Legislature(1999 - 2000)

04/19/2000 01:25 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
         HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                   April 19, 2000                                                                                               
                     1:25 p.m.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman                                                                                              
Representative Joe Green                                                                                                        
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                                                                  
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative Lisa Murkowski                                                                                                   
Representative Eric Croft                                                                                                       
Representative Beth Kerttula                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 220(FIN)                                                                                                 
"An Act relating to the requirements for partnerships and limited                                                               
liability companies to qualify for the Alaska bidder preference and                                                             
a certain disability preference under the State Procurement Code;                                                               
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 220(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 259(JUD)                                                                                                 
"An Act relating to crimes and offenses relating to aural                                                                       
representations, recordings, access devices, identification                                                                     
documents, impersonation, false reports, and computers; and                                                                     
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 259(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 294(JUD)                                                                                                 
"An Act relating to the possession of concealed handguns and to                                                                 
concealed handgun permits."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
      - MOVED HCS CSSB 294(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 220                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: PROCUREMENT PREFS:PARTNERSHP/LTD LIAB CO                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/24/00      2053     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 1/24/00      2054     (S)  L&C, FIN                                                                                            
 1/24/00      2054     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM/ALL)                                                                          
 1/24/00      2054     (S)  GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                                                                       
 2/08/00               (S)  L&C AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 2/08/00               (S)  -- Rescheduled to 2/10/00 --                                                                        
 2/10/00               (S)  L&C AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 2/10/00               (S)  Moved Out of Committee                                                                              
 2/10/00               (S)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 2/11/00      2272     (S)  L&C RPT 4DP                                                                                         
 2/11/00      2272     (S)  DP: MACKIE, TIM KELLY, DONLEY,LEMAN                                                                 
 2/11/00      2272     (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FN (ADM/ALL)                                                                          
 3/21/00               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 3/21/00               (S)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 3/21/00               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 3/31/00               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 3/31/00               (S)  Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                             
 4/13/00               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 4/13/00      3051     (S)  FIN RPT CS  8DP  NEW TITLE                                                                          
 4/13/00      3051     (S)  DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,                                                                   
 4/13/00      3051     (S)  PETE KELLY, ADAMS, WILKEN, LEMAN,                                                                   
 4/13/00      3051     (S)  DONLEY                                                                                              
 4/13/00      3051     (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FN (ADM/ALL)                                                                          
 4/14/00               (S)  RLS AT  1:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 4/14/00               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 4/15/00      3130     (S)  RLS TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 04/15/00                                                                   
 4/15/00      3133     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 4/15/00      3133     (S)  FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                         
 4/15/00      3133     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                           
                            UNAN CONSENT                                                                                        
 4/15/00      3133     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 220(FIN)                                                                   
 4/15/00      3134     (S)  PASSED Y20 N-                                                                                       
 4/15/00      3134     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                   
 4/15/00      3145     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 4/15/00      3188     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 4/15/00      3189     (H)  JUD                                                                                                 
 4/18/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/18/00               (H)  -- Meeting Canceled --                                                                              
 4/19/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 259                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: CRIMES: REPRESENTATIONS/I.D./COMPUTERS                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 2/10/00      2259     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 2/10/00      2259     (S)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 2/16/00               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 2/16/00               (S)  Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                             
 2/21/00               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 2/21/00               (S)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 2/21/00               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/03/00               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 3/03/00               (S)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 3/03/00               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/20/00               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 3/20/00               (S)  Moved CS(Jud) Out of Committee                                                                      
 3/20/00               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/21/00      2676     (S)  JUD RPT CS 1DP 3NR  NEW TITLE                                                                       
 3/21/00      2676     (S)  DP: TAYLOR; NR: TORGERSON, ELLIS,                                                                   
 3/21/00      2676     (S)  HALFORD                                                                                             
 3/21/00      2676     (S)  INDETERMINATE FN TO SB (ADM)                                                                        
 3/21/00      2676     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB (COR)                                                                        
 3/22/00      2692     (S)  FISCAL NOTE TO CS (ADM)                                                                             
 3/28/00               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 3/28/00               (S)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 3/28/00               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 4/06/00               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 4/06/00               (S)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 4/06/00               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 4/07/00               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 4/07/00               (S)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 4/07/00               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 4/12/00               (S)  FIN AT  6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 4/12/00               (S)  Moved CS(Fin) Out of Committee                                                                      
 4/12/00               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 4/13/00               (S)  RLS AT 12:15 PM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 4/13/00               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 4/13/00      3054     (S)  FIN RPT CS(JUD) 6DP 2NR                                                                             
 4/13/00      3054     (S)  DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,                                                                   
 4/13/00      3054     (S)  GREEN, PETE KELLY, LEMAN                                                                            
 4/13/00      3054     (S)  NR: ADAMS, WILKEN                                                                                   
 4/13/00      3054     (S)  FISCAL NOTE (S.FIN/DPS)                                                                             
 4/13/00      3054     (S)  PREVIOUS FISCAL NOTE (ADM)                                                                          
 4/14/00      3082     (S)  RLS TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 04/14/00                                                                   
 4/14/00      3086     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 4/14/00      3086     (S)  JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                         
 4/14/00      3086     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                           
                            UNAN CONSENT                                                                                        
 4/14/00      3086     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 259(JUD)                                                                  
 4/14/00      3086     (S)  PASSED Y20 N-                                                                                       
 4/14/00      3087     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                   
 4/14/00      3117     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 4/15/00      3161     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 4/15/00      3162     (H)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 4/18/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/18/00               (H)  -- Meeting Canceled --                                                                              
 4/19/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 294                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: CONCEALED HANDGUNS                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 3/21/00      2678     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 3/21/00      2678     (S)  JUD                                                                                                 
 3/27/00               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 3/27/00               (S)  -- Rescheduled to 3/29/00 --                                                                        
 3/29/00               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 3/29/00               (S)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 3/29/00               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/29/00               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/03/00               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 4/03/00               (S)  Moved CS(Jud) Out of Committee                                                                      
 4/03/00               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/04/00      2854     (S)  JUD RPT CS 3DP      SAME TITLE                                                                      
 4/04/00      2854     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, TORGERSON, HALFORD                                                                      
 4/04/00      2854     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)                                                                              
 4/06/00               (S)  RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 4/06/00               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 4/10/00      2949     (S)  RLS TO CALENDAR AND 2 OR 04/10/00                                                                   
 4/10/00      2951     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 4/10/00      2951     (S)  JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                         
 4/10/00      2951     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                           
                            UNAN CONSENT                                                                                        
 4/10/00      2951     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 294(JUD)                                                                  
 4/10/00      2951     (S)  PASSED Y14 N5 E1                                                                                    
 4/10/00      2952     (S)  ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                     
 4/11/00      3010     (S)  RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                                                                        
 4/11/00      3011     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 4/12/00      3072     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 4/12/00      3072     (H)  STA, JUD                                                                                            
 4/13/00               (H)  STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                         
 4/13/00               (H)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 4/13/00               (H)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 4/15/00               (H)  STA AT  9:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                         
 4/15/00               (H)  Moved HCS CSSB 294(STA) Out of                                                                      
                            Committee                                                                                           
 4/15/00               (H)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 4/17/00      3222     (H)  STA RPT HCS(STA) 5DP                                                                                
 4/17/00      3223     (H)  DP: JAMES, GREEN, HUDSON, WHITAKER,                                                                 
 4/17/00      3223     (H)  OGAN                                                                                                
 4/17/00      3223     (H)  SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 4/4/00                                                                
 4/18/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/18/00               (H)  -- Meeting Canceled --                                                                              
 4/19/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
DAVID KOIVUNIEMI, Assistant Commissioner                                                                                        
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
P.O. Box 110200                                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska  99811-0200                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented SB 220.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
LESIL McGUIRE, Staff                                                                                                            
   to Representative Pete Kott and                                                                                              
   Committee Aide, House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                           
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 118                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered question relating to SB 220.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                      
Legal Services Section - Juneau                                                                                                 
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law                                                                                                               
PO Box 110300                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                                                                       
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified that the Criminal Division of the                                                                
Department of Law is in support of the passage of CSSB 259(JUD).                                                                
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT DAVID HUDSON                                                                                                         
Department of Public Safety                                                                                                     
Alaska State Troopers                                                                                                           
5700 E Tudor Rd                                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska 99507                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Expressed concerns regarding the change in the                                                             
fiscal note that resulted in the loss of the position that would                                                                
cover the crimes addressed in [CSSB 259(JUD)].  Testified on                                                                    
proposed HCS CSSB 294.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director                                                                                                   
Public Defender Agency                                                                                                          
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
900 W 5th Avenue, Suite 200                                                                                                     
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090                                                                                                    
POSITION STATEMENT:  Expressed concerns with the levels of                                                                      
punishment assigned the crimes in CSSB 259(JUD).                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
PORTIA PARKER, Staff                                                                                                            
     to Senator Green                                                                                                           
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 125                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented CSSB 294(JUD) on behalf of the                                                                   
Senate Judiciary Committee.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
RAY HALLEY                                                                                                                      
PO Box 1515                                                                                                                     
Valdez, Alaska 99686                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of [the proposed HCS CSSB
294].                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-68, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                
meeting to order at 1:25 p.m.  Members present at the call to order                                                             
were Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg, James and Murkowski.                                                                
Representatives Croft and Kerttula arrived as the meeting was in                                                                
progress.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SB 220-PROCUREMENT PREFS:PARTNERSHP/LTD LIAB CO                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the first order of business would be                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 220(FIN), "An Act relating to the                                                                        
requirements for partnerships and limited liability companies to                                                                
qualify for the Alaska bidder preference and a certain disability                                                               
preference under the State Procurement Code; and providing for an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0067                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DAVID KOIVUNIEMI, Assistant Commissioner, Department of                                                                         
Administration, came forward to explain SB 220.  The bill clarifies                                                             
the Alaska bidder and disability preference sections of the State                                                               
Procurement Code regarding limited liability partnerships (LLPs)                                                                
and limited liability [companies](LLCs).  He noted that the                                                                     
procurement code was written in 1987, but the LLCs and LLPs were                                                                
not established in statute until the mid-1990s.  Mr. Koivuniemi                                                                 
informed the committee that SB 220 was amended in the Senate                                                                    
Finance Committee.  The bill was amended on page 2, lines 6 and 23,                                                             
to refer to managing members rather than managing directors.                                                                    
Therefore, SB 220 recognizes LLCs and LLPs to allow Alaska                                                                      
businesses to receive the Alaska bidder preference.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0226                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern that the meaning of a                                                                    
"qualifying entity" may broaden the opportunity for people without                                                              
a disability to benefit from the activities of this LLC, as she                                                                 
understands that language; she is not sure that was intended with                                                               
this legislation.  She explained, "In the first place, originally,                                                              
it was only those people with sole proprietorships, so there would                                                              
be no way to mess them up and give some benefit to somebody who is                                                              
not disabled, by this language, special preference."                                                                            
Representative James clarified that the LLC may have other members                                                              
besides managing members; those other members will benefit from the                                                             
financial activities of this company, but they may not be disabled.                                                             
She expanded on that:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     During this whole issue of changing it from a sole                                                                         
     proprietorship - which means the person would be disabled                                                                  
     and no one else is going to benefit from him/her taking                                                                    
     those preferences - the preference is going to directly                                                                    
     relate to that disabled person.  We added in partnership,                                                                  
     if each of the partners [is] disabled, and added in                                                                        
     corporation, which is wholly owned by individuals and                                                                      
     each of the individuals is a person with a disability.                                                                     
     ... Now we're going to add in limited liability companies                                                                  
     when only the managing members have to be disabled, and                                                                    
     it doesn't mention anything about other members.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated that there are other members that                                                               
would benefit from the special preferences given to the disabled                                                                
individuals.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0441                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI suggested the need to determine, from the                                                              
statutes, how the members of an LLC are defined.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that that bill was just passed                                                              
this year.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI acknowledged that and said, "If we are                                                                 
defining those who are members of an LLC as all being managing                                                                  
members, it's not a problem here."  Otherwise, she said,                                                                        
Representative James may be correct in that there are managing                                                                  
members and nonmanaging members.  She understood the statute to                                                                 
describe everyone as a member, but she doesn't believe that the                                                                 
members designate themselves as managing and nonmanaging members.                                                               
Therefore, she wanted to review the statutes in order to determine                                                              
whether it is defined.  She suggested that the committee may want                                                               
to say that all members are residents of the state or all members                                                               
are persons with disabilities.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that is a policy call.  He                                                                    
indicated that the memberships of an LLC and an LLP could include                                                               
individuals without disabilities such as silent partner investors.                                                              
He didn't recall how that was handled in the LLP bill this year, he                                                             
said.  He suggested that either the LLP bill or the statute could                                                               
be reviewed in order to determine whether there is a distinction.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that it could be fixed by removing                                                               
"managing" from the language, which would be her suggestion.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0603                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT read [from Title 10], "Except as otherwise provided                                                               
in the company's articles of organization, the members of an LLC                                                                
manage the affairs and make decisions of the company."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI related her understanding that perhaps                                                                 
they are all managing members.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that would be the case unless the articles of                                                              
organization specified otherwise.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that there would still be an                                                                      
opportunity for other folks to be there.  She related her belief                                                                
that "we" do not want to provide extra compensation to people who                                                               
are not disabled, which is of concern.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the LLC is the most common                                                             
form of business organization and thus "we" may be limiting it to                                                               
people [whose businesses] are formed that way, although he                                                                      
recognized that one may be a fleeting partner or alleged                                                                        
shareholder and have a disability.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0677                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed with Representative James in that it                                                                
seems that the section seems fairly tight because it seems to be                                                                
careful [in each qualification] to include everybody.  Although                                                                 
that may be restrictive, that is what has been attempted in the                                                                 
other areas and thus should [apply to] the members of the LLC.  He                                                              
asked whether, from the statutes, it is the impression that members                                                             
of a LLC are managing members unless the document says otherwise.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that is how he reads the statute.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that it allows for others to make                                                                
investments into this.  She doesn't believe that people should be                                                               
allowed to make investments in [organizations] that have special                                                                
[preferences] unless [the individuals] qualify.  She informed the                                                               
committee that her own bill that dealt with this issue had taken                                                                
four years to move through the process because of that very issue;                                                              
it was thought that by giving disabled individuals a benefit,                                                                   
others would benefit as well.  Therefore, she reiterated the need                                                               
to specify that it refers to the members, not the managing members.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that it says they are "all                                                                  
partners or residents of the state."  He further pointed out that                                                               
one could gain an advantage over a general-type partnership merely                                                              
by changing the form of business and adopting new corporate rules,                                                              
which he doesn't believe to be fair.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether Representative Rokeberg was                                                                  
talking about paragraph (4) or (3).                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that it was paragraph (4).                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied that they had gone through that                                                                    
argument.  She has a corporation in her own district, she noted,                                                                
where three people, who are disabled and in wheelchairs, have                                                                   
incorporated.  They would qualify under this language because [the                                                              
corporation] is wholly owned by three people who are disabled.                                                                  
That is the narrowness of it, so that someone who isn't disabled                                                                
[cannot] take advantage of this preferential treatment for disabled                                                             
people.  She specified that she likes this but isn't comfortable                                                                
with the word "managing."                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0848                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to remove                                                              
the word "managing."  She said it is under Section 2.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVES CROFT and MURKOWSKI pointed out that it also is in                                                              
Section 1.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES concurred.  She then pointed out that in                                                                   
[paragraph] (4) [under Section 1], there may be a problem if the                                                                
LLC is not made up of all [residents] of the state.  She said she                                                               
doesn't think the committee wants to be inviting in anybody from                                                                
out of state to take advantage of this preferential treatment.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. KOIVUNIEMI informed the committee that he had expected somebody                                                             
from [the Division of Banking, Securities &] Corporations to be                                                                 
there that day to answer these types of questions; he apologized                                                                
that no one was available to do so.  He suggested that if the                                                                   
committee wanted to [amend the bill], they could do that; then he                                                               
could check with the division and report back to the committee or                                                               
Representative James if a "fix" is required on the House floor.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0933                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES announced that she would like to amend                                                                     
Amendment 1, to take "managing" out of line 6 [in Section 1] and                                                                
line 22 [in Section 2].                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked the committee's counsel to specify                                                                
what AS 32.05 and AS 32.11 are.  He asked whether one of those                                                                  
relates to the LLP.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1015                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LESIL McGUIRE, Staff to Representative Pete Kott and Committee                                                                  
Aide, House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature,                                                             
after looking in the statutes, answered that one is referenced to                                                               
the uniform partnership Act, and the other is referenced to the                                                                 
uniform limited partnership [Act].                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT returned attention to Amendment 1, suggesting it may                                                              
be problematic.  He asked whether there was any objection; none was                                                             
offered.  [Therefore, Amendment 1 was treated as adopted.]                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. KOIVUNIEMI reaffirmed that he would get back to the committee                                                               
[if the Division of Banking, Securities & Corporations had                                                                      
concerns.]                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that nobody else was signed up to testify.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1096                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move SB 220 [CSSB
220(FIN)], as amended, from the committee with individual                                                                       
recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.  There being no                                                              
objection, HCS CSSB 220(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary                                                                 
Standing Committee.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SB 259 - CRIMES: REPRESENTATIONS/I.D./COMPUTERS                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
[There is considerable discussion of HB 338, which is similar but                                                               
not identical to SB 259.]                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business would be CS                                                             
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 259(JUD), "An Act relating to crimes and                                                                    
offenses relating to aural representations, recordings, access                                                                  
devices, identification documents, impersonation, false reports,                                                                
and computers; and providing for an effective date."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1140                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section                                                              
- Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, informed the                                                                    
committee that she was present at the request of Jim Pound, Staff                                                               
to Senator Taylor, who had a conflicting responsibility.  She noted                                                             
that this legislation is similar to the Governor's bill that was                                                                
recently passed.  Ms. Carpeneti announced that the Criminal                                                                     
Division of the Department of Law is in support of the passage of                                                               
CSSB 259(JUD).  She offered to review the differences between HB
338 and this legislation.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Carpeneti editorialize                                                               
as she reviewed the differences between the two bills.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI directed the committee to the first change located on                                                             
page 2, line 14, [of both CSHB 338(JUD) and CSSB 259(JUD)].  The                                                                
House bill refers to "other printed or electronically recorded                                                                  
material", while the Senate version refers to "or other material"                                                               
per the suggestion of Jerry Luckhaupt, Attorney, Legislative                                                                    
Research and Legal Services.  She explained that Mr. Luckhaupt                                                                  
feels that the language in the House bill is redundant and that                                                                 
"material" is adequate.  Ms. Carpeneti said that is fine.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI then referred to page 4, line 10, which she noted may                                                             
cause concern, although she hoped that it wouldn't.  She noted that                                                             
the [referenced language] is one of the three culpable mental                                                                   
states for criminal impersonation in the first degree.  Page 4,                                                                 
line 10, of the Senate bill reads "with criminal negligence,                                                                    
damages the financial reputation of the other person", while the                                                                
House bill changed the language to read "recklessly damages the                                                                 
financial reputation of the other person."  She pointed out that                                                                
the state already has to prove the culpable mental state of                                                                     
"knowingly" for the first two prongs.  [In the Senate version] the                                                              
state has to prove that the person "knowingly" possessed "an access                                                             
device or identification document of another person", "without                                                                  
authorization of the other person, uses the access device or                                                                    
identification document of another person to obtain a false                                                                     
identification document, open an account at a financial                                                                         
institution, obtain an access device, or obtain property or                                                                     
services" and "with criminal negligence, damages the financial                                                                  
reputation of the other person."  Therefore, Ms. Carpeneti urged                                                                
the committee to keep the [language] in the Senate bill [located on                                                             
page 4, line 10,] because [the state] already has to prove the                                                                  
culpable mental state of "knowingly" for the first two prongs.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1361                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said, in response to Representative Croft, that she                                                               
didn't explain the "knowingly" state very well and thus she                                                                     
specified that "knowingly" would be read into it by the court.  She                                                             
explained, "In default of a culpable mental state, the court will                                                               
read in  knowingly' as to acts and  recklessly' as to                                                                           
circumstances."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT posed a situation in which he "knowingly" has                                                              
and uses his wife's ATM card without his wife's permission.  He                                                                 
specified that he uses her ATM card to obtain say $300 and                                                                      
accidentally causes a problem that financially damages his wife's                                                               
financial reputation.  He asked, "Shouldn't we have a high standard                                                             
there?  If I do that negligently, I've just committed this crime,                                                               
haven't I?"                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. CARPENETI replied, "With criminal (indisc.)"  However, she                                                                  
pointed out the need to consider the definition of financial                                                                    
reputation when considering the possibility that a person could do                                                              
it carelessly.  That definition is on page 6, lines 1-5, of CSSB
259(JUD).  She stressed that one would have to do something bad                                                                 
enough that it would have to be noted on a credit report.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Section 6(2) of CSHB 338(JUD),                                                                 
which refers to the lack of authorization, that he believes is the                                                              
protection.  He inquired as to what would happen if one does                                                                    
something without authority, even though the person says, after the                                                             
fact, that action was fine.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI related her belief that a person could retroactively                                                              
give permission to utilize his/her credit card.  In further                                                                     
response to Representative Croft, Ms. Carpeneti indicated that                                                                  
retroactive permission could occur in a family situation.  She                                                                  
hoped that these are applied with common sense.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT related his hope that these are written with                                                               
care as well.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI agreed.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1510                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued with the example of using someone's                                                              
[access device] without his/her authorization.  He said, "The                                                                   
question becomes:  Did you accidentally or intentionally damage the                                                             
financial representation?"  He asked why [paragraph] (3) [of CSHB
338(JUD)] is based on a recklessness standard rather than an                                                                    
intentional [standard].  He recognized that the person didn't have                                                              
authorization, but what he/she is being punished for is damaging                                                                
"the stuff."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said that is correct.  She, then, related the                                                                     
situation of a Ketchikan woman in which someone obtained her credit                                                             
card number from a hotel in the Seattle area.  With that                                                                        
information, websites can be used to obtain a person's social                                                                   
security number.  In this case, once the social security number was                                                             
obtained, the person opened a bank account and purchased a car.                                                                 
Ms. Carpeneti informed the committee that nothing ever happened to                                                              
this person, who was posing as the Ketchikan woman, even though the                                                             
Seattle police knew of the situation.  Even if the State of Alaska                                                              
had jurisdiction and this statute was in place to prosecute this                                                                
person, it would be difficult to prove that this person intended to                                                             
damage this person's financial reputation.  She said that this                                                                  
person intended to steal money to purchase items, although this                                                                 
person's behavior ruined the Ketchikan woman's reputation.                                                                      
Therefore, it is difficult to prove intent.  She specified that                                                                 
with a recklessness [standard] it would have to be proven that the                                                              
person knew of the risk and consciously disregarded it.  She                                                                    
further specified, "Criminal negligence would ... require use to                                                                
prove that her failure to perceive it was so bad that she should be                                                             
criminally liable for what she did."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1611                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "Why don't we key, then, on the salient                                                             
point of that example, which is the intent to obtain money or other                                                             
property that you had no lawful right to?"  He asked if Section                                                                 
6(2) [ of CSHB 338(JUD)] comes close.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI specified that the harm that is being addressed is                                                                
damaging someone's financial reputation.  If the "impersonator"                                                                 
were in Alaska, there are laws that would allow her prosecution for                                                             
fraud, theft-related offenses.  However, the intent of the section                                                              
under discussion is to establish a defense that makes the victim                                                                
who lost his/her financial reputation, the victim.  At this point,                                                              
people who loose their identity aren't really considered victims of                                                             
a crime but rather the bank or the department store [is considered                                                              
the victim].                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "We don't have jurisdiction because of                                                              
that?"                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI reiterated that in the case of the Ketchikan woman                                                                
whose financial reputation was damaged, all the criminal acts were                                                              
performed in Washington.  Therefore, this legislation was drafted                                                               
in order for the state "to have something to hang its                                                                           
jurisdictional hat on."  She assumed that having a person convicted                                                             
of a crime like this would help the victim in dealing with credit                                                               
reporters, et cetera.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if it was determined that [the                                                                       
department] would not have had jurisdiction in the Ketchikan                                                                    
woman's case [under existing law].                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI specified that she didn't believe a formal                                                                        
interpretation was made because the Ketchikan woman didn't report                                                               
the problem in this state, although she spoke with Ms. Carpeneti.                                                               
Ms. Carpeneti informed the committee that the Ketchikan woman                                                                   
worked with the Washington police, but [the case was not a                                                                      
priority].                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1756                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN posed a situation in which Maude and Gillespie                                                             
are getting a divorce.  Maude needs money and causes Gillespie to                                                               
be overdrawn.  Maude doesn't really care about what happens to                                                                  
Gillespie, but she isn't really trying to hurt him.  He asked if                                                                
that would satisfy all three of the criteria [specified in Section                                                              
6 of CSHB 338(JUD)].                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied that it would depend upon whether it could be                                                             
proven that Maude was using his access device and not a common                                                                  
access device.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that in his example Maude would be                                                               
using Gillespie's [access device].                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI answered, then, that it would have to be proven that                                                              
Maude didn't have any authorization to charge on Gillespie's                                                                    
account.  This would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.                                                               
Furthermore, it would have to be proven that she knowingly used it                                                              
to obtain a false identification card or obtain property and with                                                               
criminal negligence.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to what that would mean because he                                                             
understood it not to be intent if it's negligence.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI informed the committee that criminal negligence is:                                                               
     a person acts with "criminal negligence" with respect to                                                                   
     a result or to a circumstance described by a provision of                                                                  
     law defining an offense when the person fails to perceive                                                                  
     a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will                                                                  
     occur or that the circumstance exists; the risk must be                                                                    
     of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive                                                                   
     it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of                                                                      
     care that a reasonable person would observe in the                                                                         
     situation.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that Maude is mad and she doesn't                                                                     
exercise a reasonable [standard of care].                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI specified that Maude would have to perform a gross                                                                
deviation, which is difficult to prove in domestic situations.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1870                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed concern with criminal negligence                                                              
being a state of mind when there is a class B felony.  She posed a                                                              
situation in which a 20-year-old son takes another person's credit                                                              
card at the local video store in order to obtain property.  The                                                                 
store is one which lists those persons who don't return videos.                                                                 
She indicated that somehow the son doesn't pay correctly with the                                                               
credit card and thus it damages the financial reputation of the                                                                 
owner of the credit card, which would be a class B felony.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI pointed out that [such a situation] would not be                                                                  
included in the definition of financial reputation as that                                                                      
definition includes the ability to get a loan or credit worthiness                                                              
on a credit report.  Therefore, [such a situation] would not fall                                                               
under this.  She reiterated that "knowingly" has to be proven [on                                                               
the first two criteria].                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated her understanding that the                                                                    
situation she posed would refer to obtaining property or services                                                               
on credit.  She asked if it would affect a person's ability to                                                                  
obtain property or services on credit.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT clarified that the person's credit card that                                                               
was used and the bill that wasn't paid would result in the owner of                                                             
the credit card not being able to rent from the store anymore.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that there are some things that                                                             
end up on credit [reports] such a rentals.  She remarked that for                                                               
a class B felony, one would not want to take in some of the more                                                                
minor things.  Therefore, she wondered whether there is a way to                                                                
restructure the class B felony such that the intent or some other                                                               
aspect is raised and dropped down.  She suggested that perhaps                                                                  
criminal negligence is included for a lower felony or misdemeanor.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI reiterated that the House Judiciary Committee changed                                                             
it to "recklessly" [in CSHB 338(JUD)].                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA specified that she wondered whether it                                                                  
would be more appropriate to change the intent language and keep it                                                             
a class B felony and drop down and have another section of criminal                                                             
negligence as a misdemeanor or class C felony.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said that would be something to consider at another                                                               
time.  However, in reference to [CSSB 259(JUD)] she recommended the                                                             
same change as encompassed in [CSHB 338(JUD)].                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 2013                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI returned to the [differences] between the two bills.                                                              
She referred to page 4, lines 17 and 20, and pointed out that CSSB
259(JUD) includes the language "commit a crime" in reference to                                                                 
second degree criminal impersonation.  She noted that [language                                                                 
referring to a situation in which] one assumes a false identity and                                                             
performs an act in the assumed character with the intent to commit                                                              
a crime is included in the Senate bill but not the House bill.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that means that one can be charged                                                             
both with first and second degree criminal impersonation.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied no, she didn't think so.  She explained,                                                                  
"What we would have to prove in addition to anything under second                                                               
degree is that you harmed the financial reputation of another                                                                   
person."                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI returned to the differences between the two bills.                                                                
She referred to page 4, line 24, [of CSSB 259(JUD)], which is the                                                               
definition of business record.  She noted that this is another                                                                  
suggestion by Mr. Luckhaupt.  The House version says, " business                                                                
record' means a writing, a recording, electronic data, or an                                                                    
article kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of                                                                  
evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity" while the                                                                   
Senate version [per Mr. Luckhaupt's suggestion] says "'business                                                                 
record' means a writing, recording, or article kept or maintained                                                               
by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its                                                                
condition or activity."  She said that Mr. Luckhaupt feels that the                                                             
reference to "a recording" is adequate to cover electronic data.                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti said that she didn't have any strong disagreement                                                                 
with that.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI moved on to page 6, lines 6-17, of [CSSB 259(JUD)],                                                               
which is Section 14.  She pointed out that Section 14 is not                                                                    
included in the House version.  Section 14(1) reads, "gives false                                                               
information to a peace officer with the intent of implicating                                                                   
another in  an offense  [A CRIME]", which would result in a                                                                     
misdemeanor.  A member of the Senate Judiciary Committee was                                                                    
concerned that a person could have another person's identity.  The                                                              
situation was posed in which a person with another's identity could                                                             
be driving and when stopped provide the false identity and thus the                                                             
driving record of the other person would reflect the driving                                                                    
violation that was committed.  Ms. Carpeneti said that she didn't                                                               
object to [Section 14 in CSSB 259(JUD)].                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2149                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that a dollar cap might be more                                                               
appropriate when differentiating between first and second degree                                                                
rather than leaving the standard alone.  He indicated that a dollar                                                             
cap would alleviate some of Representative Kerttula's concerns                                                                  
regarding petty criminal activity.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI reiterated that the legislation is attempting to                                                                  
address the harm to someone's financial reputation, which is                                                                    
defined fairly narrowly.  She informed the committee that the                                                                   
definition [of financial reputation] is a person's credit                                                                       
worthiness on a credit report or the person's ability to obtain a                                                               
loan or credit.  This doesn't address the traditional type of                                                                   
theft.  Ms. Carpeneti stated, "I would prefer, if the committee                                                                 
chooses, to just raise the culpable mental state to recklessness on                                                             
line 10."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if these minor changes caused the change                                                             
in the fiscal note.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said she didn't believe so.  The fiscal notes                                                                     
basically cover the costs of training police officers and                                                                       
prosecutors, at this point.  She noted that Senate Finance did some                                                             
serious work on the fiscal notes, which resulted in smaller fiscal                                                              
notes.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that the changes are so de minimis                                                             
that to force this back to the Senate would take more time.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she would like to know where                                                                
the money is coming from.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated agreement and pointed out that the                                                               
fiscal note(s) is for $120,000.  He also pointed out that there are                                                             
four different fiscal notes.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI informed the committee that [CSSB 259(JUD)] has to go                                                             
to the House Finance Committee.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 2311                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT DAVID HUDSON, Department of Public Safety (DPS),                                                                     
testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  Lieutenant Hudson                                                                 
commended Ms. Carpeneti in her discussion regarding how the [CSSB
259(JUD)] would work and benefit the public in the future.  He                                                                  
informed the committee that when this legislation was initially                                                                 
brought forth by the Governor, DPS had a trooper position                                                                       
associated with this in order to investigate the crimes referenced                                                              
in the legislation.  Lieutenant Hudson noted that he had contacted                                                              
various law enforcement agencies around the nation as well as the                                                               
Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) in an attempt to understand                                                              
the technology and how it will affect investigative techniques and                                                              
skills.  He remarked that [the technology] is very dynamic and                                                                  
[ever]changing.  In general, an Alaskan State Trooper Investigator                                                              
is a multi-purpose and multi-task individual, who doesn't develop                                                               
much specific expertise in one small... [Lt. Hudson's testimony was                                                             
interrupted due to technical difficulties.]                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a very brief at-ease at 2:10 p.m. and returned                                                               
to order in less than a minute. [The tape was reversed to Side B                                                                
and begins recording when the committee comes back to order.]                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-68, SIDE B                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT HUDSON expressed concern that because of this technology                                                             
and the dynamic advancements, [the department] feels that it will                                                               
be difficult to adequately support these criminal investigations                                                                
based on the fact that there will not be an extra position for                                                                  
this.  He indicated that [the department] is looking across the                                                                 
state for support and investigative techniques for [all] law                                                                    
enforcement officials as well as the Alaska State Troopers.                                                                     
However, the current situation includes numerous unsolved homicides                                                             
and lawsuits pending in regard to charges of inadequate police                                                                  
services in Western Alaska.  He stressed that the reasoning behind                                                              
the original fiscal note remains valid and he wished that would be                                                              
considered.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0061                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department                                                               
of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  He                                                             
noted that there has already been much discussion regarding his                                                                 
concern, which is that these are property offense crimes.  He said                                                              
that the level of punishment should be related to the cost or                                                                   
financial damage to someone.  Furthermore, with higher levels of                                                                
property offenses [the agency] feels that it is important to                                                                    
include an intent to defraud so that an intentional act is proven.                                                              
Mr. McCune referred to Section 4 of CSSB 259(JUD) and pointed out                                                               
that subsection (b) refers to the general levels of offenses in                                                                 
regard to property crimes.  The new crime, criminal impersonation                                                               
in the first degree, is about equal in level to an offense in which                                                             
one takes or obtains the property of another person [in the amount]                                                             
of $25,000 or more.  Mr. McCune said that he felt it is important                                                               
that the punishment fit the crime in these cases.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. McCUNE directed the committee's attention to [AS] 11[.46.285]                                                               
of CSSB 259(JUD), which [the agency] believes includes broad                                                                    
language.  With regard to the class C felony in [Section 4(b)(2)],                                                              
that relates to obtaining between $500 and $25,000 worth of                                                                     
property or services.  Although it can be bad to enter false                                                                    
information into a computer and damage the data or financial                                                                    
reputation of another person, it may be something that is bad at                                                                
the level of a class B or class C misdemeanor.  Therefore, the                                                                  
offense wouldn't warrant the severe punishment set out in this                                                                  
legislation.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0170                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. McCUNE turned to Section 10, which addresses deceptive business                                                             
practices.  If a person uses the Internet or a computer network to                                                              
commit deceptive business practices, this would make it a class C                                                               
felony.  He noted that would include making false statements in                                                                 
advertisements.  Again he agreed that people shouldn't do that, but                                                             
he indicated that a class C felony shouldn't be imposed if the                                                                  
damage isn't at that level.  In conclusion, Mr. McCune informed the                                                             
committee of his concern that the definition of "access device" is                                                              
very broad.  The definition of "access device" is found in Section                                                              
17.  He pointed out that any one of the items listed, such as a                                                                 
social security number, can be included as a theft.  Again, he                                                                  
reiterated that merely obtaining numbers shouldn't be punished to                                                               
the extent it is in this legislation.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0236                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to what Mr. McCune would                                                                    
suggest in the situation where the problem is not monetary damage                                                               
but rather the damage done to a person's reputation.  She asked if                                                              
he believes raising the standard to "reckless" would help in                                                                    
Section 6 or should it be split into different classes of felonies                                                              
while maintaining criminal negligence as a lower felony.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. McCUNE stated that he was glad to see the change to                                                                         
"recklessly."   In regard to the damage of a person's financial                                                                 
reputation, he suggested splitting it out financially.  Mr. McCune                                                              
believes that the problem is that banking and financial practices                                                               
make it easy for people to make financial transactions with minimal                                                             
information.  Perhaps the solution is to tighten the banking and                                                                
commercial transaction processes.  However, he hoped that [the                                                                  
legislation] could include a "reckless" standard and relate the                                                                 
offense to a level of damage to a financial reputation.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI remarked that a class B felony is a serious offense                                                               
because it should be, as this is serious conduct.  A person whose                                                               
identity is stolen is never whole again.  For example, the                                                                      
Ketchikan woman has to order a credit report every three months;                                                                
and furthermore she can never open an account on her own.  This                                                                 
Ketchikan woman is never sure when this individual is going to                                                                  
start purchasing things on her account.  She said, " It's really                                                                
serious conduct and that's why it's a [class] B felony."  In regard                                                             
to deceptive business practices, she explained that it is raised to                                                             
a class C felony with the use of the Internet or a computer                                                                     
network because the pool of victims is larger.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the penalty with Section 11.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI answered that criminal use of a computer carries a                                                                
class C felony.  She pointed out that this is current law.  She                                                                 
explained, "The purpose of criminal use of a computer is ... to                                                                 
outlaw people who get into a computer that they shouldn't get into                                                              
, ..., and then they manipulate data, personal data or proprietary                                                              
data."  This merely adds more conduct to the type of manipulations                                                              
that can be performed.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG identified [Section 11] as the anti-hackers                                                             
clause.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI clarified that [this provision] addresses hacking and                                                             
then doing something with the information that you had no right to                                                              
do; this does not just address hacking.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to page 5, lines 17-18, regarding                                                                 
someone enhancing a person's financial record.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that could be done in order to                                                              
obtain a loan fraudulently.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0490                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA moved that the committee amend CSSB
259(JUD) [Amendment 1] on page 4, line 10, by deleting "criminal                                                                
negligence" and inserting "reckless".  She noted that if there was                                                              
a way to split these financially, she would go for that because she                                                             
strongly feels that this is a terrible crime akin to (indisc.).                                                                 
However, she can't overcome that criminal negligence is the lowest                                                              
standard and to make that a class B felony is extreme.  Therefore,                                                              
she believes beginning with a reckless [standard] provides a good                                                               
tool to prosecutors.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.  He recalled a trip that he took                                                              
a few years ago.  A few months after returning from the trip, he                                                                
began to receive bills due to the theft of his American Express                                                                 
Card.  Although he was able to stop the spree by changing his                                                                   
credit card number, he was upset and felt intruded upon.  He                                                                    
stressed that stealing property amounting to $25,000 is nothing; a                                                              
person's reputation is worth more than $25,000.  Therefore,                                                                     
Representative Rokeberg said that he had no problem with a class B                                                              
felony.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that if one has ever had anybody go                                                              
through his/her house, it is the worst experience.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Upon a roll call vote Representatives Murkowski, Croft, Kerttula                                                                
and Kott voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1 and                                                                      
Representatives Green, Rokeberg and James voted in opposition to                                                                
the adoption of Amendment 1.  Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted                                                                
with a vote of 4-3.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0712                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee report [CSSB
259(JUD)], as amended, out of committee with individual                                                                         
recommendations and the attached fiscal notes.  There being no                                                                  
objection, HCS CSSB 259(JUD) was reported out of the House                                                                      
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SB 294 - CONCEALED HANDGUNS                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the final order of business would be                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 294(JUD) "An Act relating to the possession                                                              
of concealed handguns and to concealed handgun permits." [Before                                                                
the committee is HCS CSSB 294(STA).]                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
PORTIA PARKER, Staff to Senator Green, Alaska State Legislature,                                                                
informed the committee that she is representing the Senate                                                                      
Judiciary staff who is unavailable due to a family emergency.  Ms.                                                              
Parker pointed out that there are four changes between HCS CSSB
294(STA) and the proposed CS before the committee.  The four                                                                    
changes were all requested by the Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                             
and are all supported by the bill sponsor, DPS and the National                                                                 
Rifle Association (NRA).  The department does not oppose the bill.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKER, upon the request of Representative Green, reviewed the                                                              
changes.  She informed the committee that the first change is the                                                               
[requirement] to have only one photograph instead of two.  The next                                                             
change is in regard to the length of time an applicant's photograph                                                             
is valid.  She explained, "We went from only having to do the                                                                   
photograph every other renewal to going to back to 30 days so that                                                              
you will need a new photograph on the five year renewal."  The                                                                  
third change deletes the requirement that an applicant submit the                                                               
renewal form in person.  She explained that the department wants to                                                             
be able to perform renewals/applications via mail, which would                                                                  
streamline the process.  The final change would place the                                                                       
competency requirement back in statute and maintain the current                                                                 
definition of competency, which is found in AS 18.65.792.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0876                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt the proposed                                                             
CS, [labeled LS1543\K, Luckhaupt, 4/17/00], as the working document                                                             
before the committee.  There being no objection, Version K was                                                                  
before the committee.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI recalled that when one's photograph is                                                                 
taken for his/her driver's license, two photographs are taken.  She                                                             
assumed two photographs are taken in order to have one on file for                                                              
a replacement license.  She asked if [the concealed carry permit]                                                               
would require dual photographs [for the same reason as a driver's                                                               
license].                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKER deferred to the department.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 0930                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT DAVID HUDSON, Department of Public Safety (DPS),                                                                     
testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  He explained that one                                                             
photograph is taken and digitally stored in a computer in order to                                                              
have an extra photograph without the permittee being required to                                                                
have two photographs taken.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT requested an explanation regarding the opt-out                                                             
procedures.  He asked if this essentially moves from a state crime                                                              
to allowing municipalities to define their own crime in that area.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKER replied no.  She explained that this legislation deletes                                                             
the local opt-out provisions in Title 18 and thus it is a statewide                                                             
permit like the driver's license.  She agreed with Representative                                                               
Croft's understanding that deleting the caliber and [specific                                                                   
action] type would authorize the [person] to carry any caliber of                                                               
handgun.  However, she pointed out that one must first meet the                                                                 
competency standards and qualify.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked, "I don't like that."  He expressed                                                               
concern in that a person could qualify with a .32 [caliber], but                                                                
carry a .45 [caliber]; the recoil from a .45 caliber could knock                                                                
one down.  He inquired as to the reasoning for deleting that                                                                    
information.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKER answered that it seemed unnecessary to include that on                                                               
the permit as part of qualifying.  She pointed out that [the                                                                    
requirement] to qualify with a particular firearm is rare in other                                                              
states.  She indicated that the reasoning behind the change is that                                                             
it doesn't seem to make any difference in regard to any problems.                                                               
She believes that the responsibility lies with the individual                                                                   
rather than the state in regard to knowing how to use his/her                                                                   
firearm.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she understood Representative Green's                                                                 
concern.  However, many of the concealed handgun permits around the                                                             
nation were never as strict as Alaska, who has had this [process]                                                               
for five years.  Furthermore, the department does not mind if this                                                              
change is made.  Representative James felt that if a person goes to                                                             
the trouble to obtain a concealed handgun permit, that person will                                                              
be sure they know how to use the handgun and they are going to be                                                               
careful.  That has been proven in the history of the concealed gun                                                              
permitting system throughout the nation.  She related her belief                                                                
that people will carry a handgun with which they are comfortable.                                                               
Representative James was comfortable with this, and furthermore she                                                             
didn't believe this information on the license was that meaningful.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1180                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA recalled that there used to be many                                                                     
provisions in Title 18 which would allow municipalities to restrict                                                             
the carrying of a concealed handgun if a local option election was                                                              
held.  She asked if those are all being deleted with this                                                                       
legislation.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKER replied, "That's correct."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that she was the original creator of the                                                             
concealed handgun [legislation] and that she was sorry that she                                                                 
included that [opt-out] provision.  She informed the committee that                                                             
she included that [opt-out] provision at the request of a certain                                                               
Alaska Native group.  However, over the history of the concealed                                                                
carry legislation, there has only been one attempt to override and                                                              
delete [the opt-out provision].  That attempt occurred in Haines.                                                               
She said that when there is a concealed handgun permitting system,                                                              
one can't be concerned with, when crossing [municipal] borders,                                                                 
whether that particular [community] disallows it or not; [the opt-                                                              
out provision] causes confusion.  Therefore, she believes it makes                                                              
sense to blanket the state.  Representative James pointed out that                                                              
there are still places in which people can post that they don't                                                                 
want [concealed handguns] carried.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKER indicated that would be correct for private property.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1304                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if currently the permit would note                                                               
that competency was achieved for a particular caliber.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKER explained that generally, permittees qualify in the                                                                  
largest caliber and action type in order to carry what he/she                                                                   
wants.  Therefore, permittees were qualifying for something larger                                                              
than he/she wanted to shoot in order to be able to carry anything                                                               
at any time and not [have to go through the permitting process                                                                  
again].  She pointed out that DPS isn't concerned about this as the                                                             
department doesn't believe it will change much in regard to how the                                                             
courses are offered.  She pointed out that live fire range is                                                                   
required in every course; "the NRA personal protection course has                                                               
been requiring this long before we required the course."                                                                        
Therefore, no changes in the course are envisioned as it still has                                                              
to be approved by the department.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI related her understanding that currently                                                               
the permit indicates the revolver type and the semi-automatic type.                                                             
Now, under this legislation, competency won't be listed because one                                                             
would not be able to obtain a permit without first illustrating                                                                 
competency.  Basically, the permit would be similar to a driver's                                                               
license.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKER agreed that one would have to passed the competency                                                                  
[test], but it wouldn't appear on the license because passing the                                                               
competency [test] allows one to obtain a license.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if upon passage of the course, it                                                                
would indicate what [firearm] was being used or the largest                                                                     
[firearm] that had been practiced with.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKER replied no.  That [information] would not be required by                                                             
statute.  She pointed out that currently, one can openly carry                                                                  
whatever [type] firearm he/she wishes without going to any course.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1514                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that he has recently received some                                                                
complaints regarding a backlog with renewals for permits.  He asked                                                             
if this legislation will help speed up the renewal process.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT HUDSON responded that this legislation will provide                                                                  
assistance in expediting the renewal process.  He pointed out that                                                              
under this change renewal applications can be mailed in and the                                                                 
existing requirement for a thumbprint will no longer be required.                                                               
Furthermore, processing only one photograph will save time.  In                                                                 
further response to Representative Rokeberg, Lieutenant Hudson                                                                  
stated that currently Anchorage is approximately 400 renewals                                                                   
and/or applications behind.  Lieutenant Hudson related his belief                                                               
that this legislation will move in the right direction.  He                                                                     
informed the committee that this program began five years ago and                                                               
in the first nine months, there were 5,000 applications processed.                                                              
Therefore, 5,000 applications are being renewed along with the                                                                  
continuous new applicants.  In response to Representative Kerttula,                                                             
Lieutenant Hudson estimated that statewide there are approaching                                                                
12,000 permits.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1731                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
RAY HALLEY testified via teleconference from Valdez.  He noted that                                                             
he is currently certified to instruct basic pistol, rifle and home                                                              
firearm safety and he is a range safety officer.  Mr. Halley                                                                    
requested the committee's support of this legislation.  Although                                                                
the changes are modest, the improvements are important.  He stated                                                              
that the most important improvement for Alaskans is in the area of                                                              
allowing reciprocity with other states that allow concealed carry                                                               
permits.  In conclusion, Mr. Halley again requested the committee's                                                             
support of the legislation and he thanked Representatives Green and                                                             
James who have supported this in the past.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if Representative Green remained                                                                     
concerned with the caliber issue.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that he was concerned due to his                                                                     
experience when he went to obtain his concealed carry permit.  When                                                             
he went for his permit, he encountered a person that didn't know                                                                
anything about [their] .32 caliber, which was loaded when the                                                                   
person entered.  However, during the [permit] process this person                                                               
learned how to use the .32 caliber firearm.  He said, "But I think                                                              
that's a far cry from somebody who may now come in with that same                                                               
lack of ability, qualify with a .32 and then decide she wants to                                                                
carry a .357 or something else.  There is a significant difference.                                                             
And to have it the hands of somebody who really hasn't shown                                                                    
proficiency in that weapon; I'm a little disturbed about it."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT related his understanding that currently a                                                                 
person who is comfortable with .32 caliber would only qualify with                                                              
that [caliber weapon].  With practice, the person becomes                                                                       
proficient with a higher caliber gun that he/she wished to carry.                                                               
In such a case, the person would have to return to the school.                                                                  
However, with the changes, those who have shown a basic proficiency                                                             
with a weapon measure their own [proficiency].  Representative                                                                  
Croft acknowledged Representative Green's concern, but noted that                                                               
it didn't make much sense if the competency [requirement] is kept,                                                              
which is part of the proposed CS.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1948                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if there are any requirements with                                                               
this permit regarding vision, such as the requirement for a                                                                     
driver's license holder to take a vision test every ten years.  She                                                             
asked if there is anything during the permitting process to                                                                     
illustrate that the person can still shoot and meet the competency                                                              
[requirement].                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKER replied no and specified that to be the responsibility                                                               
of the individual.  She noted that it has not been a problem in                                                                 
Alaska or any other state.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that she believes people should have                                                              
to have their eyes examined.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2073                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee report [HCS CSSB 294,                                                             
Version K,] out of committee with individual recommendations and                                                                
the attached zero fiscal note.  There being no objection, HCS CSSB
294(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects