Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/12/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 12, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Cliff Davidson
Representative Jim Nordlund
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 188 "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain
property; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
HB 71 "An Act relating to the involuntary dissolution of
Native corporations; and providing for an
effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
SB 53 "An Act relating to payment for abortions under
Medicaid and general relief medical assistance;
annulling changes made by certain regulations
adopted by the Department of Health and Social
Services relating to funding of abortion services
under the general relief medical program."
MOTION TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE FAILED BY A VOTE
OF 3-4
SB 122 "An Act relating to the disclosure of information
by an employer about the job performance of an
employee or former employee."
HCSSB 122 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
HB 222 "An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to
termination of tenancies and recovery of rental
premises, to tenant responsibilities, to the civil
remedies of forcible entry and detainer and
nuisance abatement, and to the duties of peace
officers to notify landlords of arrests involving
certain illegal activity on rental premises."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
WITNESS REGISTER
MARGOT KNUTH
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Criminal Division
P. O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Explained HB 188
LIEUTENANT PAUL HARRIS
Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
4500 West 50th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Phone: 243-2298
Position Statement: Supported HB 188; Supported the concept
of HB 222
CHRISTINE SCHLEUSS, President
Alaska Trial Lawyers Association
Schleuss and McComas
500 L Street, Suite 300
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 258-7807
Position Statement: Suggested amendment to HB 188
LARRY LABOLLE, Legislative Aide
to Representative Richard Foster
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Court Building, Room 611
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-3789
Position Statement: Reviewed HB 71
MIKE MONAGLE
Supervisor, Corporate Information
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations
P. O. Box 110808
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-2570
Position Statement: Answered questions related to HB 71
GAYLE HORETSKI, Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-6841
Position Statement: Explained changes in HCSSB 122 (JUD);
Discussed HB 222
RUTH SKIDMORE, Legislative Aide
to Senator Bert Sharp
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Capitol Building, Room 514
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-3004
Position Statement: Supported House Judiciary amendment to
SB 122
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3743
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 222
SHERRIE GOLL
Alaska Women's Lobby
P. O. Box 22156
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 463-6744
Position Statement: Opposed HB 222
ELLEN NORTHUP, Director
The Glory Hole
P. O. Box 21997
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 586-4159
Position Statement: Objected to shortened notice periods
contained in HB 222
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 188
SHORT TITLE: FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act relating to forfeiture of certain property;
and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/93 489 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/01/93 490 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/01/93 490 (H) -4 ZERO FNS (ADM, ADM, DPS,
LAW) 3/1/93
03/01/93 490 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/07/93 (H) JUD AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 71
SHORT TITLE: DISSOLUTION OF NATIVE CORPORATIONS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FOSTER,MacLean
TITLE: "An Act relating to the involuntary dissolution of
Native corporations; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/18/93 101 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/18/93 101 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY
03/25/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/25/93 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/26/93 781 (H) CRA RPT 5DP 2NR
03/26/93 781 (H) DP: SANDERS,BUNDE,WILLIAMS,
TOOHEY,OLBERG
03/26/93 781 (H) DNP: DAVIES, WILLIS
03/26/93 781 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
3/26/93
03/26/93 807 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MACLEAN
04/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 53
SHORT TITLE: ANNULLING ABORTION FUNDING REGULATIONS
BILL VERSION: CSSB 53(FIN) AM(EFD FLD)
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
TITLE: "An Act relating to payment for abortions under
Medicaid and general relief medical assistance; annulling
changes made by certain regulations adopted by the
Department of Health and Social Services relating to funding
of abortion services under the general relief medical
program."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 122 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 122 (S) HES, JUD, FINANCE
01/27/93 (S) HES AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM
205
01/27/93 (S) MINUTE(HES)
01/29/93 187 (S) HES RPT 4DP 1NR 1DNP
01/29/93 187 (S) FISCAL NOTES PUBLISHED (DHSS-5)
02/10/93 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/10/93 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/24/93 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/24/93 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/25/93 481 (S) JUD RPT 1DP 2DP W/AM 2DNP
02/25/93 481 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (DHSS-5)
02/25/93 487 (S) FIN WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE,RULE 23
02/26/93 499 (S) FIN RPT CS 4DP 2DNP NEW
TITLE
02/26/93 499 (S) PREVIOUS FNS APPLY TO CS (DHSS-
5)
02/26/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
518
02/26/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/26/93 (S) RLS AT 01:15 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM
203
02/26/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/02/93 575 (S) MOTION TO CALENDAR 3/3/93 FLD
Y8 N11 E1
03/03/93 589 (S) RULES RPT 2/CALENDAR 1/OTHER
REC 3/3/93
03/03/93 590 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/03/93 591 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED Y13 N5 E1 A1
03/03/93 592 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED Y11 N8 E1
03/03/93 592 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FAILED Y13
N6 E1
03/03/93 592 (S) THIRD READING 3/5 CALENDAR
03/05/93 634 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 53
(FIN) AM
03/05/93 635 (S) PASSED Y12 N6 E2
03/05/93 635 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE FAILED Y12 N6 E2
03/05/93 635 (S) Duncan NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
03/08/93 658 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
03/08/93 659 (S) PLACED AT BOTTOM OF CALENDAR
UNAN CONS
03/08/93 672 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y13
N6 E1
03/08/93 672 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE FAILED Y13 N6 E1
03/08/93 677 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/10/93 582 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/10/93 582 (H) L&C, HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/23/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/25/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/25/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/26/93 791 (H) L&C RPT 3DP 2DNP 2NR
03/26/93 791 (H) DP: WILLIAMS, PORTER, SITTON
03/26/93 791 (H) DNP: GREEN, MULDER
03/26/93 791 (H) NR: HUDSON, MACKIE
03/26/93 791 (H) -5 PREVIOUS SENATE FNS(DHS)
1/29/93
03/26/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/26/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/01/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/02/93 957 (H) HES RPT 4DP 2DNP 1NR
04/02/93 957 (H) DP: TOOHEY, B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA,
OLBERG
04/02/93 957 (H) DNP: VEZEY, G.DAVIS
04/02/93 957 (H) NR: BUNDE
04/02/93 957 (H) -5 PREVIOUS FNS (DHSS) 1/29/93
04/02/93 957 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
04/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 122
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR REFERENCE INFO
BILL VERSION: HCS SB 122(JUD)
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP,Frank,Taylor,Kelly,Rieger,
Miller,Pearce,Donley
TITLE: "An Act relating to the disclosure of information by
an employer about the job performance of an employee or
former employee."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/19/93 411 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/19/93 412 (S) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
03/04/93 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM
203
03/04/93 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/05/93 613 (S) L&C RPT 3DP 1AM
03/05/93 614 (S) ZERO FNS (COURT, ADM, LAW)
03/22/93 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/22/93 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/23/93 911 (S) JUD RPT 3DP 2NR
03/23/93 911 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (COURT, ADM,
LAW)
03/23/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/24/93 926 (S) RULES RPT 3 TO CAL 1NR
3/24/93
03/24/93 927 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/24/93 927 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FAILED Y11
N8 A1
03/24/93 928 (S) THIRD READING 3/25/93
03/24/93 934 (S) COSPONSOR(S): FRANK, TAYLOR,
KELLY,
03/24/93 934 (S) RIEGER, MILLER, PEARCE, DONLEY
03/25/93 949 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 122
03/25/93 950 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 Y15
N2 E1 A2
03/25/93 950 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN
CONSENT
03/25/93 950 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
03/25/93 951 (S) PASSED Y16 N- E1 A3 SB 122 AM
03/25/93 951 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
03/29/93 980 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
03/29/93 981 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/30/93 844 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/
REFERRAL(S)
03/30/93 844 (H) JUDICIARY
04/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 222
SHORT TITLE: USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW VIOLATIONS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES,Porter
TITLE: "An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to
termination of tenancies and recovery of rental premises, to
tenant responsibilities, to the civil remedies of forcible
entry and detainer and nuisance abatement, and to the duties
of peace officers to notify landlords of arrests involving
certain illegal activity on rental premises."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/12/93 619 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/12/93 619 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
04/01/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/01/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/02/93 932 (H) L&C RPT 3DP 4NR
04/02/93 932 (H) DP: WILLIAMS, MULDER, PORTER
04/02/93 932 (H) NR: GREEN, MACKIE, SITTON,
HUDSON
04/02/93 932 (H) -2 FISCAL NOTES (DPS, LAW)
4/2/93
04/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-58, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Committee meeting was called to order at
1:10 p.m., on April 12, 1993. A quorum was present.
Chairman Porter announced that the committee would take up
HB 188 first.
HB 188: FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
Number 028
MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW (DOL), stated that HB 188 would amend the
state's forfeiture laws, which were used almost exclusively
in felony drug cases. She commented that existing
forfeiture laws were difficult to use, causing the state to
rely on the federal government to handle forfeiture cases.
She noted that the federal government charged the state a
15% fee for providing that service. She stated that often
in drug cases, a defendant thought beforehand about whether
the benefits of the crime outweighed the potential costs.
MS. KNUTH said that the DOL felt if it could take the profit
out of drug crimes, it would be more effective in deterring
those crimes. She said further that HB 188 permitted the
forfeiture of real property, including buildings, in
addition to other types of property. Additionally, it
allowed for the tracing of funds to permit forfeiture of any
property which was purchased with the proceeds of drug
sales. House Bill 188 would also permit the sharing of
assets between the state and municipal police departments,
she said.
MS. KNUTH added that the bill also made a number of
technical changes to the state's forfeiture laws, in
response to some court rulings.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN mentioned concerns that HB 188
would increase the chance of an innocent bystander having
his or her property confiscated.
Number 124
MS. KNUTH replied that HB 188 did a good job of safeguarding
innocent property owners. She stated that part of the
confusion might stem from the fact that a protection
provision was deleted from one section of the bill and
reinserted into another section. She mentioned another
provision in the bill which stated that there was a "prima
facie" case for forfeiture, if there had been an indictment.
She mentioned concerns that an indictment was an early phase
in a court proceeding, and hence forfeiture at that stage
might be premature.
MS. KNUTH stressed that the prima facie showing was
completely rebuttable, as it only stated that there was at
least probable cause to believe that certain property was
owned by a drug offender. Property was not automatically
forfeited upon an indictment, she noted.
Number 165
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES stated that it would be easy
to find out who owned property that was subject to
forfeiture. It appeared to her that HB 188 would force an
owner to prove that he or she did not have any knowledge
that drug activity was occurring. She wondered if the
burden of proof should not be reversed.
Number 187
MS. KNUTH replied that the burden of proof initially was
upon the government. After the government made its showing,
she said, a person could dispute that showing.
Number 212
LIEUTENANT PAUL HARRIS, from the ALASKA STATE TROOPERS'
STATEWIDE DRUG ENFORCEMENT UNIT, said that HB 188 would
provide law enforcement with a powerful tool for going after
drug traffickers. He said that the bill represented an
improvement over existing law, as it covered many areas
which were left out of the old forfeiture laws. He
commented that HB 188 provided protection for innocent
parties.
LT. HARRIS mentioned that HB 188 would allow the state to go
after property in which people had hidden illegal profits,
including money, real estate, and weapons. He approved of
the bill's provision which allowed forfeited property to be
shared by the state and local police forces, as proceeds
from the sale of seized property could be used for
additional drug law enforcement efforts.
Number 287
CHRISTINE SCHLEUSS, representing the ALASKA ACADEMY OF TRIAL
LAWYERS and the ALASKA ACTION TRUST, testified via telephone
from Anchorage. She shared the belief that drug dealers
should not be able to keep property which was purchased with
the proceeds from drug sales. However, she said that her
organization felt that HB 188 would pose a risk to innocent
property-owners who had no connection to drug sales that
occurred on their property. The bill would require innocent
property-owners to either undergo a tremendously expensive
process to get their property back or not get their property
back at all.
MS. SCHLEUSS suggested that HB 188 be amended so that it did
not pose a risk to innocent persons, but instead focused its
efforts on those who were truly involved in drug
trafficking. She mentioned a "60 Minutes" television
program about federal forfeiture laws, which she said were
narrower than those proposed in HB 188. The "60 Minutes"
program portrayed several apparently innocent parties who
had had sizable assets seized by the federal government
wielding its forfeiture law. She urged the committee
members to view the "60 Minutes" program, in order to
understand the harm that could result from a well-
intentioned bill like HB 188.
MS. SCHLEUSS likened HB 188 to a "zero tolerance" law. She
reminded the committee what had happened several years ago
when the federal government had used its forfeiture laws to
implement a zero tolerance drug policy, which had
devastating effects on the fishing industry. She said that
HB 188, as written, did not require proof beyond a
reasonable doubt of anyone's guilt, much less the guilt of
the property owner. She cited an example of a child who
lived with his or her parents, and who possessed or sold
drugs in the home. She said that under HB 188, innocent
parents could find themselves losing their homes.
MS. SCHLEUSS commented that fishing boat owners, who did not
know that crew members possessed or sold drugs, could lose
their boats and therefore their livelihoods. She expressed
her opinion that HB 188 went too far. She stated that the
bill held that the government only had to prove, by 51% of
the evidence, that property was connected to drug activity,
either as a place where a drug deal took place, or was
purchased with the proceeds from drug sales. She said that
in order for an owner to recover forfeited property, he or
she had to convince a court that he or she did not know
about the drug activity.
MS. SCHLEUSS commented that it was very difficult for a
person to prove a negative. She suggested that the
committee amend HB 188 so that it applied only to
individuals convicted of drug offenses. In order for the
law to be applied to property beyond that of convicted drug
dealers, she recommended that, before property was seized,
the government should have to prove by at least clear and
convincing evidence, that the owners were aware of and
approved of the use of their property for illegal purposes.
MS. SCHLEUSS expressed her opinion that HB 188, as currently
written, imposed an unfair burden of proof on the property-
owners. She commented that the bill's provision that
forfeited property be turned over to law enforcement
agencies was an unfortunate aspect of HB 188. She suggested
instead turning the property over to drug rehabilitation
programs. She noted that when law enforcement agencies
received the forfeited property, there was a built-in
incentive for law enforcement to overstep its bounds.
Number 475
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND asked if Ms. Schleuss had any
proposed language to offer.
MS. SCHLEUSS did not have any proposed language to offer at
this time; however, she added that she could prepare some by
the end of the week.
Number 496
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND mentioned that he had seen the "60
Minutes" episode to which Ms. Schleuss referred. He asked
the Chairman if he intended to move HB 188 out of committee
today.
Number 499
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER stated that he would go along with the
committee's desire.
Number 503
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if Ms. Schleuss could prepare
amendment language by Wednesday, at which time the committee
could also view the "60 Minutes" episode.
Number 511
CHAIRMAN PORTER expressed concerns about the factuality of a
"60 Minutes" program presentation. He asked Ms. Schleuss
about the standard of proof required in property-dispute
matters brought before the court, and asked if HB 188's
standard of proof was not the same.
Number 525
MS. SCHLEUSS responded that the standard of proof could vary
in civil cases. Sometimes, she said, the standard was "a
preponderance of evidence," while other times it was "clear
and convincing evidence." She said that the standard of
proof in civil cases was not "proof beyond a reasonable
doubt." She added that in civil cases, property was never
taken from an owner without a hearing.
Number 548
MS. KNUTH mentioned that a sentence on page 3, lines 18 and
19, of HB 188 should be deleted, as notice provisions were
already covered in existing statute.
Number 561
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if, at the time of arrest, a lien
would be placed on a piece of real estate where a drug
offense was thought to have taken place. She asked at what
point the property would be in jeopardy.
Number 570
MS. KNUTH replied that the state would need to initiate a
forfeiture proceeding first, by providing notice of what
property could be subject to seizure, and the connection
that the state would attempt to prove between the property
and the offense. She stated that if the hearing on HB 188
was to be continued another day, her colleague, Mr. Dean
Guaneli could more adequately speak to the effects of the
bill.
Number 596
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES was concerned that if a person had
committed a drug offense and his or her property was subject
to forfeiture, a notice could protect the state from a
situation in which the offender disposed of the property
before it could be forfeited. Conversely, she did not wish
to inhibit innocent property-owners from acting to protect
their interests. She stressed the need for a balanced
approach.
Number 613
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Knuth to share the committee's
concerns with Mr. Guaneli, so that he might address them at
the next hearing on HB 188 on the following Wednesday. He
said that the "60 Minutes" tape would be shown at 12:45 p.m.
on Wednesday in the committee room.
Number 630
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT MOVED an AMENDMENT DELETING the
sentence on page 3, lines 18-19, as proposed by Ms. Knuth.
There being no objection, the AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED.
Number 644
MS. SCHLEUSS indicated that she would send amendment
language to Representative Nordlund for the committee's
consideration.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 71 next.
HB 71: DISSOLUTION OF NATIVE CORPORATIONS
Number 659
LARRY LABOLLE, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD
FOSTER, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 71, stated that a bill similar
to HB 71 had passed the House the year before, but died in
the Senate Rules Committee at the end of the session. He
said that the bill would provide a one-year period for ANCSA
(Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) village corporations
which had been involuntarily dissolved because they had not
completed their biannual report, to be reinstated. He added
that the corporations would have to pay all dues and fees as
if they had been incorporated all along.
MR. LABOLLE raised the question of why the corporations
could not simply go out and reincorporate. He stated that,
because they were the corporations which were originally set
up under ANCSA, the reincorporation had to occur in order to
allow for the continuation of property ownership and
liability. He mentioned the summer fishing village of
Hamilton, in Representative Foster's district, which had
allowed its corporate status to lapse, and said that many
similar village corporations existed in Southeast Alaska.
Number 688
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked how the state could ensure
that corporations did not, in the future, allow their
corporate status to lapse again.
Number 692
MR. LABOLLE replied that it was his hope that village
corporations would not allow their corporate status to lapse
again. He said that Representative Foster would send out
notices to corporations within his district, as well as to
others of which he was aware, that needed to reincorporate,
informing them of the one-year window in which they could do
so.
Number 705
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood that the reincorporation
option was already available to corporations. She asked Mr.
LaBolle what would happen if another corporation had used
the village corporation's name during the period that the
incorporation had been allowed to lapse.
Number 717
MR. LABOLLE replied that a village would still have to
reincorporate in order to pick up all of the corporate
rights and responsibilities that existed for the ANCSA
corporation.
Number 724
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the corporations which had
already reincorporated would be melded with those which had
not.
MR. LABOLLE replied in the affirmative.
Number 728
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked Mr. LaBolle why the
similar bill had died the year before in the Senate Rules
Committee.
Number 730
MR. LABOLLE responded that the bill had been caught in the
end-of-session time crunch.
Number 744
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood that some corporations had
been involuntarily dissolved, and later reinstated after
fees had been paid, provided that no other corporation had
taken their corporate name. She asked Mr. Monagle what the
time limit for reinstatement was.
Number 752
MIKE MONAGLE, SUPERVISOR, CORPORATE INFORMATION, DIVISION OF
BANKING, SECURITIES AND CORPORATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DCED), replied that a corporation
had three years from the date of dissolution in which to be
reinstated.
Number 753
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if some of the corporations
covered by HB 71 had been dissolved for longer than three
years.
MR. MONAGLE replied in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to MOVE HB 71 out of
committee, with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
SB 53: ANNULLING ABORTION FUNDING REGULATIONS
Number 767
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
SB 53 next. He commented that SB 53 had received a great
deal of testimony from around the state. He said that there
were no significant legal questions surrounding the bill.
Consequently, he invited each member to give a statement on
his or her position on the bill, if they so desired, and
then a vote could be taken on whether or not to move the
bill out of committee.
Number 783
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that publicly-funded elective
abortions were inconsistent with the legislature's efforts
to cut the budget.
Number 799
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with Representative Green's
remarks. He stated that abortion funding and unwanted
pregnancies were part of a larger and growing problem.
Number 811
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she had never supported
public funding for elective abortions. She recognized that
abortions required for medical or psychological reasons
should be treated like any other medical procedure, however.
She opposed SB 53, and echoed Representative Green's comment
that supporting publicly-funded elective abortions would be
inconsistent with other budget-cutting actions taken by the
legislature this year.
TAPE 93-58, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he had had personal
experiences in his background which required him to support
SB 53. He stated that abortion had been a felony crime in
Alaska when he first worked as a police officer. He said
that he had investigated illegal abortions, and said that
the state should never go back to the days of "back-room"
abortions. He believed that not publicly funding abortions
for poor women would make them susceptible to "back-room"
abortions.
Number 028
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS chose not to comment at this time.
Number 029
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND took issue with Representative
Green's and Representative Kott's comments regarding the
costs of SB 53. He said that if SB 53 was not enacted, the
state would face tremendous downstream health care, criminal
justice, and social service costs. He said that SB 53 sets
up two classes of people: poor women who would not be able
to get abortions and women who could afford to get
abortions. He believed that was fundamentally wrong. He
supported the bill.
Number 061
REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON said that he had no statement
to make.
Number 065
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND made a MOTION to MOVE SB 53 out of
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken
on moving SB 53 out of committee. Representatives Nordlund,
Davidson, and Porter voted "YEA." Representatives Green,
Kott, Phillips, and James voted "NAY." And so, the bill
FAILED TO MOVE out of committee.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
SB 122 next.
SB 122: EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR REFERENCE INFO
Number 099
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, called the members' attention to a draft
committee substitute for SB 122, dated April 9, 1993. She
mentioned that a companion bill, HB 147, which the House
Judiciary Committee had passed out earlier, was currently in
the House Rules Committee. She stated that the draft
committee substitute for SB 122 included language at the
bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2 which had been lifted
from the House Judiciary Committee's substitute for HB 147.
MS. HORETSKI said that the draft committee substitute had
two additional differences from the House Judiciary
Committee's version of HB 147. She added that those two
differences were part of the bill which the Senate had
passed. The first change appeared on page 1, line 11, where
the phrase "employer or" was added, in order to clarify that
the bill applied to both present and former employers who
gave out references. The other change appeared on page 2,
line 2, and added the word "comparable," to clarify that the
bill referred to federal civil rights laws, not all federal
laws.
Number 165
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if Senator Bert Sharp, sponsor
of SB 122, concurred with the changes starting at the bottom
of page 1 of the draft committee substitute.
RUTH SKIDMORE, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO SENATOR SHARP PRIME
SPONSOR of SB 122, indicated that the sponsor did not oppose
the amendment.
Number 181
MS. HORETSKI mentioned that former-Representative Max
Gruenberg had expressed concerns about the use of the word
"recklessly" in SB 122, and would be available by telephone
to testify if the committee wished to hear from him.
Number 190
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that the committee had
given the bill ample consideration and that she, therefore,
saw no reason to reopen the discussion on its language.
Number 199
MS. HORETSKI described the changes that the committee had
made to the original HB 147.
Number 236
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Ms. Skidmore to clarify for
the committee that SB 122's sponsor supported the draft
committee substitute.
MS. SKIDMORE stated that Senator Sharp supported the draft
committee substitute.
Number 238
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to MOVE HCSSB (122)
(JUD) out of committee, with individual recommendations and
a zero fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO
ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 222, next.
HB 222: USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW VIOLATIONS
Number 280
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 222, said that she
introduced the bill due to many requests that the
landlord/tenant law be changed. She said that, to date, she
had received only favorable responses to her bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that HB 222 was a very
complex bill, which essentially accomplished three things:
(1) it expedited a landlord's ability to evict a tenant who
failed to pay rent when due, or damaged the premises, or
refused to vacate the premises after a lease expired; (2) it
increased the tenant's responsibility for maintenance of a
rental unit and allowed the landlord to use a "premises
condition statement," signed by both parties, as legal
evidence; and (3) it added criminal offenses involving
alcohol or drugs to the nuisance abatement statutes and
allowed eviction for those offenses.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that HB 222 would not hurt
responsible tenants, but would give them and landlords much-
needed relief and protection from irresponsible tenants.
She urged the committee to support the bill. She commented
that the bill contained two classifications of landlords:
professional and incidental. She said that the existing
landlord/tenant law had been very effective, except that it
was weighted toward tenants.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed an opinion that the existing
landlord/tenant law had resulted in landlords requiring huge
deposits from new tenants, as a result of experiences with
bad tenants in the past. She said that the law needed to be
changed so that it was weighted more towards landlords. She
noted that she had two amendments to offer, in response to
concerns expressed at the House Labor and Commerce Committee
hearing on HB 222.
Number 363
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES read AMENDMENT NO. 1, which included
the use of rental property to engage in prostitution as a
criminal offense for which a tenant could be evicted,
instead of allowing a person to be evicted for simply
working as a prostitute off the rented premises.
Number 426
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative James if the effect of
AMENDMENT NO.1 was to expand the prohibited acts from
prostitution to prostitution-involved crimes such as
soliciting prostitution, assignation, etc.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied in the affirmative.
Number 432
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that the original intent of
HB 222 was to limit the group of acts for which a tenant
could be evicted to drug and alcohol offenses; AMENDMENT
NO.1 added an additional type of activity. She made a
MOTION to ADOPT AMENDMENT NO.1. There being no objection,
IT WAS ADOPTED.
Number 445
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OFFERED AMENDMENT NO.2, which she said
would benefit tenants. The amendment changed the language
of the bill to relate only to substantial acts or omissions.
The amendment defined "substantial" as something which
caused damage in excess of the amount of the rental
property's security deposit.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED AMENDMENT NO.2. She then
questioned whether the definition of "substantial" was
sufficiently concise.
Number 474
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that it was his understanding AMENDMENT
NO,2 replaced language which existed in present statute.
Number 479
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied that the language in AMENDMENT
NO. 2 did not exactly match, but was similar to language
presently in statute. She said that the existing language
referred to "substantial" acts or omissions, but did not
define "substantial."
Number 492
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT AMENDMENT NO.2.
There being no objection, IT WAS ADOPTED.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND distributed copies of AMENDMENT
NO. 3, which he said had been included in the Senate's
companion bill to HB 222. He said that the amendment would
allow for a mediation process to be set up between a
landlord and a tenant. If the mediation broke down, he
said, the proceedings would return to court. He said that
the amendment provided an avenue for differences to be
resolved outside of a courtroom. He expressed an opinion
that the amendment would not take the "teeth" out of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Representative James to state
her objections to including this particular amendment in
HB 222.
Number 530
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that mediation was always
available to parties in dispute, but she felt that putting
it into statute would be too cumbersome.
Number 539
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND indicated his understanding that
mediation between a landlord and a tenant could occur,
whether or not it was included in HB 222. However, he said
that including it in the law would draw attention to the
fact that there was another avenue available for people
wanting to resolve differences.
Number 557
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative Nordlund to comment on
the section of his amendment pertaining to section 6 of
HB 222.
Number 559
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that it was his
understanding that the amendment as a whole would allow for
a mediation process to be conducted. He said that he could
not speak to the specifics of the amendment.
Number 560
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she was not familiar
with the particular section either. She said that if the
amendment would extend the time frames which were in HB 222,
then she would oppose it.
Number 569
CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the committee consider the
portion of AMENDMENT NO. 3 beginning with the section
pertaining to page 7, line 7. He said that the amendment
would not require mediation, but merely allowed for it.
Number 573
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood that the amendment would not
require mediation. She expressed concern that mediation
would not be mentioned in some rental agreements, resulting
in complex court proceedings later.
Number 580
CHAIRMAN PORTER did not think that such a problem would
result, given the wording of the amendment.
MS. HORETSKI expressed her opinion that AMENDMENT NO. 3
would not invalidate a rental agreement which did not
mention mediation.
Number 589
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if a landlord could include
mediation in rental agreements with some tenants, but not
with others.
Number 598
MS. HORETSKI commented that landlords could treat different
tenants differently, but could not discriminate against
tenants on the basis of certain features, including race and
sex. However, if a landlord had articulable reasons for
treating one tenant differently than another (for example, a
lack of references), then he or she could impose different
conditions on that tenant, she said.
Number 613
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that mediation seemed like a
stall tactic, as well as a cumbersome requirement.
Number 632
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned that the amendment had not
been formally moved. Additionally, she said that the
amendment was to SB 155, the Senate version of HB 222, and
HB 222's sponsor did not support it.
Number 641
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND said that he would not formally move
the amendment, as there apparently were not enough votes to
support it. He said that if the hearing on HB 222 were to
be continued on another day, he would bring the amendment
back before the committee, redrafted so that the format
conformed with HB 222.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee now had HB 222, as
amended by AMENDMENTS NO. 1 AND 2, before it.
Number 650
SHERRIE GOLL, representing the ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY,
commented that HB 222 was substantially similar to
landlord/tenant bills which had been before the legislature
for the last five years. She said that the landlord/tenant
law now in place had tried to balance the rights of
landlords and tenants. She expressed an opinion that HB 222
tipped the balance too far in favor of landlords. She said
that women, minorities, and low-income citizens were more
likely to be renters than other Alaskans; for that reason,
she said that the effects of HB 222 would disproportionately
fall on those groups of people.
MS. GOLL expressed her concern about HB 222's shortened
notice periods. She appreciated the bill's accompanying
fiscal note, to cover the cost of preparing a brochure
explaining the new landlord/tenant law. She commented that
in some instances, the bill was changing notice periods from
ten days to five days; in other instances, notice periods
were being decreased from ten days to 24 hours. She stated
that the bill would result in more evictions.
MS. GOLL agreed that there were bad tenants, but expressed
doubts that changing the landlord/tenant law would have any
impact on tenants who disregarded the law anyway. She said
that in most cases, landlords were able to protect
themselves by requiring references or deposits. She
applauded AMENDMENT NO. 2, saying that it made HB 222 more
balanced. She said that her organization supported the
mediation process.
MS. GOLL called attention to the section of HB 222
pertaining to a tenant who had been arrested for a crime.
She said that by shortening the notice period, eviction
proceedings would begin before the tenant was able to defend
him- or herself against the crime for which he or she was
arrested. And, if the tenant was convicted, she questioned
what purpose would be served by putting that person's family
out on the street.
MS. GOLL summarized by saying that, when dealing with the
landlord/tenant law, both parties needed to be respected.
She reiterated her belief that HB 222 went too far in
shifting the balance away from tenants and toward landlords.
TAPE 93-59, SIDE A
Number 000
ELLEN NORTHUP, DIRECTOR of THE GLORY HOLE homeless shelter
in Juneau, distributed a letter to the members of the
committee. She believed Americans were innocent until
proven guilty, and said that some of HB 222's provisions ran
counter to that tenet. However, she approved of many of the
provisions of the bill. She was aware that shortening the
notice period from ten days to five days was aimed at drug
dealers and prostitutes, but said that it would also hit
senior citizens whose social security checks were held up in
the mail.
MS. NORTHUP mentioned a current situation of which she was
aware, involving an elderly man who had lived in the same
apartment for about six years. The building was sold to
another owner, who implemented a new requirement of first
and last months' rent, plus a cleaning deposit. When the
man first moved into the building, she said, he only had to
pay his first month's rent. He was unable to pay for his
last month, plus his cleaning deposit and, therefore, was
evicted.
MS. NORTHUP stated that her primary objection to HB 222 was
its shortened notice periods. She suggested that landlords
ask prospective tenants if they knew how to clean a house.
Strange as it might seem, she said, some people had never
kept an apartment.
Number 135
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that tenants could only seek
assistance from the general relief program of the Division
of Public Assistance when they could present an eviction
notice. Therefore, she said, eviction notices were
sometimes given to tenants in order to benefit them. She
said that in most cases, landlords were understanding in the
situation of a welfare or social security check arriving
late.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed an opinion that landlords
required first and last months' rent, plus deposits as a
result of problems that had occurred due to the existing
landlord/tenant law. She noted that if tenants were given a
five-day notice period, and could not come up with rent
money within that time, then they would probably also be
unable to come up with the rent money in ten days.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that the intention of the
existing landlord/tenant law was to protect both parties.
However, she said that during the fifteen years that it had
been in effect, it had bent over backwards for tenants. She
said that the existing law had resulted in many people who
were unwilling to be landlords. She expressed an opinion
that the state needed to encourage landlords to provide
rental housing.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative James if she was aware
of a memorandum from Jack Chenoweth of the Legislative
Affairs Agency's Division of Legal Services, which suggested
that a particular amendment be made to HB 222.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she had seen the
memorandum, and felt that if the amendment was necessary,
then she would support including it. However, she said that
if the amendment was unnecessary, then she would rather not
include it.
Number 195
MS. HORETSKI mentioned that a House Judiciary Committee
substitute would need to be drafted anyway, due to the other
amendments that had been made. She noted that she had seen
Mr. Chenoweth's suggested amendment regarding court rule
references, but was as yet uncertain as to whether HB 222
made procedural or substantive changes.
Number 200
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she would like to hear
Ms. Horetski's legal opinion of Mr. Chenoweth's suggested
amendment.
Number 209
CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the committee hold HB 222 in
committee until the following Wednesday; in the meantime, he
said, a committee substitute could be drafted and Ms.
Horetski could research Mr. Chenoweth's concerns.
Number 219
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that sections 1 and 6 of
HB 222 would place additional requirements on police
departments, including notifying property-owners if someone
other than the property-owner was arrested, and aiding in
the eviction process. He wondered what sort of impact the
bill would have on the Alaska State Troopers and on local
police departments.
Number 234
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that there was a fiscal note
accompanying HB 222.
Number 238
LT. HARRIS commented that he supported the concept of
section 1 of HB 222, while recognizing that it would create
more work for the Troopers. He said that in most cases, it
would be easy to find out who owned a piece of property and
notify that person by letter. He said that in Anchorage and
Fairbanks, records were computerized, thereby speeding up
the notification process. In other areas of the state, he
said, finding out who owned a particular piece of property
would be more time-consuming. But, he said that
notification of property-owners was an important thing to
do.
LT. HARRIS indicated his understanding that eviction notices
were usually served by private process-servers, only asking
the police for assistance if certain problems arose. At
that time, he said, the police would provide assistance as
part of its routine work. He stated that the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) supported the concept of HB 222.
Number 273
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that it would be helpful to the
police to have the cooperation of a property-owner in these
instances. Additionally, police could use the opportunities
presented in HB 222 to point out the owner's
responsibilities toward bad tenants. He added that the
police's involvement stemming from HB 222 would not
necessarily be viewed as a problem.
Number 288
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked how a court would interpret
section 10 of HB 222, pertaining to a person's reputation in
the community.
Number 298
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that a person's reputation in the
community was a standard used in establishing the
credibility of a witness.
Number 311
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that HB 222 reduced a notice
period from 20 days to 24 hours, for breach of a rental
agreement. He asked if this would present due process
problems.
Number 325
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the 24-hour period
pertained not to non-payment of rent, but to situations in
which a rental unit was being damaged.
Number 335
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that he was referring to page
10, lines 8 and 9 of HB 222.
Number 344
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the section to which
Representative Nordlund was referring was where the
committee had inserted the word "substantially." The effect
of that section, she said, would give landlords an
opportunity to evict tenants before damage became worse.
She said that she had personal experiences in which property
she owned was being damaged by tenants, and all she could do
was to watch helplessly as the damage was perpetrated. She
stated that the 24-hour notice period did not apply to non-
payment of rent situations.
Number 361
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that a House Judiciary Committee
substitute for HB 222 would be drafted, with or without Mr.
Chenoweth's amendment, based on the outcome of Ms.
Horetski's research. He said that the bill would be back
before the committee on Wednesday.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|