclosure threshold, he surmised that it is up
to the committee to determine what percentage that threshold
should be, and that the original purpose of the ballot
initiative was to provide passengers with the information that
there is a markup in the price of the tours being offered on
board the ship.
MR. TESCHE surmised that the question is whether Alaskans and
small businesses are better off with the original language of
the ballot initiative or with the language currently in HB 217.
He opined that the initiative's language will pit shore-based
operators against each other because confidential business
information will be disclosed, and will force passengers to base
almost all their decisions regarding excursions on price alone.
Currently operators of shore-based businesses can negotiate
private agreements with cruise ship lines, but they will not be
allowed to do so under the ballot initiative's language, he
opined, adding that the language in HB 217 [Version V] requires
cruise ships to inform passengers that a mark up in price exists
but does not go so far as to require the disclosure of
confidential information.
MR. TESCHE, in response to the earlier question regarding how to
respond to constituents who think changing a law adopted via
ballot initiative is always a bad thing, suggested that
legislators could respond by reminding constituents that
ultimately the legislature is required to do the best job it can
in implementing the will of the people and that the initiative's
sponsors have indicated that there is a problem with the
initiative's language. In conclusion, he surmised that the
legislature is going to solve that problem in a way that still
protects onshore operators, and again said he supports HB 217.
3:41:45 PM
JOHN FERGUSON, JC Penney Company, Inc., opined that the
requirements outlined in the ballot initiative fly in the face
of normal, free market pricing, and sets a precedent that could
infringe upon all retail operations in Alaska. A cruise ship
company is no different than any other retail venue, be it in a
shopping mall or in an open-air market; goods and services are
purchased at the wholesale market and resold at the retail
market for profit. That profit margin is proprietary
information that is not disclosed to the public or to other
competitors in the industry, and so to require the disclosure of
that information destroys the market process and usurps free
trade and fair pricing. In conclusion, he said he applauds the
legislature's attempts, via HB 217, at correcting the flaws
embodied in the ballot initiative.
3:43:39 PM
BRUCE BUSTAMANTE, President and CEO, Anchorage Convention &
Visitors Bureau (ACVB), after speaking a bit about his
organization, relayed that the ACVB has passed a resolution in
support of HB 217 because it views the disclosure language of
the ballot initiative as being very damaging to Anchorage's
independent businesses, both large and small. He concluded by
saying that he appreciates the sponsor's efforts to address this
issue, and urged passage of the bill.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM closed public testimony on HB 217.
3:46:21 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
P.2, L.2 Delete "25" insert "20"
P.2, L.5 Delete "25" insert "20"
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his belief that Amendment 1 will capture
all vendors, putting them on equal footing, and still respects
the intent of the ballot initiative.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she does not feel strongly about the
proposed change, but wouldn't want to go below a threshold of 20
percent.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM removed her objection, and announced that
Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:47:26 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which, along
with handwritten changes, read [original punctuation provided]:
P.1, L.8 - after "disclose" delete "both orally and in
writing" insert "orally or in writing at the point of
sale."
CHAIR RAMRAS said that Amendment 2 will address situations
involving tickets that are sold on board ship via the Internet
wherein passengers never speak with the person delivering the
tickets. He offered his belief that Amendment 2 will make
commerce easier to execute while still respecting the will of
the voters.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:48:33 PM
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law (DOL), opined that Amendment 2 makes sense in
that the language of the current statute was intended to require
disclosure of commissions or paid promotions in an oral manner
if the presentation [for the product] was given orally. And if
the presentation [for the product] was only provided in a
written format, then it would make sense to require the
disclosure to be in writing as well. It would not make sense to
require cruise ships to have someone waiting around to provide
oral disclosure if there never was an oral presentation [of the
product]. He mentioned that it would be his job to enforce the
provisions of HB 217.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether it would be sufficient to have
the written disclosure regarding commissions in the same place
as the written disclosure regarding visitors bureaus. He
questioned how one would prove that oral disclosure ever
occurred.
MR. SNIFFEN surmised that evidence of a lack of oral disclosure
would have to come from the consumers, and acknowledged that
confirming that an oral disclosure occurred can be problematic.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed out that if consumers didn't know
that oral disclosure was required, they wouldn't know to
complain.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES opined that if there is written material
being presented, then the disclosure should also be in writing,
and if the presentation is given orally, then the disclosure
should also be given orally. She said she doesn't want to
create extra work for cruise ship staff.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN suggested that all disclosure should be in
writing.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked Representative Holmes whether she
would be amenable to altering Amendment 2 to specify that
disclosure [occur in the same fashion as the presentation].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES indicated that she would be.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, in response to a question, reiterated that
the disclosure should be in writing, and then, if someone wanted
to provide oral disclosure as well, that would be fine, but
written disclosure should be sufficient.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that he would not be in favor of that
amendment to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN argued that other information must already
be disclosed in writing and so there shouldn't be a problem with
requiring additional written disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN expressed an interest in amending the
language in the bill such that all disclosure occur in writing.
3:55:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that Amendment 2 could be
altered in that fashion.
CHAIR RAMRAS [although no formal motion was made] said he would
accept an amendment to Amendment 2 such that Amendment 2, as
amended, would read:
P.1, L.8 - after "disclose" delete "both orally and in
writing" insert "in writing at the point of sale."
[Amendment 2 was treated as amended.]
CHAIR RAMRAS said he is assuming that if a ticket is slipped
under the passenger's stateroom door, the written disclosure
would be as well.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that the passenger should see the
written disclosure before the ticket is bought.
CHAIR RAMRAS said, "Unless you bought it online."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked whether there were any other
objections to [Amendment 2, as amended]. There being none,
Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.
3:57:14 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
P.1, L.8 after "future" insert "public"
P.2, L.11 Insert a new Sec. 2 to read "For the purpose
of this statute, a public port does not include a
private destination resort."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
CHAIR RAMRAS explained that Amendment 3 would address the
concern raised by Mr. Wysocki regarding Icy Straight Point.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she would be maintaining her
objection, and explained that although she is sympathetic to Mr.
Wysocki's concern, Amendment 3 would exempt cruise ships from
having to disclose anything about Icy Straight Point. She
characterized the change proposed by Amendment 3 as overbroad,
and offered her understanding that Version V already contains
language that will address Mr. Wysocki's concern.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked that Amendment 3 [be set aside]. There being
no objection, [the motion was left pending].
3:58:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 12
Insert new section 2:
"AS 45.50.474(c) is amended to read: (c)
Each violation of this section constitutes an unfair
trade practice under AS 45.50.471 [, AND SHALL RESULT
IN A PENALTY OF NOT MORE THAN $100 FOR EACH
VIOLATION]"
Renumber as necessary
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES explained that Amendment 4 would address
another unintended consequence resulting from the language of
the ballot initiative. Prior to the adoption of the ballot
initiative, violation of a statutory disclosure requirement
constituted an unfair trade practice, and the penalties for such
were already defined in statute, but the initiative attempted to
attach a specific penalty, and thus confused what it applied to
and how it worked and actually lowered the penalty. Amendment 4
returns the statutory language of AS 45.50.474(c) to what it was
before the ballot initiative was passed.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM questioned whether, if Amendment 4 is
adopted, it will take away the existing penalty.
MR. SNIFFEN said that Amendment 4 is a good amendment from a
couple of perspectives. Concurring that prior to the adoption
of the ballot initiative, penalties for violations of the unfair
trade practices Act were already statutorily provided for -
penalties ranging from $1,000 to $25,000 - he noted that there
had been some indication that the ballot initiative's reference
to a $100 penalty should instead have been a reference to a
$1,000 penalty. Under Amendment 4, just as under the prior law,
the court would have the discretion to assess a penalty of
between $1,000 and $25,000 depending on the nature of the
violation.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM removed her objection, and asked whether
there were any further objections. There being none,
Amendment 4 was adopted.
4:01:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 5, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, lines 9 to 10
Amend to read:
"1) That the onboard sale results in a
commission paid by the shoreside vendor;"
Renumber as necessary
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES explained that Amendment 5 addresses the
confusion resulting from the bill's current use of the term
"paid promotion".
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that the term
"commission" also creates some confusion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, after acknowledging that there is another
proposed amendment forthcoming that addresses that language,
withdrew Amendment 5.
4:02:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 6, which
read:
Page 1, line 5
Insert new section:
"AS 45.50.474 is amended to read: (a) A
person may not conduct a promotion on board a cruise
ship that mentions or features a business in a state
port that has paid something of value for the purpose
of having the business mentioned, featured, or
otherwise promoted, unless the person conducting the
promotion clearly and fully discloses orally and in
all written materials used in the promotion that the
featured businesses have paid to be included in the
promotion. If the value paid by the business is a
commission of more than 10% of any single sale, the
disclosure shall also state that more than a 10%
commission is being retained by the person or entity
making the promotion, and that other alternatives may
be available at a port of call; and the disclosure
shall provide the address, Internet website address,
and telephone number of any existing visitors bureaus
at each future port of call. All such written notice
of disclosure shall be in a type that is not less than
14-point typeface and in a contrasting color
calculated to draw attention to the disclosure.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES explained that Amendment 6 would put tour
sales occurring in shoreside stores on the same footing as tour
sales occurring on board vessels, except that the commission
disclosure threshold shall be 10 percent. In response to a
question, she offered her understanding that Amendment 6 would
not affect the 20 percent commission disclosure threshold
established via Amendment 1 for onboard sales.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM removed her objection, and asked whether
there were any further objections. There being none,
Amendment 6 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the existing statutory
language being added to by Amendment 6 still makes reference to
oral disclosure, and suggested that perhaps some conforming
changes might need to be made.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES acknowledged that point.
4:04:24 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 7, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
P.1, L.9-10 Delete "paid promotion by a shoreside
vendor" and insert "retail/wholesale relationship
between the vessel operator and the shoreside vendor."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
She said she likes Amendment 7 because it more accurately
reflects the relationship that exists, though it doesn't reflect
that money is being retained by the cruise line.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to amend Amendment 7 such
that the words, "that results in a percentage of the sale
retained by the cruise line" would be added after the word,
"vendor". There being no objection, Amendment 7 was amended.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to Amendment 7, as
amended.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked whether there were any further
objections. There being none, Amendment 7, as amended, was
adopted.
4:06:39 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS turned attention back to Amendment 3 [text provided
previously], and said that Icy Straight Point is a private port
with nothing else available in the area; when a cruise ship
docks at Icy Straight Point, "it is the tour."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected, and again offered her
understanding that language currently in Version V will take
care of the concern raised by Mr. Wysocki regarding Icy Straight
Point. Specifically, language on page 1, line 14, says that
information about "existing visitors bureaus" shall be
disclosed; this language should ensure that disclosure regarding
visitors bureaus shall not be required at ports where no
visitors bureau exists.
MR. SNIFFEN concurred with Representative Holmes's summation.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that even still a problem could arise
for Icy Straight Point if the City of Hoonah is deemed to be the
port of call.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that testimony indicated that there
might be other private ports established in the future, and so
any exception carved out for Icy Straight Point would also have
to be applied to them.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES reiterated her belief that the concern
regarding Icy Straight Point has already been addressed via
Version V of the bill.
4:09:34 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill and Ramras
voted in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives Holmes,
Gruenberg, Dahlstrom, and Lynn voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-4.
CHAIR RAMRAS again declared a possible conflict of interest.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected [thereby requiring Chair Ramras to
vote].
4:10:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 217, Version 25-LS0696\V, Bannister, 4/19/07, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
217(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:11 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|