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