Legislature(1997 - 1998)

05/05/1998 01:10 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
         HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                    
                    May 5, 1998                                                
                     1:10 p.m.                                                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                
                                                                               
Representative Joe Green, Chairman                                             
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman                                        
Representative Brian Porter                                                    
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                 
Representative Jeannette James                                                 
Representative Eric Croft                                                      
Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                 
                                                                               
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                 
                                                                               
All members present                                                            
                                                                               
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                             
                                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 254(FIN)                                                
"An Act relating to the exemption from levy, execution,                        
garnishment, attachment, or other remedy for the collection of debt            
as applied to a permanent fund dividend."                                      
                                                                               
     - MOVED CSSB 254(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
                                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 329(JUD) am                                             
"An Act relating to the regulation authority, exemptions, and                  
definitions of the Alaska Business License Act."                               
                                                                               
     - MOVED HCSCSSB 329(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                 
                                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 114(JUD) AM                                             
"An Act relating to contributions from employee compensation for               
political purposes; and prohibiting certain kinds of discrimination            
against employees for political purposes."                                     
                                                                               
     - MOVED CSSB 114(JUD) AM OUT OF COMMITTEE                                 
                                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 158(L&C)                                                
"An Act relating to motor vehicle liability insurance covering a               
person who has had the person's driver's license revoked for                   
possession or consumption of alcohol while under 21 years of age."             
                                                                               
     - MOVED HCSCSSB 158(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 319(RLS)                                                
"An Act relating to arbitration; amending Rules 57(a) and 77(g),               
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective                
date."                                                                         
                                                                               
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
                                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 274(FIN) am                                             
"An Act relating to fees for probation and parole; relating to                 
eligibility for a permanent fund dividend for persons convicted of             
and incarcerated for certain offenses; and relating to notice                  
requirements relating to appropriations from the permanent fund                
dividend fund to the office of victims' rights."                               
                                                                               
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
                                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 232(JUD)                                                
"An Act relating to electronic signatures, electronic records,                 
requirements for records, and the reproduction of public records."             
                                                                               
     - MOVED CSSB 232(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
                                                                               
* HOUSE BILL NO. 444                                                           
"An Act relating to paternity determinations; relating to                      
extinguishment of child support arrearages and public assistance               
debt and to reimbursement of payments already made to the state on             
behalf of the child when paternity is administratively                         
disestablished or a court determination of paternity is vacated;               
and amending Rules 60 and 90.3(h), Alaska Rules of Civil                       
Procedure."                                                                    
                                                                               
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                          
                                                                               
(* First public hearing)                                                       
                                                                               
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                
                                                                               
BILL: SB 254                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: LEVY ON PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND                                   
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE                                                   
                                                                               
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
 1/23/98      2278     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 1/23/98      2278     (S)  L&C, JUD                                           
 1/29/98               (S)  L&C AT  1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 1/29/98               (S)  MINUTE(L&C)                                        
 1/29/98               (S)  MINUTE(RES)                                        
 2/03/98               (S)  L&C AT  1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 2/05/98               (S)  L&C AT  1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 2/05/98               (S)  MINUTE(L&C)                                        
 2/10/98               (S)  L&C AT  1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 2/10/98               (S)  MINUTE(L&C)                                        
 2/11/98      2479     (S)  L&C RPT  CS  2DP 1AM      NEW TITLE                
 2/11/98      2479     (S)  DP: KELLY, MACKIE     AM: LEMAN                    
 2/11/98      2480     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB  (REV)                      
 2/12/98      2496     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS (REV)                       
 2/16/98               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 2/16/98               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 2/17/98      2542     (S)  JUD RPT  CS  1DP 3NR      NEW TITLE                
 2/17/98      2542     (S)  DP: TAYLOR  NR: PARNELL, MILLER,                   
                            PEARCE                                             
 2/17/98      2542     (S)  FISCAL NOTE TO CS (REV)                            
 2/17/98      2542     (S)  FIN REFERRAL ADDED                                 
 3/11/98               (S)  FIN AT  9:30 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 3/12/98               (S)  RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 3/12/98               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                        
 3/12/98      2840     (S)  FIN RPT  CS  5DP 1NR  NEW TITLE                    
 3/12/98      2840     (S)  DP: SHARP, PHILLIPS, TORGERSON                     
 3/12/98      2840     (S)  DONLEY, PEARCE     NO REC: ADAMS                   
 3/12/98      2840     (S)  ZERO FN TO CS (REV)                                
 3/13/98      2860     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR  3/18/98                         
 3/18/98      2882     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                               
 3/18/98      2883     (S)  FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                       
 3/18/98      2883     (S)  THIRD READING 3/19 CALENDAR                        
 3/19/98      2898     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 254(FIN)                 
 3/19/98      2898     (S)  PASSED Y14 N1 E5                                   
 3/19/98      2899     (S)  GREEN  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                   
 3/20/98      2924     (S)  RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                       
 3/20/98      2924     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                 
 3/23/98      2702     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 3/23/98      2702     (H)  L&C, JUDICIARY                                     
 4/29/98               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                         
 4/30/98      3361     (H)  L&C RPT  5DP 1NR                                   
 4/30/98      3362     (H)  DP: COWDERY, KUBINA, RYAN, HUDSON,                 
 4/30/98      3362     (H)  ROKEBERG; NR: BRICE                                
 4/30/98      3362     (H)  SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV) 3/12/98              
 5/05/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
                                                                               
BILL: SB 329                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: INVESTMENT CLUB LICENSE EXEMPTION                                 
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST                                        
                                                                               
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
 2/19/98      2576     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 2/19/98      2576     (S)  L&C, JUD                                           
 3/12/98               (S)  L&C AT  1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 3/12/98               (S)  MINUTE(L&C)                                        
 3/13/98      2859     (S)  L&C RPT      1DP 2NR                               
 3/13/98      2859     (S)  DP: LEMAN    NR: MACKIE, HOFFMAN                   
 3/13/98      2859     (S)  FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                                 
 3/19/98      2895     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                            
 3/20/98      2924     (S)  FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD                       
 3/27/98               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 3/30/98               (S)  JUD AT  1:45 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 3/30/98               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 3/31/98      3068     (S)  JUD RPT  CS  1DP 3NR       NEW TITLE               
 3/31/98      3068     (S)  DP: TAYLOR; NR: ELLIS, PARNELL,                    
                            MILLER                                             
 3/31/98      3068     (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (DCED)                    
 4/02/98      3117     (S)  FIN REFERRAL WAIVED                                
 4/27/98               (S)  RLS AT 12:10 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 4/27/98      3518     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR  4/27/98                         
 4/27/98      3520     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                               
 4/27/98      3520     (S)  JUD  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                       
 4/27/98      3520     (S)  AM NO  1     OFFERED BY LEMAN                      
 4/27/98      3520     (S)  AM NO  1     ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                  
 4/27/98      3520     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                     
                            CONSENT                                            
 4/27/98      3520     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 329(JUD) AM              
 4/27/98      3521     (S)  PASSED Y20 N-                                      
 4/27/98      3527     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                 
 4/28/98      3302     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 4/28/98      3302     (H)  JUDICIARY                                          
 5/05/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
                                                                               
BILL: SB 114                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYEES: POLITICAL CONTRIB & ACTIVITIES                         
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY                                                          
                                                                               
 Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                         
 3/05/97       572     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 3/05/97       572     (S)  JUDICIARY                                          
 3/19/97               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 3/19/97               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 3/26/97               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 3/26/97               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 4/01/97       916     (S)  JUD RPT  CS  2DP 1NR      SAME TITLE               
 4/01/97       916     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, MILLER; NR: PEARCE                     
 4/01/97       916     (S)  FNS TO SB (ADM-2, LAW)                             
 4/01/97       916     (S)  ZERO FN TO SB (LABOR)                              
 4/09/97      1049     (S)  FISCAL NOTE TO CS (LAW)                            
 4/23/97      1446     (S)  PREVIOUS FNS APPLY TO CS (ADM-2)                   
 4/01/97       916     (S)  FIN REFERRAL ADDED                                 
 5/06/97               (S)  FIN AT  8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 5/07/97               (S)  FIN AT  8:30 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 5/08/97               (S)  FIN AT  8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 5/08/97               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                        
 5/08/97               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                        
 5/08/97      1815     (S)  FIN RPT  4NR (JUD)CS                               
 5/08/97      1815     (S)  NR: SHARP, PHILLIPS, PARNELL,                      
                            TORGERSON                                          
 5/08/97      1815     (S)  PREVIOUS FNS (LAW, ADM-2)                          
 5/08/97      1815     (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LABOR)                           
 5/08/97      1842     (S)  RULES TO SUPP CAL 1 & 1NR  5/8/97                  
 5/08/97      1843     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                               
 5/08/97      1843     (S)  JUD  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                       
 5/08/97      1843     (S)  AM NO  1     ADOPTED Y11 N7 E1 A1                  
 5/08/97      1845     (S)  THIRD READING 5/9  CALENDAR                        
 5/09/97      1906     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 114(JUD) AM              
 5/09/97      1906     (S)  RTN TO 2ND TO RESCIND ACTION UNAN CON              
 5/09/97      1906     (S)  RESCINDED ACTION ADPTG AM 1  Y10 N9                
                            E1                                                 
 5/09/97      1907     (S)  AM NO  1     FAILED  Y9 N10 E1                     
 5/09/97      1907     (S)  AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                     
 5/09/97      1907     (S)  RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2  UNAN                    
                            CONSENT                                            
 5/09/97      1907     (S)  AM NO  2     FAILED  Y9 N10 E1                     
 5/09/97      1908     (S)  AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                     
 5/09/97      1909     (S)  FAILED PASSAGE Y10 N9 E1                           
 5/09/97      1909     (S)  TAYLOR  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                  
 5/09/97      1909     (S)  RECON TAKEN UP SAME DAY  UNAN CONSENT              
 5/09/97      1909     (S)  RETURN TO RLS COMMITTEE                            
 5/10/97               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                        
 5/10/97      1962     (S)  CALENDAR  5/10/97                                  
 5/10/97      1962     (S)  RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                  
 5/10/97      1962     (S)  PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y11 N8 E1                
 5/10/97      1971     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                 
 5/10/97      1801     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 5/10/97      1801     (H)  JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                 
 3/20/98      2687     (H)  WITHDRAW FROM CMTE FLD Y2 N37 E1                   
 5/01/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 5/01/98               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
                                                                               
BILL: SB 158                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: INSURANCE CHANGES FOR DR. LIC REVOC.                              
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST                                               
                                                                               
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
 4/02/97       935     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 4/02/97       935     (S)  L&C, JUD                                           
 2/05/98               (S)  L&C AT  1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 2/05/98               (S)  MINUTE(L&C)                                        
 2/19/98               (S)  L&C AT  1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 2/19/98               (S)  MINUTE(L&C)                                        
 2/20/98      2591     (S)  L&C RPT  CS  1DP 4NR     NEW TITLE                 
 2/20/98      2591     (S)  DP: KELLY                                          
 2/20/98      2591     (S)  NR: MACKIE, HOFFMAN, MILLER, LEMAN                 
 2/20/98      2591     (S)  ZERO FNS TO SB & CS (ADM, DCED)                    
 3/02/98               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 3/02/98               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 3/03/98               (S)  RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 3/03/98               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                        
 3/03/98      2715     (S)  JUD RPT  2DP 1NR (L&C)CS                           
 3/02/98      2715     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, MILLER    NR: PARNELL                  
 3/02/98      2715     (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (DCED, ADM)                      
 3/05/98      2749     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR  3/5/98                          
 3/05/98      2750     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                               
 3/05/98      2751     (S)  L&C  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                       
 3/05/98      2751     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                     
                            CONSENT                                            
 3/05/98      2751     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 158(L&C)                 
 3/05/98      2751     (S)  PASSED Y14 N6                                      
 3/05/98      2759     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                 
 3/06/98      2533     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 3/06/98      2533     (H)  L&C, JUDICIARY                                     
 4/01/98               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                         
 4/03/98               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                         
 4/06/98      2885     (H)  L&C RPT HCS(L&C) 4DP 1NR                           
 4/06/98      2886     (H)  DP: COWDERY, KUBINA, RYAN, ROKEBERG;               
 4/06/98      2886     (H)  NR: BRICE                                          
 4/06/98      2886     (H)  2 SENATE ZERO FNS (ADM, DCED) 2/20/98              
 5/01/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 5/01/98               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
                                                                               
BILL: SB 319                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: ARBITRATION                                                       
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PHILLIPS                                                
                                                                               
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
 2/16/98      2528     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 2/16/98      2528     (S)  L&C, JUD                                           
 3/10/98               (S)  L&C AT  3:45 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 3/10/98               (S)  MINUTE(L&C)                                        
 3/12/98               (S)  L&C AT  1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 3/12/98               (S)  MINUTE(L&C)                                        
 3/13/98      2859     (S)  L&C RPT  CS  3NR          SAME TITLE               
 3/13/98      2859     (S)  NR: LEMAN, MACKIE, HOFFMAN                         
 3/13/98      2859     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (LAW)                  
 4/01/98               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 4/01/98               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 4/02/98      3112     (S)  JUD RPT  1DP 4NR (L&C) CS                          
 4/02/98      3112     (S)  DP: TAYLOR; NR: ELLIS, PARNELL,                    
 4/02/98      3112     (S)  MILLER, PEARCE                                     
 4/02/98      3112     (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LAW)                             
 4/09/98               (S)  RLS AT 11:15 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 4/09/98               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                        
 4/15/98      3262     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR  4/15/98                         
 4/15/98      3272     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                               
 4/15/98      3272     (S)  L&C  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                       
 4/15/98      3272     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                     
                            CONSENT                                            
 4/15/98      3272     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 319(L&C)                 
 4/15/98      3272     (S)  FAILED PASSAGE Y10 N9 E1                           
 4/15/98      3273     (S)  PHILLIPS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 4/16/98      3295     (S)  RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                  
 4/16/98      3295     (S)  RETURN TO RLS  COMMITTEE                           
 4/21/98      3418     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR ON RECONSIDERATION               
 4/21/98      3418     (S)  IN THIRD READING ON RECONSIDERATION                
 4/21/98      3418     (S)  PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N5                   
 4/21/98      3419     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                  
 4/21/98      3419     (S)  COURT RULE(S) FLD  Y13 N7                          
 4/21/98      3419     (S)  MTN TO RESCIND ACTION FLG COURT RULE               
                            CHG                                                
 4/21/98      3419     (S)  HELD WITH RESCIND MOTION TO 4/22 CAL               
 4/22/98      3442     (S)  RESCIND MOTION WITHDRAWN UNAN CONSENT              
 4/22/98      3442     (S)  MOTION TO RESCIND ACTION IN PASSING                
 4/22/98      3442     (S)  RESCIND ACTION ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                
 4/22/98      3443     (S)  RETURN TO RULES COMMITTEE                          
 4/29/98               (S)  RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 4/30/98               (S)  RLS AT 11:40 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 4/30/98      3626     (S)  RLS RPT W/CS  AND CALENDAR   4/30/98               
 4/30/98      3626     (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (LAW)                     
 4/30/98      3633     (S)  RETURN TO SECOND RDG FOR SPECIFIC AM               
 4/30/98      3633     (S)  RLS  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                       
 4/30/98      3633     (S)  AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                     
 4/30/98      3633     (S)  PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y14 N5 E1                
 4/30/98      3634     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                  
 4/30/98      3634     (S)  COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                      
 4/30/98      3636     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                 
 5/01/98      3384     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 5/01/98      3384     (H)  JUDICIARY                                          
 5/05/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
                                                                               
BILL: SB 274                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: PROBATION AND PAROLE FEES                                         
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WARD, Pearce                                            
                                                                               
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
 2/04/98      2392     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 2/04/98      2392     (S)  JUD, FIN                                           
 2/18/98               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 2/18/98               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 2/19/98      2574     (S)  JUD RPT  CS  3DP 1NR      SAME TITLE               
 2/19/98      2574     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, MILLER, PEARCE   NR:                   
                            ELLIS                                              
 2/19/98      2574     (S)  INDETERMINATE FN TO SB & CS (ADM)                  
 3/24/98               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 4/16/98               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 4/16/98               (S)  FIN AT  4:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 4/17/98               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                 
 4/21/98               (S)  RLS AT 12:15 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 4/21/98      3411     (S)  FIN RPT  CS  4DP 1NR 1DNP    NEW                   
                            TITLE                                              
 4/21/98      3411     (S)  DP: SHARP, PEARCE, PHILLIPS, DONLEY;               
 4/21/98      3411     (S)  NR: PARNELL; DNP: ADAMS                            
 4/22/98      3432     (S)  FN TO CS  (COR)                                    
 4/21/98      3411     (S)  PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN APPLIES                  
                            (ADM)                                              
 4/22/98      3435     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR  4/22/98                         
 4/22/98      3438     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                               
 4/22/98      3438     (S)  FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                       
 4/22/98      3438     (S)  AM NO  1     ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                  
 4/22/98      3438     (S)  ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y14 N5                
                            E1                                                 
 4/22/98      3439     (S)  THIRD READING 4/23 CALENDAR                        
 4/23/98      3463     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 274(FIN) AM              
 4/23/98      3463     (S)  PASSED Y17 N1  E1 A1                               
 4/23/98      3463     (S)  LINCOLN  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 4/24/98      3489     (S)  RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                  
 4/24/98      3489     (S)  RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2  UNAN                    
                            CONSENT                                            
 4/24/98      3489     (S)  AM NO  2     OFFERED BY LINCOLN                    
 4/24/98      3489     (S)  AM NO  2     FAILED  Y4 N12 E3 A1                  
 4/24/98      3490     (S)  AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                     
 4/24/98      3490     (S)  PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y13 N3 E3                
                            A1                                                 
 4/24/98      3492     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                 
 4/27/98      3271     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 4/27/98      3271     (H)  JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                 
 5/05/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
                                                                               
BILL: SB 232                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC RECORDS; RECORD REQUIREMENTS                           
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PARNELL; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Kemplen                      
                                                                               
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
 1/14/98      2193     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 1/14/98      2193     (S)  L&C, JUD                                           
 3/31/98               (S)  L&C AT  1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 4/01/98      3090     (S)  L&C RPT  2DP 2NR                                   
 4/01/98      3090     (S)  DP: LEMAN, KELLY; NR: MILLER, HOFFMAN              
 4/01/98      3090     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV/ALL DEPTS)                   
 4/08/98               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 4/08/98               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                        
 4/20/98               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 4/21/98               (S)  RLS AT 12:15 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                  
 4/21/98      3410     (S)  JUD RPT  CS  4DP          SAME TITLE               
 4/21/98      3410     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, PARNELL, MILLER, PEARCE                
 4/21/98      3410      (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (GOV/ALL                 
                            DEPTS)                                             
 4/22/98      3435     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR  4/22/98                         
 4/22/98      3437     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                               
 4/22/98      3437     (S)  JUD  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                       
 4/22/98      3437     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                     
                            CONSENT                                            
 4/22/98      3437     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 232(JUD)                 
 4/22/98      3437     (S)  PASSED Y19 N- E1                                   
 4/22/98      3437     (S)  DUNCAN  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                  
 4/23/98      3465     (S)  RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                       
 4/23/98      3466     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                 
 4/24/98      3237     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 4/24/98      3237     (H)  JUDICIARY                                          
 5/05/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
                                                                               
BILL: HB 444                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: PATERNITY CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS                                   
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) NICHOLIA                                        
                                                                               
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
 2/18/98      2360     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  
 2/18/98      2360     (H)  HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                            
 5/05/98               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 5/05/98      3539     (H)  HES REFERRAL WAIVED                                
 5/05/98      3539     (H)  REFERRED TO JUD                                    
                                                                               
WITNESS REGISTER                                                               
                                                                               
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant                                        
 to Senator Loren Leman                                                        
Alaska State Legislature                                                       
Capitol Building, Room 113                                                     
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 465-3844                                                     
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 254(FIN)                                
                     and CSSB 329(JUD) AM.                                     
                                                                               
NANCI JONES, Director                                                          
Permanent Fund Dividend Division                                               
Department of Revenue                                                          
P.O. Box 110460                                                                
Juneau, Alaska  99811                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 465-2323                                                     
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 254(FIN).                               
                                                                               
DEBRA VOGT, Deputy Commissioner                                                
Department of Revenue                                                          
P.O. Box 110400                                                                
Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-2300                                                     
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 254(FIN).                               
                                                                               
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director                                               
Income and Excise Audit Division                                               
Department of Revenue                                                          
P.O. Box 110420                                                                
Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 2320                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 329(JUD) AM.                            
                                                                               
CATHERINE REARDON, Director                                                    
Division of Occupational Licensing Department of Commerce and                  
Economic Development                                                           
P.O. Box 110806                                                                
Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 2534                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of CSSB 329(JUD) AM.                   
                                                                               
RALPH BENNETT, Legislative Administrative Assistant                            
 to Senator Robin Taylor                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                       
Capitol Building, Room 30                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 465-3171                                                     
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 114(JUD) AM and HCSCSSB
                       158(L&C).                                               
                                                                               
BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying                                           
Alaska Public Offices Commission                                               
Department of Administration                                                   
P.O. Box 110222                                                                
Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-4864                                                     
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of CSSB 114(JUD) AM.                   
                                                                               
MICHAEL LESSMEIER, Lobbyist                                                    
State Farm Insurance                                                           
8391 Airport Blvd.                                                             
Juneau, Alaska  99802                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 789-9849                                                     
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HCSCSSB 158(L&C).                 
                                                                               
JERRY BURNETT, Legislative Assistant                                           
 to Randy Phillips                                                             
Alaska State Legislature                                                       
Capitol Building, Room 208                                                     
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 465-6590                                                     
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 319(RLS).                               
                                                                               
RICHARD VITALE, Legislative Assistant                                          
 to Senator Sean Parnell                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                       
Capitol Building, Room 054                                                     
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 465-3880                                                     
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 232(JUD).                               
                                                                               
SHIRLEY DEAN                                                                   
Child Support Enforcement Division                                             
Department of Revenue                                                          
239 South Franklin Street, Suite 311                                           
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 465-5887                                                     
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 444.                                      
                                                                               
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                               
TAPE 98-83, SIDE A                                                             
Number 0001                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee               
meeting to order at 1:10 p.m.  Members present at the call to order            
were Representatives Green, Bunde, Porter, Croft and Berkowitz.                
Representatives Rokeberg arrived at 1:10 p.m and Representative                
James arrived at 1:26 p.m.                                                     
                                                                               
CSSB 254(FIN) - LEVY ON PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND                                
                                                                               
Number 0001                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first order of business to be CSSB
254(FIN), "An Act relating to the exemption from levy, execution,              
garnishment, attachment, or other remedy for the collection of debt            
as applied to a permanent fund dividend."                                      
                                                                               
Number 0054                                                                    
                                                                               
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Loren Leman,                
Alaska State Legislature, stated that CSSB 254(FIN) will                       
significantly enhance the ability of Alaska businesses and other               
private parties to collect from debtors  who are in a state of                 
default on their financial obligations.  She explained that                    
existing state law provides that 45 percent of a person's annual               
permanent fund dividend check is exempt from collection to pay an              
outstanding debt.  Therefore, even if a person had a court                     
judgement stipulating that they owe a certain amount of money,                 
almost half of their dividend check is exempt from collection, at              
least when a private party is seeking to collect.  She pointed out             
that there are exceptions to this; child support obligations,                  
student loans and any debts owed to the agency of the state.  In               
those cases the state can garnish 100 percent of a dividend check              
to satisfy that financial obligation.  She stated that small                   
businesses and other private parties do not enjoy that same right.             
She stated that the original bill proposed to eliminate the 45                 
percent exemption but an amendment restored the exemption but                  
lowered it to 20 percent.  She explained that the percentage of a              
dividend available for garnishment by private parties would                    
increase from 55 to 80 percent and state agencies would still                  
collect at a rate of 100 percent.                                              
                                                                               
Number 0189                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated that the dividend is not a huge                
amount of money and asked what the reasoning was behind going from             
collecting 100 percent to 80 percent.                                          
                                                                               
Number 0227                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. KREITZER replied that there is a fear that people would not                
apply for their dividends.                                                     
                                                                               
Number 0247                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked if the child care debt would come              
before business debts.                                                         
                                                                               
MS. KREITZER replied that is correct.                                          
                                                                               
Number 0271                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked, "Why are we taking out the -- if            
this exemption applies to eligible individual's permanent fund                 
dividend (PFD) both before and after payment?"                                 
                                                                               
Number 0284                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. KREITZER replied that it was something that was requested by               
the Department of Law but she is not certain.  She thought that                
maybe Nancy Jones could answer that question.                                  
                                                                               
Number 0330                                                                    
                                                                               
NANCY JONES, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department            
of Revenue, stated that in regards to Representative Porter's                  
question there are things that operate on a person's account once              
it becomes their asset in their bank account.  She stated that when            
the exemption was 55/45, once it when into a person's joint asset              
account there were different rules that applied, as to who can                 
actually garnish a person's bank account.  Therefore, the "before              
and after payment" was keeping the same ratio of 55/45 all the way             
into the commingling of a person's assets.  She explained that the             
Department of Law is no longer saying it is applicable and                     
suggested that language be taken out.                                          
                                                                               
Number 0404                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what prevents the person from not filing when             
the state is going garnish the dividend.                                       
                                                                               
Number 0426                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that she could not give out the numbers because              
there are not statistics on what is not there.  She stated that it             
is felt in regards to child support because the dividend is going              
to be garnished that people actually do not file.                              
                                                                               
Number 0457                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what about in the case of the state                       
collecting.                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that it is the same scenario.                                
                                                                               
Number 0482                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that he just received a note that states that            
in some cases a judge may order a person to file for their PFD.                
                                                                               
MS. JONES stated that there are assignments in the court                       
restitutions of what they can do to get a dividend.  She stated                
that it is still a disincentive for a person to file if in fact                
punitively, the dividend is going to be taken away.                            
                                                                               
Number 0504                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that in regards to the hierarchy of            
payment the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) would get it             
first and then the Department of Law would come about....                      
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that the courts would come about fifth.  She                 
stated that the highest priority is trustee and bankruptcy, then               
child support, after that is the state agencies, then IRS and then             
court offered restitutions.  She stated that after that comes the              
civil cases that are referred to in this bill.                                 
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if this would come co-equal with a              
civil judgement.                                                               
                                                                               
MS. JONES relied that is correct and that is what these are.                   
                                                                               
Number 0576                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if in order to attach the permanent             
fund one would have to go through a court proceeding.                          
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that is correct because it has to be deemed by a             
judgement as a legal debt.  One can't come up off the street and               
demand someone's dividend, it has to go through a court proceeding.            
                                                                               
Number 0610                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that if there was a $1,000 dividend            
and there are no other incumbencies on it, $800 would be what is               
available for collection.  If there was a CSED garnishment of $300,            
the available amount would be $500.  He asked if there was a way to            
protect the privacy of that person.                                            
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied yes there is.  All the division tells the party              
that is seeking to garnish the dividend, even a state agency, is               
that either the person did not file or that there are no funds                 
available.  They do not disclose what agencies have already                    
garnished the dividend.                                                        
                                                                               
Number 0664                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if in the civil format, can a                   
creditor compel an individual to file.                                         
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that no one can compel an individual to file an              
application and the division can not intercede and collect the                 
dividend as if the person has filed, if they do not in fact file.              
                                                                               
Number 0702                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Representative Berkowitz's example was                 
discussed in any other committee.  For example, if $500 was left of            
the dividend after a garnishment, is that next party entitled to               
$300 or would they be able to file for 80 percent of the remainder.            
                                                                               
Number 0730                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that it would be 80 percent of the remainder of              
the dividend would be available to the collector after the levies.             
"So it goes down in order, the first thing that comes out is the $2            
PFD fee for levies, so if it is 5 levies that is $10 right off the             
top for PFD, whether it hits or not.  The computer then looks at               
the order of who is doing the levying and then it takes out in                 
order.  If it is a 100 percent then the first five bankruptcies                
CSED, post secondary state agencies, or IRS a 100 percent -- the               
rest of the check is taken.  If the debt in any one those agencies             
that's capable of $100 percent is less then 100 percent then the 80            
percent would be applied -- 80/20 in this situation."                          
                                                                               
Number 0790                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if someone has a debt greater then the              
PFD they would get 80 percent but if there were three small debts              
each one would only get 80 percent of the remainder in sequence of             
order.                                                                         
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that would be correct.  She stated that each time            
the levy is placed on the dividend the calculation of 80/20 would              
apply to each specific collector.  Everyone is independent it would            
not be lumped together, each levy is looked at as if it is the only            
one.                                                                           
                                                                               
Number 0862                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if a person was trying to collect $300 that               
would be within the 80 percent but they would not get $300.                    
                                                                               
Number  0865                                                                   
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied, "Right, it depends on what the debt is.  They               
do not just take 80/20 it depends of what the debt is.  So if the              
debt is less then that, they are not going to get the entire check.            
They still get whatever the particular debt is and it looks at a               
80/20 ratio."                                                                  
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked "What if there weren't the other two in                   
sequence -- would they only get $240."                                         
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that they would only get 80 percent.                         
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated "Yes but the accumulated amount could not                
exceed 80 percent -- first in lines gets $300, second gets $300,               
third only get $200."                                                          
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied no, that is not correct.                                     
                                                                               
Number 0926                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that if that is the way it is being               
administered then there are regulations written that are                       
inconsistent with the statute.  He stated that the bill reads that             
20 percent of the annual PFD is exempt from levy, not that each                
levy can only obtain 80 percent of its value.  He stated that if               
the division is administering it that way they are administering it            
inconsistent with the statute.                                                 
                                                                               
Number 0957                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that this bill is proposed legislation.                      
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he is referring to the statute               
that is in place.                                                              
                                                                               
MS. JONES stated that it is currently 55/45 and it is not to the               
capacity of the debt, it is on the person's entire dividend but                
each time that a person comes to levy the dividend the division has            
to look at 80/20 ratio.                                                        
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that if there is a $1,000 dividend and            
there is a $300 levy and that is the only levy he asked what would             
that person would get.                                                         
                                                                               
Number 1001                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that he would get $300.                                      
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that is not what she said to him.                        
                                                                               
MS. JONES stated that is what she meant to say.  She stated that               
Chairman Green was talking about multiple levies and she stated                
that she answered the ratio of 80/20 would have to be applied.                 
                                                                               
Number 1012                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "The first $300 in, gets $300.  The next $300            
gets his $300, the third one is only going to be able to get $200              
because there is already $600 that has been paid out and the                   
maximum that can be paid out is $800, but they don't all get $240              
$240 and $240?"                                                                
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that is correct.                                             
                                                                               
Number 1040                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he reads it a little                      
differently.  The first person is looking at $1000 that he can take            
from and the second is looking at $700 that he can take from and               
the third person is looking at $400.  This is because one is                   
allowed the percent of the dividend payable to the individual.  He             
explained that it is not payable if there is an incumbency on it.              
He stated that the second person would get up to 80 percent of the             
$700.                                                                          
                                                                               
Number 1121                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that it does not protect the person's 20                 
percent.  He said, "The $800 is always attachable, $300 now drops              
to $500 and 80 percent of $500 is $400 that could be attached."                
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated under this bill and under a $1,000                
dividend, the recipient of the dividend would be able to obtain                
$200, if there were more than $800 worth of levies.                            
                                                                               
Number 1155                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the committee is trying to figure out               
how it would be administered when there is more than $800 to be                
paid out.                                                                      
                                                                               
Number 1179                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. JONES stated it is "first in time, first in line."  On a $1,000            
dividend $800 is available so if the first in line collection is               
$400 that will be paid out.  If the next one depletes what is left             
the third party will not receive anything.  She stated that it is              
first come first serve with the ceiling of 80/20 split.                        
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it would not be pro-rated at any time.                 
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that is correct.                                             
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked if it mattered that all the                    
collections are civil judgements.  He stated that if CSED had an               
$800 dollar judgement would the $200 left, go to a civil judgement.            
                                                                               
MS. JONES stated that it would be on the 80/20 ratio.  She stated              
first there was 100 percent of the dividend available to CSED, the             
balance left would then under a civil collection order would apply             
the 80/20 ratio, to what is left.                                              
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if it the 80/20 ratio is on the original            
amount of the dividend or on the amount that is left.                          
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that it is her understanding that it is on the               
amount that is left.                                                           
                                                                               
Number 1301                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that if this became law, if the first $800               
went to a 100 percent entitled collector, the bill stated that 20              
percent of the dividend is exempt.  He stated that the civil action            
collector would then be out of luck.                                           
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he would disagree.  The bill              
referred to the PFD payable to the individual.  He stated that                 
there would be $200 left over after the first payment and 20                   
percent of that $200 is protected, therefore, the civil judgement              
could go to the extent of $160.                                                
                                                                               
Number 1345                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that he disagreed.  He said, "It states the              
annual permanent fund dividend payable that's the $1000 -- 20                  
percent of that full amount is exempt and what ever is paid out of             
the 80 percent is not leaving $200, which then is subject to this              
because it says the annual permanent fund dividend payable."                   
                                                                               
Number 1368                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Section 1 (b) which lists all the             
exemptions.                                                                    
                                                                               
Number 1390                                                                    
                                                                               
DEBRA VOGT, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue, stated that            
it was her understanding that when a person or any combination of              
people, who is not entitled to take 100 percent of the dividend,               
under this bill, 20 percent would be exempt and it stays exempt                
unless a person who is entitled to take all of it takes it.  She               
stated that if it is a $1000 dividend and it is paid off to                    
collectors that person will still have to pay tax on that money                
because it is still his.  She stated that she understand                       
Representative  Berkowitz's point but they have interpreted it to              
be that the dividend belongs to the recipient even if some of it is            
paid off to creditors.                                                         
                                                                               
Number 1455                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there is verbiage that may avoid this                  
confusion.                                                                     
                                                                               
MS. VOGT stated that as she understood the legislation, all it does            
is change the percentage from 45 percent to 20 percent and it                  
really isn't going to change the way the department has to                     
administered it.                                                               
                                                                               
Number 1482                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that to him the optimum word is annual            
permanent fund dividend and that is what the person gets to keep 20            
percent of, not what may be left after a small levy.  He asked if              
she knew why the attorneys said it is not necessary to have the                
before and after payment language in the bill.                                 
                                                                               
Number 1507                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that the Department of Law took it out because               
there is a separate priority of assets once they are co-mingled.               
She stated that it was superfluous to have that language in there              
because once it is paid to a person and it goes to their account               
there is not any control over who can levy on that bank account.               
                                                                               
Number 1535                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that the money can only be taken before            
it goes into possession of the person.                                         
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that is correct and that is what they do.                    
                                                                               
Number 1551                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if it was correct that in 1997, CSED                
received over $11 million and there were about 100,000 attachments.            
He asked if there were about 600,000 people who get the dividend.              
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied that is correct and there are about 550,000                  
people that get the dividend.                                                  
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if 20 percent of the dividends have                 
attachments on them.                                                           
                                                                               
MS. JONES replied yes, they are either voluntary or involuntary.               
                                                                               
Number 1585                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that businesses collected over $5                  
million.                                                                       
                                                                               
Number 1591                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. JONES stated that they did well because the Internal Revenue               
Service withdrew.                                                              
                                                                               
Number 1655                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES asked "Does the agency have the                  
ability to garnish the permanent fund for people who the money does            
go to the agency on CSED because there is a lot of CSED collections            
that are for the children but because the parent is on welfare they            
do get the money."                                                             
                                                                               
Number 1676                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. VOGT replied that the dividend goes to the Department of Health            
and Social Services.  It does not stay with CSED.                              
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she understood that and asked if              
doesn't a large percent of it go through Division of Family and                
Youth Services (DFYS).                                                         
                                                                               
MS. VOGT stated that is correct a large percent of it does go                  
through DFYS but it does not pass through the operating expenditure            
et cetera.                                                                     
                                                                               
Number 1710                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she has mixed feelings on the                 
legislation.  She stated that she believes people should pay their             
bills but there is money coming out of the permanent fund every                
year to hold people harmless who are on welfare.  She stated that              
they might be getting the people who are going to lose their                   
dividend after they have already been held harmless.                           
                                                                               
Number 1769                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSSB 254(FIN),            
0-LS1371\H, out of committee with the attached zero fiscal note and            
with individual recommendations.                                               
                                                                               
Number 1784                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none, CSSB
254(FIN), 0-LS1371\H, moved out of the House Judiciary Standing                
Committee.                                                                     
                                                                               
CSSB 329(JUD) AM - INVESTMENT CLUB LICENSE EXEMPTION                           
                                                                               
Number 1790                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next order of business to be CSSB
329(JUD) am, "An Act relating to the regulation authority,                     
exemptions, and definitions of the Alaska Business License Act."               
                                                                               
MS. KREITZER stated that the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee               
introduced SB 329 at the request of the Alaska Regional Council,               
National Association of Investors Corporation after they called the            
Department of Commerce, Division of Occupational Licensing to ask              
whether they should be required to purchase a business license to              
operate an investors club.  She stated that within their own                   
division they have had conflicting opinions about whether this                 
group of people would need to purchase a business license.  She                
stated that no other state requires an investment group to purchase            
a business license because they are seen as educational tools for              
people to learn about investments, as profit is not the purpose of             
the group, education is.                                                       
                                                                               
Number 1855                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. KREITZER stated that Section 1 of CSSB 329(JUD) am gives                   
broader regulatory authority to the Division of Occupational                   
Licensing, Department of Commerce.  She stated that their only                 
authority under this section is to determine and collect fees.  In             
order to implement these exemptions and to be able to lay things               
out plainly in the regulatory process they would like to have more             
authority.  She explained that Section 2 just reorders the current             
business license exemption and adds investment clubs and a                     
definition of security to the exemptions. She stated that the                  
definition of "business," upon the request of the Division of                  
Occupational Licensing, was made more plain.  She stated that the              
only exemption that has been added in is the terms investment club             
and security and then the new definition of business.                          
                                                                               
Number 1960                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. KREITZER stated that she believed the committee had a suggested            
amendment because of SB 240, as it is not longer appropriate to                
include in the exemptions on page 1, line 14 "sales through coin-              
operated amusement and gaming machines".  She stated that the                  
sponsor agrees with the amendment.                                             
                                                                               
Number 1979                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if SB 240 is now, in fact, law.                           
                                                                               
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER replied yes it is.                                        
                                                                               
Number 1986                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 which                  
reads:                                                                         
     Page 1, line 14:                                                          
                                                                               
          Delete all material                                                  
                                                                               
     Page 2, line 1:                                                           
                                                                               
          Delete "(6)"                                                         
          Insert "(5)"                                                         
                                                                               
     Page 2, line 2:                                                           
                                                                               
          Delete "(7)"                                                         
          Insert "(6)"                                                         
                                                                               
     Page 2, line 4:                                                           
                                                                               
          Delete "(8)"                                                         
                                                                               
          Insert "(7)"                                                         
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.                                
                                                                               
Number 2006                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected for discussion purposes.                         
                                                                               
Number 2010                                                                    
                                                                               
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director, Income and Excise Audit Division,            
Department of Revenue, stated that the amendment is just a                     
technical clean-up because if that exemption was not removed there             
could be some businesses in Alaska who do only coin operation and              
would be allowed to operate without a license.                                 
                                                                               
Number 2036                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT removed his objection.                                    
                                                                               
Number 2042                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was a further objection.  Hearing                
none, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                 
                                                                               
Number 2061                                                                    
                                                                               
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,               
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, stated that she               
strongly supports CSSB 329(JUD) AM.                                            
                                                                               
Number 2081                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if she was familiar with the investment            
club.                                                                          
                                                                               
MS. REARDON stated that her understanding is started with the                  
Beardstown Lady's Club; each member would contribute $30 and decide            
what stocks to invest in.  She stated that based on their successes            
and a book that they put out, some more people started to form                 
investment clubs.  She stated that this legislation may have been              
requested by National Association of Investment Clubs so that it               
would be clear whether a business license is required in Alaska.               
She pointed out that a business license costs $50 for two years.               
There are about six investment clubs that have business licenses               
now and it is true that her staff has told some clubs that they                
need the licences and others that they do not have to get them, due            
to confusion over whether the goal of the clubs is to make money or            
if it was an educational activity.  She stated that this bill would            
involve the potential loss of revenue of $250 every two years out              
of a program that brings over $1 million.  She stated that it is a             
very nominal loss which is why there is a zero fiscal note.                    
                                                                               
Number 2186                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he thought it was against the law             
for investment clubs to advertise and asked if the clubs employ any            
one.  He wondered if brokerages could be in existence under the                
guise of an investment club.                                                   
                                                                               
Number 2213                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. REARDON replied that business licensing has not been keeping a             
check on that.  She stated that removing them from the requirement             
to get a business license would not have an effect on, violations              
of the banking, securities and corporations laws.  She stated that             
it is the security laws that regulate the professions.                         
                                                                               
Number 2245                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG asked isn't the business fee really             
a business tax and therefore, it does not give the division any                
enforcement power.                                                             
                                                                               
MS. REARDON replied that is correct.                                           
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how is the definition of business                
different from the Labor and Commerce Committee's definition of                
business.                                                                      
                                                                               
Number 2279                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. REARDON replied that Representative Rokeberg is referring to HB
438 which was a companion bill to this bill.  She stated that it               
had a slightly different definition of business.  Both are attempts            
to define it more simply.                                                      
                                                                               
Number 2302                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Representative Rokeberg if it was his intent              
to change the definition.                                                      
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied no, he just wanted to remind                   
himself what his committee came up with as they spend a great deal             
of time on the definition.  He asked Ms. Reardon to read the                   
definition.                                                                    
                                                                               
Number 2316                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. REARDON stated that HB 438 defined "business" as "a profit or              
nonprofit entity engaging or offering to engage in a trade, a                  
service, a profession, or an activity with the goal of receiving a             
percunary benefit in exchange for the provision of services or                 
goods or other real or person property or nonprofit activity."  She            
stated that the primary difference is "a profit of nonprofit                   
entity" is added and there are more synonyms for activity at the               
end of the definition in this version.                                         
                                                                               
Number 2352                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was any discussion in the               
Senate Judiciary Committee on the issue of nonprofit.                          
                                                                               
Number 2366                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. KREITZER replied there was not.  She stated that they were                 
aware of (indisc.--coughing) in the House Labor and Commerce                   
Committee and the Senate chairman chose not to include it in this              
version.                                                                       
                                                                               
Number 2375                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that the only reason he is bringing             
it up is because they are defining what a business is in the state             
of Alaska and it will be referred to in other statutory references.            
The issue is whether to include nonprofit in the definition.                   
                                                                               
Number 2397                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN replied that is why he asked Representative Rokeberg            
earlier if his question was leading to an amendment or just                    
background information.                                                        
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that it was background information             
because he did not remember what he did in committee.  He stated               
that it is an issue to be considered.                                          
                                                                               
Number 2412                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she is not real comfortable with              
the definition of business, as it is skimpy.  She stated that the              
business license is a tax and does not consider $25 a year a real              
tax.  She stated that it seems like it is for some other reason.               
She asked if she wanted to know who owned a business could she call            
to division to find out.                                                       
                                                                               
Number 2450                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. REARDON replied that the reason a data collection benefited                
business licensing is that people can get lists ....                           
                                                                               
TAPE 98-83, SIDE B                                                             
Number 0042                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. REARDON stated that people can look on the Internet to find out            
what kinds of business there are.  She stated that they do not                 
register business names, as that is in statute under the Banking               
Securities and Corporations Division.  Therefore, ten people may               
get the same name, as it is not exclusive.  She stated that a                  
person could call up and she could search to see who owned a                   
business.  She stated that in the terms that it is a tax there is              
no public protection aspect, a business license is not a good house            
keeping seal that the business is being run properly.                          
                                                                               
Number 0050                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if she gets many calls of people wanting            
to know who has a license.  She stated that if there was not a fee,            
the division would be doing it for free so she is suggesting that              
it is not necessarily a tax.                                                   
                                                                               
Number 0072                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. REARDON stated that they do get quite a few calls.                         
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if they would give a license to "Mimi's             
House of Prostitution."                                                        
                                                                               
MS. REARDON replied that yes, as the statute does not give criteria            
for denying licenses for that type of reason.  She stated that it              
is important how the definition of business is defined and sees                
either definition of business as a great improvement over the                  
current statute's definition.  She did not want the bill to die                
over the definition of business.                                               
                                                                               
Number 0116                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that there seems to be a major question            
about profit or nonprofit.  He stated that to him, by adding the               
words real or personal to property does not change the word                    
property.  Pecuniary is a synonym for financial, therefore, the                
only other substantive difference is adding "a service to trade                
profession or the generic activity with the goal of receiving a                
financial benefit."  He asked if the division licenses nonprofit               
businesses now.                                                                
                                                                               
Number 0144                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. REARDON stated that they do license some nonprofit businesses.             
The Salvation Army has a business license because it is bringing in            
money for its activities.  She stated that she wanted to clarify               
something that she said at a previous time.  If a nonprofit                    
business was not selling anything to the general public and was                
just receiving grants they would not need a business license.                  
                                                                               
Number 0200                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that is his concern and that is why             
that provision was put in the definition.  It is a major addition              
to cleaning up the statutes and the way the definition is in CSSB
329(JUD) AM, it would exclude the ability to license a nonprofit               
organization.                                                                  
                                                                               
Number 0241                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that with the Salvation Army they have             
to get a business license yet, there is no enforcement ability.  He            
asked what would happen if they did not get one.                               
                                                                               
Number 0252                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. REARDON stated that what she meant when referring to their                 
enforcement ability was, they do not have the right to take away               
the business license if the business is doing shady business.  She             
stated that they do advise people on whether or not they need to               
obtain a license, if someone was to refuse to get a license the                
district attorney would then have to handle the case and it would              
be a misdemeanor.  Usually people do get a business license, as the            
fee is so low.                                                                 
                                                                               
Number 0297                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that since there is some sort of                     
prosecution then there is some regulatory aspect to it.                        
                                                                               
Number 0313                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. REARDON stated that there is a law that states that they must              
have a business license but it is not regulatory in terms of how               
they practice their business.                                                  
                                                                               
Number 0321                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that the original intent of the bill              
was to exempt investment clubs and he has some concerns about that.            
He stated that he could envision having the E. F. Hutton investment            
club.                                                                          
                                                                               
Number 0360                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. KREITZER referred to information in the committee members'                 
packet from Mr. Damron and reiterated that no other states require             
investment clubs to purchase business licenses.  She stated that               
the definition of investment clubs is "a group of individuals                  
incorporated or otherwise organized, that engages primarily in                 
investing in securities, that does not sell investment services to             
another person, and the primary purpose of which is educational. "             
She stated that the purpose of the amended version of the bill was             
to make it easier for the public and so there is not conflicting               
advise.  She stated that it is her understanding that it does not              
exclude nonprofit and, therefore, if it does not specifically                  
exclude it, it includes it.                                                    
                                                                               
Number 0432                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that Representative Rokeberg's                     
definition says something about rentals or properties and this                 
definition does not clarify that.                                              
                                                                               
Number 0448                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that the biggest distinction between            
the definitions relates to the profit/nonprofit.  He stated that he            
would like the public to know what a law is saying, the definition             
in the Senate bill is not clear.                                               
                                                                               
Number 0518                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. KREITZER asked if he is suggesting an amendment and asking for             
the sponsor's response.                                                        
                                                                               
Number 0531                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he would defer to                          
Representative Croft.                                                          
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he as a possible amendment, that              
if on line 7 after person insert "that does not advertise," it                 
would put some more restrictions on investment clubs.                          
                                                                               
Number 0569                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. KREITZER replied that would be fine.                                       
                                                                               
Number 0579                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if an investment club put out a flyer would               
that be a problem with this new language.                                      
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that if it is for internal information            
purposes it wouldn't but if it was to attract new members then it              
would be.                                                                      
                                                                               
Number 0888                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 2.                       
                                                                               
Number 0632                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none,                 
Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                       
                                                                               
Number 0647                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that the bill is already amended and            
asked of there would be an objection to adding the profit/nonprofit            
entity into the definition of business.                                        
                                                                               
Number 0667                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. KREITZER stated that anything that would help make it clear to             
the public and Administration is fine because that is the intent of            
the rewriting the definition of business.                                      
                                                                               
Number 0671                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon, "If we were to go back              
to a portion of this (indisc.--mumbling) and just add the business             
means a profit or nonprofit entity, add the word service and then              
'or nonprofit activity' at the end of the sentence and not go into             
the real or personal property."  He stated that the word pecuniary             
is a better word because means involving money and has a broader               
definition then "financial".                                                   
                                                                               
Number 0773                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. REARDON stated that it would be fine but perhaps the final                 
reference to nonprofit may not be included because it was already              
stated at the beginning.                                                       
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that would be okay, therefore, not             
every nonprofit business would qualify for a license but some                  
would.                                                                         
                                                                               
MS. REARDON stated that it would be her intent.                                
                                                                               
Number 0785                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that if the intent is to make this                
understandable to the public he would resist the word pecuniary.               
The term financial benefit is pretty much understood the term                  
pecuniary is generally not understood.                                         
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed.                                                         
                                                                               
Number 0822                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to adopt Amendment 3, which would take              
Section 3, and delete the definition and insert "business means a              
profit of nonprofit entity engaging or offering to engage in a                 
trade, a service, a profession or an activity with the goal of                 
receiving a financial benefit in exchange for the provision of                 
services or goods or other property;"                                          
                                                                               
Number 0877                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none,                 
Amendment 3 is adopted.                                                        
                                                                               
Number 0915                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSSB 329(JUD) AM, as             
amended, out of committee with the attached fiscal note and with               
individual recommendations.                                                    
                                                                               
Number 0940                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none,                 
HCSCSSB 329(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.            
                                                                               
CSSB 114(JUD) AM - EMPLOYEES: POLITICAL CONTRIB. & ACTIVITIES                  
                                                                               
Number 0964                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next order of business to be CSSB
114(JUD) AM, "An Act relating to contributions from employee                   
compensation for political purposes; and prohibiting certain kinds             
of discrimination against employees for political purposes."                   
                                                                               
Number 0979                                                                    
                                                                               
RALPH BENNETT, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator                 
Robin Taylor, stated that several constituents expressed concern               
that employers automatically deduct contributions from their                   
paychecks and once the deduction has been made the employee has no             
control over how the money is distributed and which candidates or              
issues it is used to support or oppose.  He stated that this                   
process of funding political actions by corporations and labor                 
organizations is known as reverse check-off, which was recently                
banned by a Michigan statute.  He stated the bill prohibits an                 
employer or labor organization from giving a increase with the                 
intent that it be donated in support of a candidate or issue.  It              
also prohibits discrimination against an employee who fails to make            
a contribution intended to influence a political race.  He                     
explained that it also requires that public record be kept of                  
payroll deductions made for disbursal as political contributions.              
He stated that the most important provision of SB 114 is that it               
takes written authorization from the employee before a deduction               
for political purposes can be made.  He explained that the bill                
requires that such an authorization be issued annually by the                  
employee and the employee must be informed of the anti-                        
discrimination provisions that apply if they chose not to make the             
contribution.  He pointed out that an employee's political                     
convictions are private and deserve unequivocal respect rather than            
the intimidation allowed by the current process.  He stated that               
Section 2 provides that "labor, employee organization dues, and                
employee benefits, deductions and authorization must comply with AS            
15.13.160."                                                                    
                                                                               
Number 1163                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he had a couple of amendments.  He            
made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which reads:                               
                                                                               
     Page 2, Line 11                                                           
                                                                               
          Delete "on a form prescribed by the commission"                      
                                                                               
     Page 2, lines 13-14:                                                      
                                                                               
          Delete "The written request is valid for no more than one            
          calendar year from the date of signing by the employee."             
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN objected for purposes of discussion.                            
                                                                               
Number 1220                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that the restriction is arbitrary.  He             
stated that it seems to step over the line from trying to make sure            
that the contributions are done voluntarily.  He stated that he is             
not sure why he wanted the words "prescribed by the commission".               
He stated that is not as important to him as the second part of the            
amendment is.                                                                  
                                                                               
Number 1325                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if he wanted to leave the words                     
"prescribed by the commission" in the amendment.                               
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that whatever the committee wanted.  He            
made a motion to divide the amendment in to 1A and 1B.  Amendment              
1A would read:                                                                 
                                                                               
     Page 2, Line 11                                                           
                                                                               
          Delete "on a form prescribed by the commission"                      
                                                                               
Amendment 2 would read:                                                        
                                                                               
     Page 2, lines 13-14:                                                      
                                                                               
          Delete "The written request is valid for no more than one            
          calendar year from the date of signing by the employee."             
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she agrees with Amendment 1A as               
each group may want to have a form and it would just contain one               
question.  She asked how complicated could that be.                            
                                                                               
Number 1386                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that it could be very complicated                 
because those questions can be complicated so no one will know what            
they are voting for.  He stated that language is to preclude                   
ambiguous language.                                                            
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Bennett what he thought of the               
amendment.                                                                     
                                                                               
Number 1414                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BENNETT replied that as long as the intent of the legislation              
is preserved it would be okay.  He stated that he did not have a               
precise sense of Senator Taylor's opinion on this.                             
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she was swayed by Representative              
Porter's argument.                                                             
                                                                               
Number 1468                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT withdrew Amendment 1A.                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that Amendment 1A has been withdrawn and now             
the committee is on Amendment 1B.                                              
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.                                                 
                                                                               
Number 1490                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Bennett what would the impact of             
the removal of this sentence be.                                               
                                                                               
Number 1501                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BENNETT stated that he thought it would be helpful, it would               
not cause any problems.                                                        
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked would it be better to have some type             
of a time limit.                                                               
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that one would be aware so that one would                
physically file an action.                                                     
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that would this create more                     
paperwork.                                                                     
                                                                               
Number 1551                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the line being deleted is what the            
intent of the bill is.                                                         
                                                                               
Number 1563                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BENNETT stated that now that he has rethought this he agreed               
that Representative James is right.                                            
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he felt there is a lot of other               
substance to the bill with this sentence taken out.  It states that            
one must follow certain procedures and sets an orderly procedure               
for what should happen.  He stated that he did not feel the                    
sentence in question does not set an orderly procedure but instead             
makes it cumbersome by having to physically opt-in every year. He              
stated that it is burdensome without a purpose.                                
                                                                               
Number 1643                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN called for a roll call vote.  Representative James,             
Rokeberg, Porter and Green voted against Amendment 1B.                         
Representative Croft voted in favor of Amendment 1B.  Amendment 1B             
failed.                                                                        
                                                                               
Number 1707                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which                 
reads:                                                                         
                                                                               
     Page 2, line 11                                                           
                                                                               
          Delete "prescribed" and insert "approved"                            
                                                                               
Number 1724                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.  He realized he was on the wrong             
page and withdrew is objection.                                                
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none,                 
Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                       
                                                                               
Number 1804                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to move Amendment 3 which reads:            
                                                                               
     Page 2, line 9, following "contributions":                                
                                                                               
          Delete "to groups or"                                                
                                                                               
Number 1824                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected.                                                
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that in talking to Alaska Public                   
Offices Commission (APOC), the amendment would continue to restrict            
donations for use as political contributions.  It would still allow            
one to donate to groups but (indisc.--coughing).  He stated that               
the wording "to groups or" expands it unnecessarily and too                    
broadly.  He stated that he would like it to be tied to political              
contributions as it does not define the groups.                                
                                                                               
Number 1941                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that the emphasis here might be to                
political contributions as an employer or as an employee.  He                  
stated that if he was donating his money he would like to make the             
decision on where it is going.                                                 
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he does have that right.  He               
said, "It isn't necessary that in every area you do it every year              
or with the opt-in opt-out.  You could do a opt-out opt-in , you               
could do others.  For the core political contributions it makes                
sense that these specific restrictions be on."  He stated to tie it            
to every group with these particular restrictions is too                       
restrictive.                                                                   
                                                                               
Number 2033                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that by having this as an annual                  
requirement, one is in written communication with employees and it             
would not be difficult to make this happen.                                    
                                                                               
Number 2074                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that there are withholdings and                
diversions from a portion of every employees wages and salaries to             
the IRS.  He stated that the way it is written is so broad that one            
could not make withholdings under the language "withhold or                    
divert".                                                                       
                                                                               
Number 2160                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.  Representatives  Croft             
and Berkowitz voted in favor of the amendment.  Representatives                
Rokeberg, Porter, James and Green voted against it.  Amendment 3               
failed.                                                                        
                                                                               
Number 2248                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 4 which                  
reads:                                                                         
                                                                               
     Page 2, line 9, following "groups:                                        
                                                                               
          Delete "or"                                                          
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.                                              
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that it would allow contributions to               
groups but tie the contributions back to the political                         
contributions.                                                                 
                                                                               
Number 2321                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that one has to sign a W-4 form every              
year as an employee and it seems that filing other forms would not             
be a problem.  However, if this was in the middle of the year, one             
would have to put forth a special effort to sign it.                           
                                                                               
Number 2359                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he has always had to fill out              
a form to give a payroll deduction to a group such as United Way,              
every year.                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he had no recollection of it being            
every year.                                                                    
                                                                               
Number 2384                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.  Representatives  Croft,            
Green and Berkowitz voted in favor of the amendment.                           
Representatives Rokeberg, Porter and James voted against it.                   
Amendment 4 failed.                                                            
                                                                               
Number 2464                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 5, which                 
reads:                                                                         
                                                                               
     Page 2, line 29, following "AS 15.13.160.":                               
                                                                               
          Insert "A labor organization shall provide each employee             
          whose dues or fees are contributed to a political action             
          committee an opportunity to request that that portion of             
          the dues or fees that are intended to be used as a                   
          political contribution be refunded.  The request is valid            
          until revoked.  The labor organization shall refund the              
          amount intended to be used as a political contribution to            
          the employee no later than 30 days after the labor                   
          organization receives the payroll deduction form the                 
          employer."                                                           
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.                                              
                                                                               
TAPE 98-84, SIDE A                                                             
Number 0001                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that there are the same rights with the            
continuing restriction on all of the contributions.  He stated that            
one could state how much they intend to deduct and anyone can say              
no.                                                                            
                                                                               
Number 0073                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that this would mean that an employee              
would have to do this no later than 30 days after the contribution             
is made.  Therefore, the contribution could not be spent until                 
after 30 days has gone by.  She asked if this amendment is                     
contingent on the others passing.                                              
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said "It is not explicitly conditional on the             
one year, though I thought of them together.  It still switches                
them to be -- may deduct and then you can say don't."                          
                                                                               
Number 0176                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that for administrative purposes it                
would be fine to ask them to revoke the request.  She referred to              
the refund portion and stated that it bothers her.  She stated that            
they should be able to stop it but did not know if they should have            
to receive a refund.                                                           
                                                                               
Number 0253                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that this reverses the intent of the              
bill and would be surprised if there was not in most labor                     
contracts, these types of prohibitions against the employer.                   
                                                                               
Number 0288                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to "GOPAC" and stated that he is             
troubled as it seems like the intent of this legislation is that it            
was not formulated for Alaska.  He stated that he would like to                
know if this bill was crafted for a Lower 48 situation.                        
                                                                               
Number 0368                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BENNETT replied that he believe it was crafted to take care of             
a situation where people may be finding that the funds they are                
contributing are being spent without their permission.                         
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that if existing state law stayed                 
where it was this bill would be superfluous.                                   
                                                                               
Number 0396                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.   Representatives  Croft            
and Berkowitz voted in favor of the amendment.  Representatives                
Rokeberg, Porter, James and Green voted against it.  Amendment 5               
failed.                                                                        
                                                                               
Number 0479                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee rescind their                 
action on Amendment 2.  He said, "after reading the bill further I             
want to go back and I would like the committee to rescind their                
actions which would require a concurrence bill by the Senate."  He             
stated that it is just making a subtle change.                                 
                                                                               
Number 0555                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected.  He stated that it improves the                 
bill.  He stated that there are rules that one body does not talk              
about the other body because they are supposed to independently                
evaluate bills.  He stated that if it improves the bill that is                
what they ought to do.                                                         
                                                                               
Number 0626                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he did not disagree with                   
Representative Croft in terms of the independent review of the                 
bill.  He stated that by having the group prescribe the form rather            
than have the individual employee have to go through the process of            
having it approved by APOC, is more efficient.                                 
                                                                               
Number 0728                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that maybe Brooke Miles could speak to                
this issue before the action is rescinded.                                     
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he would withdraw his motion at            
the chair's request.                                                           
                                                                               
Number 0752                                                                    
                                                                               
BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices                    
Commission, Department of Administration, stated that the                      
commission met and discussed this bill  and stated that their                  
position statement is in the committee packet.  She stated                     
subparagraph (a)(1) is currently illegal under existing law and it             
will remain to be against the law.  She stated that the commission             
has significant concerns regarding Section 2 (a)(2).  The                      
commission has no expertise in that field and that portion of this             
legislation would be better with an agency that has more expertise             
in the field of employment discrimination.  She referred to page 2,            
subsection (c) and stated that it would cause members of labor                 
unions or members of employee packs that use a payroll deduction               
program to have the information regarding their contributions even             
if it were less than $100, as public information.  She stated that             
current law provides that each contributor who gives to the                    
candidates campaign or to a political party or to a political                  
action committee is made public on the disclosures submitted by                
those entities when it is more than $100.  Contributors also have              
the responsibility to file a disclosure report when they give more             
than $250, which will be changed in June.  She stated that the                 
fiscal note to some extent reflects the commission's envisioning               
having to learn about employment discrimination.                               
                                                                               
Number 0965                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, "After disbursement in excess of $100 per               
year would that alleviate part of your concern?"                               
                                                                               
Number 0981                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. MILES replied that it would with that section.                             
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that it would be on page 2, line 15, Section             
(C).                                                                           
                                                                               
Number 1021                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment 6.                       
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.                                
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.                                              
                                                                               
Number 1053                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she was wondering if this was in              
the right place.  She asked if they are talking about over $100 in             
total or on a individual basis.                                                
                                                                               
Number 1080                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, "I don't believe that anybody                  
generally would be on the payroll-- it would have to be a very                 
short term employee and I think that many companies have                       
probationary periods or periods where they don't grant full                    
benefits nor do they allow check-offs or things like that normally             
in an interim period.  I would venture to say that the vast                    
majority would amount under a $100 a year."  He stated that this               
was a lot to do about nothing and maintains his objection.                     
                                                                               
Number 1119                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that is the case that it is much to do                 
about nothing why is Representative Rokeberg maintaining his                   
objection.  He stated that if most of the people are going to fall             
under this anyway it will just put them in the same category as                
those who contribute over $100 a year.                                         
                                                                               
Number 1136                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that it may require a segregation on            
information until they reach the threshold.                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that it is being done now.                               
                                                                               
Number 1148                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that would be his concern.  He asked              
if it is a weekly deduction disbursement and if it is not over $100            
would it not fall under this provision.                                        
                                                                               
Number 1215                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the language states "including a              
copy of each employee's written requests the amounts and dates                 
funds were actually withheld and the amounts and dates funds were              
transferred to a group."  She stated that it seems that they are               
asking for something other then whether the contribution is over               
$100.  She stated that it is a requirement that already exists.                
She stated that she is beginning to think that the change is not               
needed.                                                                        
                                                                               
Number 1266                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Miles for the discussion of the              
commission on that point.  He stated that under current APOC law               
people who contribute under $100 are not revealed, as a matter of              
bookkeeping not of confidentiality.                                            
                                                                               
Number 1300                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. MILES replied that it is correct, although they are required to            
maintain the records in case APOC asks for them.  She stated that              
the commission's primary concern is that it may have a chilling                
effect on an employee's willingness to participate in the program.             
                                                                               
Number 1329                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that it is looking into payroll                    
information to a certain extent, but in this case she did not see              
a problem with that.                                                           
                                                                               
Number 1345                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there was a disbursement of less             
than $100 over a period of a year would that person's name be                  
public information.                                                            
                                                                               
MS. MILES replied no.                                                          
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if someone was to give his campaign             
$50, he would not have to publicize his name.                                  
                                                                               
MS. MILES stated that is correct, although the candidate would be              
responsible to maintain records regarding the contributor.                     
                                                                               
Number 1382                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that if he received more than $250             
in aggregate, than his name would be public with APOC and both he              
and the contributor would have to send a form in.                              
                                                                               
Number 1405                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "If one goes over $100 (indisc.--talking)                 
available, it's $250 when you get in the countdown days, you have              
to make that disclosure within days, you don't have to go to $250              
before your name is published."                                                
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he thought all that was                   
changed.                                                                       
                                                                               
Number 1414                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. MILES stated that SB 175 did change that requirement.  She                 
stated that at the end of June, a contributor who gives $500 to a              
candidate or a group will be required to file an independent                   
disclosure report within 30 days.                                              
                                                                               
Number 1443                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that is pertaining to the contributor.                 
                                                                               
MS. MILES replied that is correct.                                             
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that he was talking about the candidate                  
reporting names for contributions over $100 has not changed.                   
                                                                               
MS. MILES replied that is correct.                                             
                                                                               
Number 1457                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if that information is publicly                 
disclosed.                                                                     
                                                                               
MS. MILES stated that is correct.                                              
                                                                               
Number 1484                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if someone in aggregate, through an             
organization gives him less than $100 directly, he would not have              
to report them and their name would not be public.                             
                                                                               
MS. MILES replied that is correct.                                             
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that the way the bill is written,              
in the course of keeping the records, that contributor's name would            
be publicized.                                                                 
                                                                               
Number 1560                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. MILES replied that is the view of the commission.                          
                                                                               
Number 1565                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "You said, for people contributing to               
groups if they give more than $100 or whatever the group does not              
have to report where the money comes from?  What is the level of               
reporting by groups, money going into the group?"                              
                                                                               
MS. MILES replied that if she said that, she mis-spoke.  A                     
contribution to a group is treated just as a contribution to a                 
candidate.  If someone were to give $100 or less to a group there              
name, although recorded on the groups records, is not made public              
on their campaign disclosure statement.                                        
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if someone were to contribute over $100             
to a group their name will go down.                                            
                                                                               
MS. MILES stated that it is correct.                                           
                                                                               
Number 1579                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that as this was written but if they only                
contribute $50 there name will public, which makes them different              
from other contributors.                                                       
                                                                               
MS. MILES replied that is correct.                                             
                                                                               
Number 1589                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that it is public but it is not                    
necessarily reported to APOC.  It is just made available during                
normal business hours.                                                         
                                                                               
Number 1650                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.  Representatives                    
Berkowitz, Croft and Green voted in favor of the amendment.                    
Representatives Porter, James and Rokeberg voted against the                   
amendment.  Amendment 6 failed.                                                
                                                                               
Number 1653                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he would like to propose an               
amendment on page 2, line 19-20 to delete the last sentence, "These            
documents and books of account are open to public inspection during            
normal business hours."                                                        
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.                                              
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he could understand the need              
for an official governmental entity to look at this to ensure that             
there is no malfeasance but by having it open to public inspection             
any one could look at a company's business.  He stated that as he              
understood the intent of this legislation, it is not to offer up               
the private parts of a union or a company for public inspection, it            
is to protect the individuals and their say in their paycheck.                 
                                                                               
Number 1700                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Representatives                     
Berkowitz and Croft voted in favor of the amendment.                           
Representatives Porter, James, Green and Rokeberg voted against the            
amendment.  Amendment 7 failed.                                                
                                                                               
Number 1727                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked "Would it make it somewhat easier on the            
commission to have what we did, in other words to have approved by             
the commission rather than you guys having to design and distribute            
these forms."                                                                  
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if he was referring to page 2, line 11.                   
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied yes, if on line 11, to delete                     
"prescribed" and insert "approved".                                            
                                                                               
Number 1743                                                                    
                                                                               
MS. MILES stated that it would then require the individual                     
companies to prepare their own forms and request the approval of               
the commission.  She stated that she could not say which would be              
easier, the commission is in the business of prescribing forms but             
they can approve them too.                                                     
                                                                               
Number 1770                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that it seems to her that the form                 
would only have to be prescribed once, but if you have to approve              
it, that will have to be done several times.                                   
                                                                               
Number 1783                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to rescind the committee's               
action on Amendment 2.                                                         
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected.  He stated that it would be more                
flexible for the individuals to be able to do it, as long as it is             
not in a discriminatory or biased manner.                                      
                                                                               
Number 1818                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.  Representatives                    
Berkowitz and Croft voted against rescinding Amendment 2.                      
Representatives Porter, James, Green and Rokeberg voted in favor of            
rescinding Amendment 2.  Amendment 2 was rescinded.                            
                                                                               
Number 1854                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Bennett what the inspiration for            
the bill is.                                                                   
                                                                               
MR. BENNETT replied that he would have to confess ignorance as he              
was not here when it was proposed last session and it was Joe                  
Ambrose who monitored this legislation.                                        
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ asked, "And this GOPAC talking points?"              
                                                                               
Number 1903                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BENNETT replied that it just came in recently and he did not               
know why it has come in at this late date.                                     
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he is troubled by the fact                
that the policy they are generating here is being dictated by                  
outside forces.                                                                
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she objected.                                 
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he objected to the objection.              
                                                                               
Number 1903                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BENNETT stated that he had only received the letter four days              
ago.                                                                           
                                                                               
Number 1910                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that the other day they passed a               
bill out of committee regarding the source of outside money having             
an impact on the legislature's policy decisions.  He stated that it            
is a valid concern.                                                            
                                                                               
Number 1932                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that the bill that Representative                 
Berkowitz is referring to is a bill that is concerned with                     
identifying the sources of the money that is influencing Alaskans              
as opposed to making appearances that they were Alaskans that had              
the money.  He stated that there is not any testimony that there is            
a relationship between that piece of information and this piece of             
legislation.  He stated that to the extent that there is some                  
philosophical influence on the bill is not a secret.  He stated                
that the legislature adopts things from the outside all the time.              
                                                                               
Number 1967                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he has not had time to read any            
of the information from GOPAC and he probably will not.                        
                                                                               
Number 1977                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BENNETT stated that he could solely be blamed for bringing this            
information to the committee.  He stated that Senator Taylor did               
not ask him to bring the information to the committee.                         
                                                                               
Number 1996                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move CSSB 114(JUD) AM out of            
committee with the attached fiscal notes and with individual                   
recommendations.                                                               
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.  He stated that he is concerned             
with the public inspection.  He stated that the intent of the bill             
is to ensure an employee or union member has the right to check off            
when and to whom their contributions are going, subsection (c) goes            
far beyond that intent.  He stated that it is a transparent attempt            
to open up the private workings of company or a union to public                
inspection, which will have a chilling effect on their ability to              
participate in the political process.  He stated that it is a huge             
problem.                                                                       
                                                                               
Number 2045                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he is upset that some of the                  
amendments were not adopted because at the core of the bill there              
is no disagreement that there ought to be disclosure.  He stated               
that this bill makes it onerous and difficult for working Alaskans             
to work together to effect the public process.  He said, "The                  
primary effect left is going to be big businesses and very wealthy             
people.  I think that is where we are headed and I know that is                
were GOPAC wants us to go."  He stated that it disturbs him to see             
such obvious partisan bill drafting, there is an obvious nationwide            
agenda to do this across the state.  He asserted either way working            
Alaskans will have less of a say in the political process.                     
                                                                               
Number 2105                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.  Representatives                    
Berkowitz and Croft voted in against the bill.  Representatives                
Porter, James, Green and Rokeberg voted in favor of  the bill.                 
Chairman Green stated that CSSB 114(JUD) AM moved from the House               
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                  
                                                                               
CSSB 158(L&C) - INSURANCE CHANGES FOR DR. LIC REVOC.                           
                                                                               
Number 2159                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next order of business to be CSSB
158(L&C), "An Act relating to motor vehicle liability insurance                
covering a person who has had the person's driver's license revoked            
for possession or consumption of alcohol while under 21 years of               
age."                                                                          
                                                                               
RALPH BENNETT, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator                 
Robin Taylor, Alaska State Legislature, read the following sponsor             
statement into the record:                                                     
                                                                               
"Senate Bill 158 is an act relating to motor vehicle liability                 
insurance covering a person who has had the person's driver's                  
license revoked.  The 'use it or lose it' provisions of current                
statute have had an unintended consequence on several Alaskans.                
Minors who lose their drivers licenses for minor consuming offenses            
often find themselves and their families with increased insurance              
premiums and occasionally a policy cancellation.                               
                                                                               
"Senate Bill 158 would correct this situation by prohibiting an                
insurer from raising rates and/or canceling existing policies                  
solely for suspension of a minor's drivers license as a result of              
minor consuming, and very importantly that is where not involving              
driving.  This narrowly focused version for SB 158 does not address            
other offenses such as DWI, using false ID, or possession of                   
controlled substances.                                                         
                                                                               
"Section 1 adds language to the existing statute stating that AS               
21.36.210 (a) (2) does not apply to an administrative revocation as            
described in AS 21.89.027, the new section which begins on page 2              
of the bill.                                                                   
                                                                               
"AS 21.26.210 (a) specifies why an insurer may cancel a policy:                
nonpayment of premium or suspension or revocation of a drivers                 
license.                                                                       
                                                                               
"Section 2 is the operative section of the bill and adds a new                 
provision to state law. (a) says an insurer may not refuse to issue            
or renew motor vehicle liability insurance, cancel an existing                 
policy, deny a covered claim, or increase the premium only because             
of an administrative or court ordered suspension for minor                     
consuming.  (b) says that (a) does not prevent an insurer from                 
underwriting or rating a loss in the same manner as it would have              
had the suspension not occurred.                                               
                                                                               
"Section 3 says the bill would apply to policies issued or renewed             
on or after the effective date.  This would mean that policies                 
currently being charged a higher rate would have to be adjusted at             
the next renewal.                                                              
                                                                               
Number 2259                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that this bill was heard in the                 
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee and he is real pleased             
with this bill.                                                                
                                                                               
MICHAEL LESSMEIER, Lobbyist, State Farm Insurance, stated that he              
would reiterate what Representative Rokeberg said.  He stated that             
State Farm Insurance worked very closely with Mr. Bennett.  State              
Farm's concern was that sometimes non-driving behavior does carry              
over into driving behavior.  He stated that this bill achieves the             
purpose.                                                                       
                                                                               
Number 2316                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that they would hold the bill.                           
                                                                               
CSSB 319(RLS) - ARBITRATION                                                    
                                                                               
Number 2328                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would hear CSSB 319(RLS) "An            
Act relating to arbitration; amending Rules 57(a) and 77(g), Alaska            
Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."                
                                                                               
JERRY BURNETT, Legislative Assistant to Randy Phillips, Alaska                 
State Legislature, stated that SB 319 requires that in a contract              
subject to arbitration language explaining the implications of                 
arbitration is typed in capitol letters within in the arbitration              
agreement or on a separate document.  This language will state                 
clearly that a party to arbitration may be limiting or waiving                 
rights to other remedies, including appeal of an arbitrator's                  
decision to a court of law.  He stated that the CSSB 319 (RLS)                 
clarifies provisions that exclude labor management agreements                  
unless the parties agree that they want to include an arbitration              
clause.  It also adds that these provisions do not apply to                    
personal injury claims, very small claims where the total                      
consideration, not the amount to be arbitrated, is less than the               
small claims amount and insurance claims or annuity contracts.                 
                                                                               
Number 2370                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if he would explain why the Senator Phillips              
feels it is necessary to have it in large type.                                
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT stated that the number of contracts commonly in use,               
including the Anchorage multiple listing service contract for the              
(indisc.) residents in Alaska, contain a provision that call for               
arbitration of disputes that arise under the contract.  He stated              
that consumers who have signed these contracts, not knowing what               
their rights are and then have found themselves in a arbitration               
situations.  He stated that there are no real rules prescribing who            
can be an arbitrator and if they have to follow Alaska law.  He                
stated that people have unknowingly signed the contract and then               
wound up in an adverse situation with large attorney fees and no               
appeal to the courts.  He stated that this law is modeled after a              
Montana Statute.  Senator Phillips felt that it was necessary that             
consumers know what arbitration is and what rights they are giving             
up.                                                                            
                                                                               
Number 2450                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what right are we giving up under                  
arbitration.                                                                   
                                                                               
Number 2457                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT replied that they give up the right to appeal by                   
signing a contract with an arbitration clause.  Also they may be               
giving up the right to have a conflict resolved in a court of law.             
                                                                               
TAPE 98-84, SIDE B                                                             
Number 0001                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT stated that it is listed in the bill page 2, line 31               
through page 3, line 22. He stated that this is a list of the                  
rights one may be giving up.  He stated that the bill requires that            
the notice be read, it does not require that a person sign an                  
arbitration agreement or that they waive their right to                        
arbitration.                                                                   
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there are very many people who go to                   
arbitration without a lawyer.                                                  
                                                                               
Number 0060                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT stated that he imagined that there are but he could not            
speak to that.                                                                 
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the would assume that if one hired a                
lawyer they would be aware of all these issues and that this bill              
would be to protect the public who might what to do this without an            
attorney.                                                                      
                                                                               
Number 0082                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT stated that it is more to protect the public when they             
sign the original contract for the purchase of a home or the                   
purchase of something else when it contains an arbitration clause,             
giving away their right to go to court.                                        
                                                                               
Number 0097                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the American Arbitration                     
Association provided their opinion on this bill.                               
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT replied not to his knowledge, although he believes they            
have heard of it.                                                              
                                                                               
Number 0112                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to page 2, line 8, and stated that              
it may not be the intent but it reads that "in order for an                    
agreement to provide for arbitration, the agreement must contain a             
notice that states that the party has the option to compel                     
arbitration to bind the other party to the arbitration decision and            
the arbitration limits the right and remedies otherwise under the              
law."  He stated referred to the word "must" and stated it could be            
interrupted that the party who wishes to arbitrate must do it the              
way that it is stated.                                                         
                                                                               
Number 0153                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT replied that he could not speak to that and                        
unfortunately Bill McNall is not present, as he is the attorney                
that worked on it.  He stated that the bill was reviewed by the                
and assistant Alaska attorney general and believes that it is an               
accurate statement.                                                            
                                                                               
Number 0168                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that it may be accurate but there              
is a huge internal inconsistency.  He referred to lines 12-14, page            
2 "parties to an arbitration agreement do not waive their rights to            
obtain a judicial determination."  He stated and then the bill                 
states that you will or may be limiting a dispute resolved in a                
court of law ....                                                              
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT stated that if you read line 26, page 2 it states that             
you do not waive your right to obtain a judicial determination of              
whether a particular dispute is arbitrable.  He stated that this is            
consistent with line 12-14.                                                    
                                                                               
Number 0200                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that it is not that one can not get to             
a judicial solution.                                                           
                                                                               
Number 0209                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Would this be a chilling affect of ever                  
having this in an agreement."                                                  
                                                                               
Number 0239                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how many hearings has this bill had.             
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT replied it has been heard in the Senate Judiciary,                 
Labor and Commerce and Rules.                                                  
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there are any witness from the                
real estate industry.                                                          
                                                                               
Number 0257                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT replied that he discussed it with members of the                   
industry and none of them had any opposition to it.  They have                 
neither testified against it or for it.                                        
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was a reason for the                    
immediate effective date.                                                      
                                                                               
Number 0276                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT stated that it was suggested by Bill McNall.                       
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if he had thought of the                         
ramifications of an immediate effective date.                                  
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT replied that it has not come up in any of the hearings.            
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that there would be a high cost to              
the state by having an immediate effective date.                               
                                                                               
Number 0301                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT stated that the sponsor would agree that having an                 
immediate effective date on that basis is not a good idea.                     
                                                                               
Number 0313                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the arbitration provisions allow              
for judicial appeal if there is a lack of satisfaction at                      
arbitration.                                                                   
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT replied that they do not.                                          
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that was in the definition of                 
arbitration or could one appeal from an arbitrators ruling if one              
agreed to it prior to the arbitration.                                         
                                                                               
Number 0341                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT stated that he believed one could if it was mutually               
agreed to.  However the Anchorage MLS agreement does not allow for             
it.                                                                            
                                                                               
Number 0348                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Burnett was aware that this               
bill is labeled as a "make work for attorney's bill."                          
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT replied that he has heard that concern expressed,                  
however he stated that is not the sponsors intent.                             
                                                                               
Number 0372                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how many witnesses in the various                
branches of the law testified for or against this bill.                        
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT replied that two attorneys have testified on the bill.             
                                                                               
Number 0395                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he would like to read his changes            
that would make more sense in the bill.  He stated that on line 10,            
page 2, delete "has" and insert "may have" after the word "party."             
After the word "arbitration" delete "and" and insert "or".  He                 
stated on line 11, insert "the" before "arbitration," insert "may"             
before the word "limits" and change that to "limit".  He stated                
that on line 12, after the word "state," delete "that" and insert              
"whether".  On line 13 delete "do not" after the word "agreement."             
                                                                               
                                                                               
Number 0478                                                                    
                                                                               
MR. BURNETT stated that the sponsor's sole concern is to make sure             
that a person entering into an agreement, that contains an                     
arbitration clause, has some type of notice that lets them know                
that they are waiving their constitutional rights to go to court.              
                                                                               
Number 0492                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that with that in mind he would subscribe to             
the way Representative Porter has modified it as it reads easier.              
He asked if he is offering it as an amendment.                                 
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.                      
                                                                               
Number 0549                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none,                 
Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                       
                                                                               
Number 0549                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he is nervous about the bill he            
does not think that it has had a proper hearing.  He stated that               
the general public has not been noticed and the real estate                    
industry is barely aware of its existence, if at all.  He stated               
that to put this into a contract, particularly a real estate                   
contract there should be some feedback from those people.                      
                                                                               
Number 0613                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if it would be proper to take this bill             
up the following day.                                                          
                                                                               
Number 0624                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that perhaps they could hear from              
the alternate dispute section of the bar tomorrow.                             
                                                                               
Number 0639                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the committee will hold off on any                  
further action on the bill and hold the bill over.                             
                                                                               
CSSB 158(L&C) - INSURANCE CHANGES FOR DR. LIC REVOC.                           
                                                                               
Number 0662                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that they would take up HCSCSSB 158(L&C)                 
again.                                                                         
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to move HCSCSSB 158(L&C) out            
of committee with the attached fiscal notes and with individual                
recommendations.                                                               
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked of there was an objection.  Hearing none,                 
HCSCSSB 158(L&C) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.            
                                                                               
CSSB 274(FIN) am - PROBATION AND PAROLE FEES                                   
                                                                               
Number 0678                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would hear CSSB 274(FIN) am,            
"An Act relating to fees for probation and parole; relating to                 
eligibility for a permanent fund dividend for persons convicted of             
and incarcerated for certain offenses; and relating to notice                  
requirements relating to appropriations from the permanent fund                
dividend fund to the office of victims' rights."  He stated that               
the sponsor is not in attendance, so they would take it up                     
tomorrow.                                                                      
                                                                               
CSSB 232(JUD) - ELECTRONIC RECORDS; RECORD REQUIREMENTS                        
                                                                               
Number 0678                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next order of business to be CSSB
232(JUD), "An Act relating to electronic signatures, electronic                
records, requirements for records, and the reproduction of public              
records."                                                                      
                                                                               
Number 0706                                                                    
                                                                               
RICHARD VITALE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Sean Parnell,                 
Alaska State Legislature, stated that the bill establishes                     
electronic signature in law to be equivalent to a written signature            
and repeals some of the notarization requirements from the                     
government to do business so they can use electronic signatures.               
                                                                               
Number 0716                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if this was the same bill that the                 
House Special Committee on Telecommunications heard.                           
                                                                               
MR. VITALE replied that it is the same bill with the exception of              
the archiving provisions in it.  The only amendment made on the                
Senate side was to put in a penalty of unsworn falsification site              
of statute and clarified that a certifying authority can be done by            
the state if the state is part of the exchange process of the                  
electronic signature.  He stated that if two private entities want             
to do so they do not have to come to the state to do it.                       
                                                                               
Number 0750                                                                    
                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move CSSB 232(JUD), 0-                  
LS1301\E.                                                                      
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none, CSSB
232(JUD), 0-LS1301\E, moved from the House Judiciary Standing                  
Committee.                                                                     
                                                                               
HB 444 - PATERNITY CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS                                       
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the final order of business to be HB 444,             
"An Act relating to paternity determinations; relating to                      
extinguishment of child support arrearages and public assistance               
debt and to reimbursement of payments already made to the state on             
behalf of the child when paternity is administratively                         
disestablished or a court determination of paternity is vacated;               
and amending Rules 60 and 90.3(h), Alaska Rules of Civil                       
Procedure."                                                                    
                                                                               
SHIRLEY DEAN, Child Support Enforcement Division, Department of                
Revenue, stated that the division has not had time to research the             
legal and fiscal impacts of the legislation.  However, the attorney            
general's office is working on it right now.                                   
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it would be appropriate to revisit this                
bill tomorrow.                                                                 
                                                                               
MS. DEAN stated that she would appreciate that.                                
                                                                               
Number 0817                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that HB 444 would be held over.                          
                                                                               
ADJOURNMENT                                                                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee at             
3:48 p.m.                                                                      

Document Name Date/Time Subjects