Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
04/25/2005 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR12 | |
| SB129 | |
| SB143 | |
| Violent Crimes Compensation Board | |
| Commission on Judicial Conduct | |
| Alaska Judicial Council | |
| HB266 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 25, 2005
1:13 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the repeal of the budget reserve fund.
- MOVED CSHJR 12(W&M) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 129(JUD)
"An Act relating to the wrongful recording of a notice of
pendency of an action relating to title to or right to
possession of real property."
- MOVED CSSB 129(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 143(STA)
"An Act amending the definition of the term 'state agencies' as
it applies under Executive Order No. 113; relating to
information systems in the legislative branch and to the
Telecommunications Information Council; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 143(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Violent Crimes Compensation Board
LeRoy J. Barker, Esq. - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Ethel Staton - Sitka
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Alaska Judicial Council
Christena "Tena" Williams - Ketchikan
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 266
"An Act relating to offenses and penalties for violation of
vehicle weight limitations; prohibiting the use of a violation
of a vehicle weight limitation for certain personal automobile
insurance actions; amending Rule 43.6, Alaska Rules of
Administration; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 266(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar
Joseph N. Faulhaber - Fairbanks
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Jerry Story - Wasilla
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 268
"An Act relating to overtaking and passing certain stationary
vehicles."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 36(JUD)
"An Act relating to absentee ballots."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 12
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: BUDGET RESERVE FUND REPEAL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HARRIS
02/18/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/05 (H) W&M, STA, JUD, FIN
04/01/05 (H) W&M AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 106
04/01/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/01/05 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/08/05 (H) W&M AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 106
04/08/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/08/05 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/11/05 (H) W&M AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 106
04/11/05 (H) Moved CSHJR 12(W&M) Out of Committee
04/11/05 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/12/05 (H) W&M RPT CS(W&M) NT 3DP 1NR
04/12/05 (H) DP: WILSON, SEATON, WEYHRAUCH;
04/12/05 (H) NR: SAMUELS
04/19/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/19/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/20/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/20/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/21/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/21/05 (H) Moved CSHJR 12(W&M) Out of Committee
04/21/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/22/05 (H) STA RPT CS(W&M) NT 4DP 2NR
04/22/05 (H) DP: LYNN, ELKINS, RAMRAS, SEATON;
04/22/05 (H) NR: GARDNER, GRUENBERG
04/25/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 129
SHORT TITLE: WRONGFUL FILING OF LIS PENDENS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HUGGINS
03/03/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/03/05 (S) JUD
03/23/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/23/05 (S) Moved CSSB 129(JUD) Out of Committee
03/23/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/24/05 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 2NR SAME TITLE
03/24/05 (S) DP: SEEKINS, THERRIAULT, HUGGINS
03/24/05 (S) NR: FRENCH, GUESS
03/31/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/31/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 129(JUD)
04/01/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/01/05 (H) L&C, JUD
04/11/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/11/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/11/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/12/05 (H) L&C RPT 3DP 2NR
04/12/05 (H) DP: LYNN, ROKEBERG, ANDERSON;
04/12/05 (H) NR: CRAWFORD, GUTTENBERG
04/22/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/22/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/25/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 143
SHORT TITLE: STATE INFO SYSTEM PLAN: LEGISLATURE/UNIV
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
03/16/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/16/05 (S) STA
03/22/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/22/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/29/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/29/05 (S) Moved CSSB 143(STA) Out of Committee
03/29/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/05 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP 1NR SAME TITLE
03/30/05 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, WAGONER, HUGGINS
03/30/05 (S) NR: DAVIS
04/01/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/01/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 143(STA)
04/04/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/05 (H) JUD
04/22/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/22/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/25/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 266
SHORT TITLE: VEHICLE WEIGHTS AND INSURANCE
SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION
04/08/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/08/05 (H) TRA, JUD, FIN
04/12/05 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/12/05 (H) Failed To Move Out Of Committee
04/12/05 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/14/05 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/14/05 (H) Moved CSHB 266(TRA) Out of Committee
04/14/05 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/15/05 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 1DP 1NR 4AM
04/15/05 (H) DP: ELKINS;
04/15/05 (H) NR: KAPSNER;
04/15/05 (H) AM: NEUMAN, KOHRING, SALMON, THOMAS
04/25/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 12.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 129.
DEBORAH GRUNDMANN, Staff
to Senator Charlie Huggins
Senate Transportation Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of SB 129 on
behalf of the sponsor, Senator Huggins.
RUTH HAMILTON HEESE, Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of SB 129
and responded to comments.
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 143 on behalf of the sponsor,
the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
PAMELA A. VARNI, Executive Director
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
SB 143.
CURTIS CLOTHIER, Manager
Data Processing
Legislative Administrative Service
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
SB 143.
STEVEN SMITH, Chief Information Technology Officer
Office of Information Technology
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
SB 143.
LEROY J. BARKER, Esq., Appointee
to the Violent Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Violent
Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB).
ETHEL STATON, Appointee
to the Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC)
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Commission on
Judicial Conduct (CJC).
CHRISTENA "TENA" WILLIAMS, Appointee
to the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska
Judicial Council (AJC).
JOS GOVAARS, Staff
to Representative Jim Elkins
House Transportation Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 266 on behalf of the sponsor,
the House Transportation Standing Committee.
AVES D. THOMPSON, Director
Anchorage Office
Division of Measurement Standards & Commercial Vehicle
Enforcement
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 266, provided
comments, asked that the bill be moved forward, and responded to
questions.
MICHAEL BELL, Director
Alaska Trucking Association, Inc. (ATA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 266, provided
comments in opposition to portions of the bill, suggested a
change, and responded to questions.
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director
Governmental And Legislative Affairs
Teamsters Local 959
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 266, provided
comments, asked that the bill be moved forward, and responded to
questions.
PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist
for Horizon Lines of Alaska, LLC ("Horizon")
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 266, provided
comments, and asked that the bill be moved forward.
NONA WILSON, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 266, provided
comments, asked that the bill be left as is, and responded to a
question.
VANESSA TONDINI, Staff
to Representative Lesil McGuire
House Judiciary Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 266.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:13:35 PM. Representatives
McGuire, Coghill, Dahlstrom, and Gruenberg were present at the
call to order. Representatives Anderson, Kott, and Gara arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 12 - CONST. AM: BUDGET RESERVE FUND REPEAL
1:14:05 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the repeal of
the budget reserve fund. [Before the committee was CSHJR
12(W&M).]
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HJR 12, offered that the resolution would provide "a way to deal
with what we hope will be the beginnings of a fiscal plan for
the state." The resolution would put before the voters the
question of whether the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund
(CBRF) should be put into another "constitutional" fund that
would allow earnings to be used for capital construction or
capital maintenance. The resolution also provides that the
earnings that will be allowed to be used would "be a stream
determined by a percent-of-market-value approach," specifying 5
percent of the value of the fund every year; additionally, the
fund would be inflation proofed. He predicted that the
establishment of such a fund will be much less controversial
than similar approaches.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS mentioned that a companion bill is
currently in the House Finance Committee and would take
approximately $600 million from the CBRF and put it into a
"statutory budget reserve" fund, and suggested that doing so
would alleviate concerns regarding cash flow, concerns regarding
whether the state would be able to meet its financial
obligations in a timely manner. He explained that if HJR 12
passes, it will eliminate the three-quarter vote requirement,
and predicted that this will in turn force the legislature to
look at other sources of revenue to balance the budget without
relying on what he characterized as "the crutch" of the CBRF.
Voters could also then vote for candidates based upon what they
claim they will do to balance to budget when and if they become
elected officials.
1:18:22 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that HJR 12 is before the House Judiciary
Standing Committee because it proposes a change to the Alaska
State Constitution, and suggested that committee members allow
the House Finance Committee to address the financial
ramifications of the resolution.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HJR 12.
1:19:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether HJR 12 would take all monies
currently in the CBRF and put it in a capital construction
permanent fund.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said it would with the exception of the
aforementioned $600 million being addressed by legislation
currently in the House Finance Committee. That $600 million,
were both that bill and this resolution to pass - and the latter
be approved by the voters - would be placed in the
aforementioned "statutory budget reserve" fund; the remainder of
monies currently in the CBRF would be transferred into the
capital construction permanent fund.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, in response to a further question,
clarified that were HJR 12 to pass, all references [in the
Alaska State Constitution] to the CBRF would be eliminated; this
would include references to "the sweep." The proposed new
capital construction permanent fund would be constitutionally
protected, and only the earnings - never the principal - could
be spent. Again, the aforementioned $600 million would be
available to address cash flow issues, would be available to
borrow from and pay back, and would be subject to appropriation
by the legislature.
1:21:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said his concerns are related to what he
called "capital equity," in that historically, a
disproportionate amount of money [for capital projects] tends to
go to the districts of those members in the House Finance
Committee with power, and offered that he has always thought
that a solution would be to have "some sort of equity
requirement." He asked Representative Harris to comment on this
issue, and suggested that perhaps a provision could be added to
the resolution such that it would allow for both fairness and
statesmanship by saying that as part of "this" fund, no district
could get more than 25 percent more than the average that all
districts get unless authorized by a two-thirds vote in the
House of Representatives. For example, if there were an
emergency situation or a special project, then with a two-thirds
vote, one district would be able to get a substantially larger
amount of money than other districts; the legislature would have
the flexibility to provide more funds to an area that needed it.
1:23:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he doesn't have a problem with such a
concept, but noted that almost all school maintenance projects
are in rural Alaska and thus it seems that minority members are
getting the bulk of capital funds. He said that he hopes to be
able to work with Representative Croft in the House Finance
Committee to address parity concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that perhaps the language could be
structured such that "the average capital that goes to majority
member districts, per district, should not be more than 25
percent more than the average that goes to minority member
districts, absent a two-thirds vote."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS posited that such would be good idea and
that the concept has a lot of merit, but he doesn't yet know how
it would be structured, what the language would look like. He
suggested that perhaps the administration should be required to
provide the legislature with a "maintenance list" - similar to
the school construction list that it already provides - based on
certain criteria, and that such a list might help to maintain
some sense of order.
1:26:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that HJR 12 is basically
"changing what is now a [Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR)]
with a three-quarter vote into a permanent fund but allowing
access of no more than 5 percent of the principal per year" for
capital construction [and maintenance].
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS concurred with that summation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that
originally the resolution was not limited to capital
construction.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that perhaps the resolution
oughtn't to be limited to just capital projects, but then noted
that the fund would simply become a second permanent fund.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS offered:
The idea, of course, is that we have such a huge
amount of deferred maintenance ... all over the state,
and if we're ever going to get past this idea of the
CBR being nothing more than a fund that we entice the
minority - whoever they may be, republican or democrat
- to dip into to balance our budget, and we're going
to look forward enough to say we're going to use some
other mechanism to balance our budget long-term, then
we have to do this. Otherwise, this mechanism is
here, it's easy - I mean relatively easy - to get at.
And ... we've talked right now about [how] ... the
republicans are in power so they just shut the
democrats out.
Well, the democrats will be in power sooner or later
..., and when they are you don't want to be shackled
with that same issue either - you want to be able to
control policy, as you should be able to. And I
understand why the legislature did this years ago; ...
the legislature was awash in money ... in those days,
and ... the minority at that point in time ... had
concerns about ... the money all being spent ..., so
they ... wanted to put their own sideboards on it. ...
I think those days are over with. ... We're not in
those situations anymore. Yeah, we have $50-a-barrel
oil ..., but we know that's not realistic to [expect
that to] last forever. ... And with our budget
continuing to increase, it won't be too many more
years ... [before] we're at $3 billion general fund
[GF] budget - it's going to take a lot of oil at very
high prices to allow us to balance our budget under
that scenario. And so I say we're going to need other
revenue sources to balance our budget on a continuing
... [basis].
1:30:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered a hypothetical example
involving repairs to a school in a Rural Education Attendance
Area (REAA), and asked whether such a school would be considered
a facility of the state or a subdivision of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the resolution would
allow any public building in the state to receive monies from
the fund created via the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether ferries would also be
considered facilities of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said yes.
1:31:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his understanding that the
aforementioned school construction list that the administration
provides the legislature is a "statutory" list.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS concurred with Representative Gara's
understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that the current three-
quarter vote requirement of the CBR provides the minority with a
voice regarding budget issues.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS clarified, however, that such is not a
guarantee, since with $50-a-barrel oil, for example, the
legislature is able to balance the budget without tapping into
the CBRF and thereby needing to make use of the three-quarter
vote requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his understanding that he and the
sponsor agree with the concept that there should be some sort of
equity regarding capital funds. He suggested that the
resolution ought to include a provision which says that
excluding the maintenance and construction school budget, which
is defined by statute, for all other capital that's paid for by
this fund, the average amount that goes, per district, to
majority districts can be no more than 20 percent more than the
average that goes to minority districts. If the House Judiciary
Standing Committee were to amend HJR 12 to that effect, then if
20 percent doesn't seem to the House Finance Committee to be a
fair number, he remarked, then that committee could try and come
up with a better number.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS remarked that such could be done either
through an amendment or through intent language of some sort,
adding that he doesn't have a problem with that concept as long
as school maintenance issues or public facility maintenance
issues are excluded - the first of which are already addressed
by the aforementioned statutory list, and the second of which
might also soon be addressed through a similar statutory list -
since there may be more needs regarding those issues in certain
districts. For example, the installation of detection systems
in court buildings in urban areas. Such lists allow the
legislature to funnel funds through to those specific
areas/projects after the administration has had an opportunity
to look at them in terms of which items should be a priority.
In conclusion, he said he would prefer that the capital
construction permanent fund not be used as a bonding mechanism;
that rather it should be used strictly as a "cash" mechanism to
pay for needed infrastructure repair.
1:34:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would object to putting an
allocation provision in the resolution. Rather, if they are
going to add language to the [Alaska State] Constitution
regarding another constitutional fund, they should just define
how that fund is to be managed and how it is to be accessed, and
all other issues related to that fund should be left up to the
legislature to deal with. He cautioned against putting equity
allocations in the [Alaska State] Constitution, since, he
opined, allocations should instead be debated as a legislative
policy issue, particularly given the historical fluctuations in
pipeline revenues. He asked the sponsor to comment regarding
what he anticipates the actual ballot language would be.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS noted that the language on the ballot
could be worded a number of different ways, and expressed a
preference that it be as clear as possible so that the voters
understand what they are voting on and understand what the term,
"percent of market value," means with regard to both inflation
proofing and "the stream of revenue coming off."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked the sponsor whether he is wedded to
the concept of "percent of market value," or whether he would be
amenable to having an open fund and allowing the legislature to
"dip into" it as well.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS reiterated that the principal of the
proposed fund would be constitutionally protected so as to
prevent "dipping into" it. Additionally, as currently written,
there is no vote mechanism allowing access to the principal.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised, then, that only 5 percent of
the market value of that fund would be used and no three-quarter
vote would be needed.
1:38:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS concurred. In response to a question,
said he is not completely devoted to the "5 percent of market
value" concept, but he thinks that it is a good mechanism that
allows two things to happen, one of which being to inflation
proof the fund. He pointed out, too, that the legislature would
not be required to use those funds; instead, if that money were
not needed, it could simply revert back into principal.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, surmised that the current constitutional
requirement of paying back the CBRF would no longer exist with
the adoption and voter approval of the proposed constitutional
change.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS concurred.
1:40:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said another of his concerns centers around
the possibility that if the cushion now offered by the CBRF is
wiped out, it will hasten the day that an income tax or a sales
tax or a permanent fund dividend (PFD) cut will have to be
imposed.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS noted that debates on that issue took
place when oil was at $8 per barrel, and remarked that that
question is one that will have to be faced at some point,
particularly given that the budget has continued to increase
because costs have continued to increase. He added:
It's bringing it to a head, to say we have to ask the
people of the state of Alaska how they want to truly
fund the growth of this government, period. And this
puts the question before them - they don't have to
vote for [it], the people, but it puts the question in
front of them - "Do you want to do something different
with the CBR?" ... And that certainly will be part of
the debate if it gets out there in the public, to say,
"Well, this is ... enhancing the fact you're probably
going to have use of the earnings of the permanent
fund or income tax or sales tax just to balance the
budget in the future." But I think the people need to
have that question in front of them.
1:43:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA [made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment
1], to say that outside of school and public facilities
construction and maintenance projects, the expenditures from
this fund should not provide, on average, any more than a
maximum of 20 percent more per district in majority members'
districts than minority members' districts, to guarantee that
the minority doesn't get shut out of the process for power
reasons, and would say that in order for that [stipulation] to
be waived, there would have to be a two-thirds vote to justify
the projects that would otherwise disrupt that balance.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected.
1:45:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON opined that Conceptual Amendment 1 would
tie the legislature's hands and underestimates the fact that
districts are connected.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he objects to Conceptual Amendment 1
because of the possibility that it could create allocation
problems, and opined that when proposals are offered that would
change the Alaska State Constitution, they should be accompanied
with a description of the basic underlying principal. If
allocations are to be based on certain, set percentages, for
example, then the legislature should be free to allocate within
those percentages.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, with regard to Conceptual Amendment 1,
said:
Certainly ..., under this proposal, ... one ...
republican district could get all the money and the
other one would get none, but that would be okay as
long as on average, all of the ... money that went to
the majority wasn't on average, per district, 20
percent [more] than all of the money that went to the
minority. And if we can't agree to something like
that or some other language that would preserve
fairness to people who are not the majority ... party,
I really greatly worry that we're going to have a
provision where things like what happened in the past,
where you get this special allocation for majority
member districts that doesn't get accorded to the
minority party, will happen more often.
And if we're going to get rid of the two-thirds vote
requirement, which is really one of the few things
that gives the minority a voice in this legislature,
... then I think you have to replace it with something
that guarantees some fairness. And ... if people want
to work on better language, and people want to get
this bill out today, that's why I would like to have
something on the record today and let them fiddle with
it in [the House Finance Committee]. But [I've] got
to say, I'm not going to be thrilled with a provision
that doesn't have a protection like that.
1:48:31 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Gara
voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1. Representatives
McGuire, Anderson, Coghill, Kott, and Dahlstrom voted against
it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 2-5.
1:48:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHJR 12(W&M) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 12(W&M) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
SB 129 - WRONGFUL FILING OF LIS PENDENS
1:49:19 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 129(JUD), "An Act relating to the
wrongful recording of a notice of pendency of an action relating
to title to or right to possession of real property."
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
SB 129, thanked Representative Gruenberg for his assistance in
reviewing the bill, and characterized the bill as non-
contentious, essentially correcting faults currently in the
system. In the situation that engendered the bill, a state
employee had "fragrantly" filed [a notice of lis pendens]
against some people that he had no legitimate claim against. He
explained that a lis pendens notice is essentially a lien of
sorts, and in the aforementioned situation, the pendens action
was filed against an assistant attorney general, a real estate
developer, and some members of the Board of Game; it cost those
people thousands of dollars to "remove that action." In
conclusion, he offered his belief that adopting SB 129 and
instituting the correction it proposes is the right thing to do.
DEBORAH GRUNDMANN, Staff to Senator Charlie Huggins, Senate
Transportation Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature,
added on behalf of Senator Huggins, sponsor, that SB 129 seeks
to discourage abusive filings of illegal lis pendens notices
and, in fact, makes filing such illegal notices a class A
misdemeanor. While the filing itself does not create a formal
lien, such a notice can have a similar impact on the ability of
the targeted person to do business with the affected real
estate. She, too, referred to the situation that engendered the
legislation, and mentioned that that case took months, thousands
of dollars, and attorney time to solve. She then pointed out
that Section 2 of CSSB 129 now proposes to also add the words,
"in writing" to AS 11.46.560(b).
1:53:26 PM
RUTH HAMILTON HEESE, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL),
offered that a lis pendens is basically a filing that one puts
in the recorder's [office] of a notice of a pending suit, and is
defined in part in Black's Law Dictionary as a notice filed, on
public records, for the purpose of warning all persons that the
title of certain [property] is in litigation and that that they
are in danger of being bound by an adverse judgment. It
essentially creates a cloud on the title of one's property. In
creating SB 129, the DOL considered existing law regarding the
crime of filing wrongful liens on property, and the legislation
merely amends that existing law to include wrongful filing of
lis pendens. It essentially closes the loophole that some are
using to harass people for certain decisions they may have made.
The bill is narrowly focused, she concluded, adding that the
criminal intent for this crime is reckless disregard, which
involves an individual consciously going forward with an act
even though he/she knows that there is a substantial risk that
the act will be found wrongful.
1:55:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON characterized SB 129 as an important
piece of legislation, and noted that abuses of the lis pendens
procedure can even be seen in "family law" cases.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 129.
SENATOR HUGGINS, in response to a comment, offered his
understanding that by using the term, "reckless disregard" in
the bill, it ensures that the behavior is not merely careless
behavior. In response to a further comment, he pointed out that
there is no evidence of abuse of the current law regarding
offering a false instrument for recording even though that law
uses the same standard of reckless disregard.
MS. HEESE also pointed out that the "in writing" provision would
allow someone to submit to having a lis pendens filed on him/her
and thus the person that filed the notice would be fairly safe
from prosecution under this proposed statute. She, too, pointed
out that the current law regarding offering a false instrument
for recording has not been abused, and suggested that the same
standard of criminal intent should apply to the filing of all
such false instruments. It would be foolhardy for someone to
file such an instrument knowing that it is false, she concluded.
CHAIR McGUIRE offered her belief that reckless disregard means a
conscious disregard, not just a mistaken disregard.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA disagreed, offering his understanding that
with reckless disregard, one could know that a behavior is
wrongful and still "accidentally" do it. He opined that
providing a criminal penalty for behavior that is reckless would
be doing a disservice.
MS. HEESE offered to read the definition of "reckless
disregard."
CHAIR McGUIRE said that doing so wouldn't be necessary. She
added that she didn't see how someone could consciously
disregard a risk and then claim that doing so was an accident.
2:01:12 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS relayed that after discussing this issue with
others, he feels 100 percent comfortable that the language
currently in the bill will not be abused.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to "make
it a crime of intent rather than a crime of recklessness."
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected.
CHAIR McGUIRE surmised that Amendment 1 would replace "reckless"
on page 1, line 8, with "intentional".
2:02:32 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gara voted in favor
of Amendment 1. Representatives McGuire, Anderson, Coghill,
Kott, Dahlstrom, voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1
failed by a vote of 1-5.
2:03:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report CSSB 129(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected. He then provided comments
regarding the term reckless in the civil context and as it
related to physicians.
CHAIR McGUIRE ruled those comments out of order.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA removed his objection to the motion to
report the bill from committee.
CHAIR McGUIRE stated that CSSB 129(JUD) was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
SB 143 - STATE INFO SYSTEM PLAN: LEGISLATURE/UNIV
2:04:31 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 143(STA), "An Act amending the definition
of the term 'state agencies' as it applies under Executive Order
No. 113; relating to information systems in the legislative
branch and to the Telecommunications Information Council; and
providing for an effective date."
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Senate State
Affairs Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, explained,
on behalf of the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee,
sponsor of SB 143, that Executive Order (EO) 113, which took
effect March 14, 2005, eliminated the Telecommunications
Information Council (TIC) and transferred its powers and duties
to the commissioner of the Department of Administration (DOA).
Under EO 113, the legislature was included in the definition of
"state agency" and, as a result, the legislative branch was
placed under the jurisdiction of the executive branch with
regard to the specific statutes now listed in SB 143. Senate
Bill 143 removes the legislature from the aforementioned
definition and sets the legislative branch apart from the
executive branch, reflecting the reality that the legislature
already oversees its own telecommunications operations.
2:06:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that he had no objections to the
bill.
PAMELA A. VARNI, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency
(LAA), offered the following comments:
I believe the passage of this bill would reflect how
the legislature actually operates within the State of
Alaska's information technology community. This bill
will allow the legislature to operate with the same
autonomy as the judicial branch, and having the
ability to decide what is best for our own branch of
government is important. We have always enjoyed a
cooperative relationship with the Department of
Administration and information technology group. This
bill will allow us to continue to work with them, but
cleans up references which currently put the
legislature's data processing program under their
direction.
Executive Order 113 could not make substantive changes
to the law. That is why SB 143 is so important for
you to pass. The Legislative Affairs Agency has its
own data processing group, which supports the
legislature. Under the auspices of the Legislative
Council's IT subcommittee, long-range and short-term
goals are established for the legislature and voted on
by Legislative Council. These goals take into account
the legislature's unique needs and plans for the
future. It is important that the legislature have the
flexibility to develop our own programs and procedures
to meet the goals which are specific to the Alaska
legislature, both now and in the future.
MS. VARNI, in conclusion, thanked the committee for the
opportunity to speak, and offered to answer questions.
2:08:14 PM
CURTIS CLOTHIER, Manager, Data Processing, Legislative
Administrative Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), said
he would echo Ms. Varni's comments, adding his belief that the
intent of SB 143 is to put the legislature's data processing
staff on the same footing as the judicial branch's data
processing staff, and that the bill would not affect how his
section currently operates. He, too, offered to answer
questions.
2:09:03 PM
STEVEN SMITH, Chief Information Technology Officer, Office of
Information Technology, University of Alaska, said that the
University of Alaska wishes to not be included in EO 113's
definition of "state agency", and noted that CSSB 143(STA)
already effects that change. He said he would echo many of the
previous comments, adding that the University of Alaska's
information technology policy is set through the University of
Alaska Board of Regents, and that as a public educational
institution, the University of Alaska has the opportunity to
realize [savings] in contractual relationships with vendors.
Additionally, much of the University of Alaska technology and
research needs are very specific, and thus require the
University of Alaska to be considered as a separate entity,
apart from, and with different needs than, the executive branch,
though the University of Alaska does work closely with the
information technology organizations in all other branches of
government in order to maintain certain standards.
2:11:32 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 143.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he is surprised that no one from the
administration is present to testify, since the bill would not
have been necessary had the administration worked with and given
consideration to the legislative branch and university during
the development of EO 113. He suggested that those in the
administration who develop executive orders in the future should
learn from this example. In conclusion, he said he supports the
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee's endeavor to provide
the legislature and university with the autonomy they deserve.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report CSSB 143(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSB 143(STA) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
^Violent Crimes Compensation Board
2:13:13 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the committee would next consider
the reappointment of LeRoy J. Barker, Esq., to the Violent
Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB).
2:13:26 PM
LEROY J. BARKER, Esq., Appointee to the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board (VCCB), said he thinks that serving on the
VCCB has been a good experience and that it is important to
maintain continuity. He relayed that he has established a good
working relationship with the staff and other members of the
VCCB, and opined that the VCCB serves an important function.
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed to Mr. Barker that the legislature
appreciates his service.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON reminded members that signing the
reports regarding appointments to boards and commissions in no
way reflects individual members' approval or disapproval of the
appointees, and that the nominations are merely forwarded to the
full legislature for confirmation or rejection.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to advance from committee
the nomination of LeRoy J. Barker, Esq., to the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board. There being no objection, the confirmation
was advanced from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
^Commission on Judicial Conduct
2:15:06 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the committee would next consider
the reappointment of Ethel Staton to the Commission on Judicial
Conduct (CJC).
ETHEL STATON, Appointee to the Commission on Judicial Conduct
(CJC), relayed that she has served on the CJC since 2001 and has
enjoyed the experience.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Ms. Staton whether she has any suggestions
for improvements to the CJC.
MS. STATON opined that the CJC has done a wonderful job.
CHAIR McGUIRE thanked Ms. Staton for her service.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to advance from committee
the nomination of Ethel Staton to the Commission on Judicial
Conduct. There being no objection, the confirmation was
advanced from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
^Alaska Judicial Council
2:16:56 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the committee would next consider
the appointment of Christena "Tena" Williams to the Alaska
Judicial Council (AJC).
CHRISTENA "TENA" WILLIAMS, Appointee to the Alaska Judicial
Council (AJC), in response to the question of why she wished to
serve on the AJC, said she believes everyone should serve
his/her state in one way or another, and so she chose this venue
after being asked to serve.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, noting that his concern is that those who
serve on [the AJC] should "stand up" for a judiciary that is
politics blind, asked her to comment on whether she believes
that judges ought to have philosophies, one way or the other, on
certain issues.
MS. WILLIAMS said no, adding that she is not that interested in
what a person's politics are and so would simply look at each
person individually and determine whether he/she is competent to
do the job.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Ms. Williams whether her motivation
for serving on the AJC stems from her having seen problems with
the judicial process that she'd like to see corrected.
MS. WILLIAMS said no.
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that members were asked to participate in
a survey conducted by the AJC regarding its bylaws. She said
she hopes Ms. Williams will have an active part in reviewing the
information gathered in that survey.
2:20:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON thanked Ms. Williams for her comments.
Offering an example of an acquaintance of his, he urged Ms.
Williams to not "give all the weight to a Bar Poll."
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to advance from committee
the nomination of Christena "Tena" Williams to the Alaska
Judicial Council (AJC). There being no objection, the
confirmation was advanced from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
HB 266 - VEHICLE WEIGHTS AND INSURANCE
2:22:28 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 266, "An Act relating to offenses and
penalties for violation of vehicle weight limitations;
prohibiting the use of a violation of a vehicle weight
limitation for certain personal automobile insurance actions;
amending Rule 43.6, Alaska Rules of Administration; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 266(TRA).]
JOS GOVAARS, Staff to Representative Jim Elkins, House
Transportation Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature,
said, on behalf of the House Transportation Standing Committee,
sponsor of HB 266, that the bill modifies existing law relating
to the penalty structure for overweight vehicle violations, as
well as prohibits the use of overweight vehicle violations by
insurers [to raise a driver's personal insurance rates]. The
bill proposes the first increase in penalties since the existing
provisions were established in the 1970s. Those provisions do
not adequately inhibit commercial shipping companies and others
from violating overweight vehicle limitations, he opined, adding
that the proposed modifications establish a graduated penalty
for the amount of weight in excess of the limitations set by
statute, regulation, and permit.
MR. GOVAARS said there are also new offenses established to
sanction [certain] shippers or carriers who, for example, commit
a combined total of [15] or more violations during any 12-month
period. The maximum fine for this violation is $10,000. This
modification is expected to result in commercial shippers and
carriers being more rigorous towards compliance with overweight
vehicle limitations. Another provision of the bill prohibits
the use of overweight vehicle violations by insurers to
adversely impact decisions related to providing private
automobile insurance coverage for drivers. In the majority of
cases, the driver has little or no knowledge or ability to limit
the weight of the load placed on the vehicle they are assigned
to drive and, as a result, the company causes the violation and,
if cited, pays the fine imposed.
MR. GOVAARS relayed that currently, overweight vehicle
violations are used by insurers as justification to take adverse
action in relation to the personal automobile insurance coverage
of truck drivers. Section 1 of the bill would prohibit this
action. This legislation will protect drivers who do not know
they are in violation, as well as Alaska's roads from overweight
vehicles. In conclusion, he said that the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), the "Teamsters,"
and [Horizon Lines of Alaska, LLC,] all support HB 266, and that
the sponsor would like to thank the committee for its support
[of HB 266].
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON noted that he's heard a concern
regarding weight standards.
MR. GOVAARS relayed that there have been concerns expressed that
the increase in penalties is too significant, particularly for
the smaller amounts of weight over the limit, and that members'
packets include a list of Overweight Uniform Traffic Citations
for 2004, some of which were for relatively small amounts of
weight over the limit, but one of which - listed at the top of
page 3 of the handout - was for 36,400 pounds over the limit.
In response to another question, he relayed that the sponsor
thinks that the bill should not be amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that the bill contains a provision
regarding repeat violations, and asked how that provision
relates to current law and whether repeat violations are a
common occurrence.
MR. GOVAARS said that there are a number of carriers that have
traveled over weight a number of times. He suggested, however,
that a representative from the DOT&PF would be better able to
address this issue.
2:27:45 PM
AVES D. THOMPSON, Director, Anchorage Office, Division of
Measurement Standards & Commercial Vehicle Enforcement,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), first
relayed that current statute does not contain a "repeat
violation" provision, and then that in calculating repeat
violations, consideration would be given to the number of
violations that all the drivers working for a particular carrier
had, because numerous violations - even if each driver had only
one violation - could demonstrate a pattern of violation for the
carrier. He offered his understanding that under the bill, if a
carrier reaches the repeat violation threshold listed in the
bill, it could trigger an investigation by the DOT&PF to
determine whether a pattern of violation exists which warrants
prosecution by the Department of Law (DOL).
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Thompson and the sponsor to
consider imposing a higher fine for a driver with repeat
violations.
MR. THOMPSON said he would be willing to think about that
concept.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that he views repeat violations
from companies with just a few drivers as worse than repeat
violations from companies with a lot of drivers.
2:30:15 PM
MR. GOVAARS offered his understanding that the goal of HB 266 is
to get overweight trucks off the road because, in addition to
causing wear and tear on the road, they create a hazard. And
although HB 266 proposes to replace the current [fine]
structure, if the committee can come up with what it considers
to be a more equitable way of ensuring that overweight vehicles
are no longer on Alaska's roads, the sponsor would be open to an
amendment, he relayed.
2:31:22 PM
MR. THOMPSON explained that it is the DOT&PF's intention to try
to reduce the number of overweight vehicles and is not looking
to generate revenue, adding that it is important to remember
that there is a fine associated with each individual violation
and that the "pattern of violation" provision is aimed at the
most egregious of violators - those carriers that take advantage
of every situation and push their drivers to do things they
shouldn't be doing. He also explained that Section 1 prohibits
insurers from using overweight violations to adversely impact
decisions related to personal automobile insurance; that Section
2 modifies the existing penalty structure, which, he opined, do
not adequately deter overweight violations; and that Section 3
addresses patterns of repeat violations, which could result in a
fine of up to $10,000 for the most egregious offenders. In
conclusion, he asked that the committee give favorable
consideration to HB 266 and move it forward.
2:33:19 PM
MICHAEL BELL, Director, Alaska Trucking Association, Inc. (ATA),
relayed that although the ATA supports Section 1 of HB 266 -
since there are times when drivers unintentionally violate the
overweight regulations and are then penalized with a rise in
insurance premiums on vehicles unrelated to the violation - the
ATA does have some concern with Section 2, which increases the
fines for overweight violations. He noted, however, that the
proposed legislation would be less objectionable if the highest
proposed fine increases were confined to the more significant
weight violations - for example, those vehicles that are
overweight by 8,000 pounds or more. The ATA does not believe
that the large increases in fines for violations involving those
vehicles that are less than 8,000 pounds overweight are
justified, since the impact of those vehicles on the state's
highways is not as significant, and the overweighting might just
be the result of unintentional errors by shippers or the lack of
scales being readily available.
MR. BELL went on to say that those increases penalize small
trucking companies and owner/operators to a much larger degree
than they do larger companies. He then referred to what he
termed the shift in responsibility, from carriers to shippers,
for violations caused by bill-of-lading errors, adding that the
ATA does not support this proposed change. Carriers have the
right to seek restitution from a customer if they choose, but it
is their choice, and if carriers have the right equipment
available to haul their loads, can provide some margin of error,
and, where possible, check the weights of the loads, then [bill-
of-lading] errors can be caught.
MR. BELL said that the ATA does not support placing the burden
of these errors directly on to its customers, since it does not
believe that customers intentionally misstate the weights on
bills of lading. With regard to Section 3, he said that while
the ATA does not support "the additional scrutiny," it does
believe that the "tier structure" should be directly
proportional to the number of drivers a given company has. In
conclusion, he mentioned that the ATA is in the process of
having proposed amendments drafted.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked whether an amendment deleting the
language on page 2, lines 6-12 - which currently proposes [fine
increases] for vehicles that are overweight by amounts up to and
including 8,000 pounds - would alleviate the ATA's concerns.
MR. BELL said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he would be willing to make such an
amendment.
MR. BELL, in response to a question, relayed that the ATA
represents about 350 companies and that that equates to
approximately 65 percent of the trucks currently driving
Alaska's roads.
2:36:53 PM
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director, Governmental and Legislative
Affairs, Teamsters Local 959, relayed that members' packets
should include a copy of a letter offered by her supervisor in
support of the bill, adding that her organization would like to
encourage the committee to move the bill onto the next committee
of referral. She elaborated:
From our perspective, this is first, foremost, and
ultimately about safety - we do represent truck
drivers in the industry, many of which work for
companies that are members of ATA [and] some that are
not. ... I would also like to comment regarding the
earlier [proposed] amendment if I'm not totally out of
line. When we looked at this bill from a safety
perspective -- and I guess for the record, whether
you're running 2,000 pounds overweight or 30,000, an
overweight vehicle is in violation of the law - first
and foremost.
Secondly, it creates a safety hazard. ... In fact ...
there has been a legislative representative in this
building who lost her son and her husband to a truck
[that] ... was running ... overweight. It would fall
into the category that they're looking at reducing the
fines on, and, ... for the record, we would not
support [such an amendment]. ... You're looking at
increasing fines that have not been increased for ...
30-some years. If you sit down and you actually
calculate that percentage based on just the cost of
living [increase] alone, it doesn't come anywhere near
what's being proposed here. We believe that the
increases in rates are very fair.
First and foremost we would like to see all drivers,
all companies, follow the law. And if they're
following the law, they're not going to be paying
these fines, ultimately, anyway. So for that reason
we would have great concern with proposing to adjust
any of those fines, and we would ask the committee's
support to move the bill on. Thank you.
2:40:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether the teamsters concern is that
truckers are currently being endangered by those that are
loading the trucks.
MS. HUFF TUCKNESS said one could ultimately make that analogy,
but offered that in the big picture, whether one is the owner of
the trucking company or the driver of the truck, the onus of
complying with the law is on both of them. The controversy
boils down to who, ultimately, is responsible for paying the
fine, and by reducing that fine, then, the company that is in
violation would not be paying as much. So although her
organization represents the truckers, the incentive provided by
the increased rates should ensure that everyone abides by the
law. To address a concern she'd heard in a previous committee
that an individual trucker wouldn't know how much weight was
being loaded onto his/her truck, she opined that a responsible,
experienced truck driver knows how much weight his/her truck is
built to carry and knows how to determine, within a reasonable
margin of error, whether he/she is overloaded.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether drivers are pressured to carry
overweight loads or whether a driver always has the freedom to
refuse to drive an overweight vehicle.
MS. HUFF TUCKNESS relayed that that concern could apply in
certain areas, such as the Anchorage area or the Eagle River
area, that in certain areas perhaps there is the potential for
drivers to be encouraged to run overweight.
2:43:15 PM
PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist for Horizon Lines of Alaska, LLC
("Horizon"), after noting that Horizon is responsible for
transporting about 40 percent of the goods that come into the
state, said that he was glad to see that HB 266 received a House
Judiciary Standing Committee referral, since this committee's
focus is on the enforcement aspects of laws and the fairness
with which they are applied. He went on to say:
The overweight laws for Alaska were passed for a
reason. The first was to protect our roads. ... When
a truck is overweight, it pushes up a big wave in
front of those tires, and that's what actually cracks
the road - the groves you see in the road are caused
by studs, that's not by overweight trucks; ... when
that wave pushes the pavement up enough that it has a
crack in it and water gets underneath and then
freezes, that's what breaks up our roads. You can run
with an overweight truck, but you have to [get] a
permit, and a number one condition of an overweight
permit is that you drive slower to reduce the amount
of damage to the road.
So it's costing the state ..., having to replace the
roads sooner than they normally would, and it's also
[a] public safety issue for us in the container
industry. Our containers are rated - the bottom of
them ... - to carry a certain capacity. If they're
overloaded, the bottom of the container can break out
and spill the cargo onto the longshoreman working
underneath, and we actually had this happen out in
Dutch Harbor. As a matter of fairness, and I think
some of the issues were raised as far as the drivers
... picking up a load that's overweight, we feel as a
business-fairness issue there [that] our company is
dedicated to running legal operations within the laws
of the State of Alaska, and we believe that other
carriers should be required to do the same.
And unfortunately we have a situation now where the
fine structure for overweight [vehicles] is less than
what you would make if [you] got paid to carry the ...
extra weight. So ... it's a fine to you, but it's not
as much as you're getting paid, so it's not really an
efficient deterrent to running overweight, as it is
right now. And we have actually lost business by
refusing to carry overweight cargo and telling people
we wouldn't do it, and they actually found another
carrier to carry their cargo.
On the issue of the "lower end," ... I wouldn't say do
away with the increase on the bottom end, but maybe
make it graduated ..., because in those areas you
could make an honest mistake of being just a little
bit over. You get over 8,000 pounds, [then] that has
to be willful and intentional. The other thing is
that the penalty did remain on the driver, and the
reason for that is that it's a criminal penalty and
it's very easy for the department to give a criminal
ticket. ... The driver, most times, has no control
over the load. They say, "Here's your load," it's got
a seal on the container ..., and you just pick it up
and you go with it.
Well, to try to do a civil fine to the person that
overloaded the container would take too much time in
the courts and the fiscal note would have been large.
So that was a compromise: leave it a criminal penalty
to the driver. The law does address, however, the
issue, then, [that] if the driver is not at fault it
shouldn't affect his insurance rates. And in terms of
the pattern, [Mr. Thompson] is correct about that,
that's to try to get at the habitual person who just
kind of accepts it as a cost of doing business and
[says], "I'm going to run overweight anyway."
MR. FUHS then drew attention to the language on page 3, line 1,
language that Horizon specifically asked for and which makes
reference to a federal law - the Intermodal Safe Container
Transportation Act of 1992 - that addresses situations in which
somebody certifies on the bill of lading that cargo weighs
20,000 pounds, for example, when in fact it weighs 30,000 and so
the documentation has been intentionally falsified. Such
instances are a violation of federal law, and under HB 266, if a
carrier or driver has violated that federal law three or more
times, the department can also go after the shipper - the entity
who actually loaded the container - because a pattern of
violation has been demonstrated. In conclusion, he said that
Horizon urges the committee to move the bill on to the next
committee.
2:47:53 PM
NONA WILSON, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), noted
that with some companies, the fines as they exist today have
simply been absorbed as part of the cost of doing business,
particularly given what a company can get paid for overloading a
vehicle. She pointed out that some would say it is a
questionable practice to compromise safety as a cost of doing
business, and offered a personal example wherein her mother was
hit by an overweight vehicle - her mother's car never came home.
And while some companies can afford to pay the fines, she
remarked, the state cannot afford to pay the expense of
continually replacing roads.
MS. WILSON said that although permits for overweight vehicles
are available, the drivers are asked to drive slower, which
won't get them to their destinations on time. She relayed that
the DOT&PF is asking for the bill to be left as is, and pointed
out that the average violations occurring in 2004 were for being
overweight between 1,000 and 8,000 pounds. This is something
that neither citizens nor the state can afford; the department
will have to keep coming back to the legislature for more funds,
and meanwhile everyone will still be driving on damaged roads.
The issue is one of safety, both in terms of overweight vehicles
sharing the road with other drivers and in terms of the quality
of Alaska's roads.
2:50:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how difficult it is to get an
overweight permit.
MS. WILSON offered her understanding that such permits,
particularly those pertaining to short distances, can be gotten
a day after applying for one.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he's heard criticism that getting
such permits takes too long and that it takes longer than it
used to. He said he's also heard that the weight distribution
for motor homes is far worse than it is for trucks and yet a
fine structure for motor homes is nonexistent.
MS. WILSON suggested that Mr. Thompson could better address that
issue.
MR. THOMPSON, on the issue of overweight permits, relayed that
typically a permit can be issued the same day it is applied for,
and that although the department did have a permit office in
Fairbanks for a number of years, technology has allowed the
department to provide better service by consolidating its
offices. With regard to the issue of motor homes, he
acknowledged that they are not something that the department has
been focusing on; the department's focus has instead been on
commercial vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that commercial trucking is one of
the reasons for having roads as well as one of the reasons for
the costs associated with having roads. He remarked that the
bill proposes some pretty narrow margins, and asked whether snow
accumulation during a run could result in an overweight problem
for the driver.
MR. THOMPSON explained that although drivers can accumulate a
lot of weight due to weather conditions, departmental
regulations have provisions regarding snow and ice and so
accommodations are made for such situations. There are also
accommodations made in recognition of the fact that different
scales may be set differently. He mentioned that federal
oversight must also be kept in mind.
2:55:05 PM
MR. GOVAARS opined that there are two problems associated with
overweight vehicles - weight and speed - and pointed out that
motor homes do not drive nearly as fast as carriers, which are
the ones hauling weights in excess of 30,000 pounds overweight.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he agrees with that point, but
remarked that he knows how easy it is to end up being a couple
of thousand pound overweight. On the issue of speed, he asked
whether the intention is to either post signage regarding speed
or limit speed during certain times.
MR. GOVAARS said the only time a driver would be required to
drive a certain speed would be when he/she has obtained an
overweight permit.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that speed restrictions would have
a huge impact on the industry.
MR. GOVAARS indicated that the sponsor would be willing to look
at any proposed amendments on that issue.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 266.
2:58:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, noting that he wished to amend it,
turned attention to Amendment 1, which, in its unamended form
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2 Delete Lines 6 - 12
Renumber subsections
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, as
amended to read:
Page 2 Delete Lines 6 - 10
Renumber subsections
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Representative Anderson whether he
thinks a truck that's driving three tons overweight isn't a
safety consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON pointed out that Amendment 1, as
amended, is merely eliminating the proposed increase in fines
for trucks driving up to 6,000 pound overweight, not the
existing fines for those trucks.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA clarified that he is asking whether driving
6,000 pounds overweight is enough of a safety consideration that
updating the current fee structure for those trucks is
justified.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON opined that it isn't.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what the average payload of "an
eighteen wheeler" is.
MR. BELL said the payload is determinate on the type of vehicle,
adding that the average gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is in
the neighborhood of between 80,000 and 120,000 pounds.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that a "payload" would be about
"half of that."
MR. BELL concurred.
3:01:56 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Anderson and
Coghill voted in favor of Amendment 1, as amended.
Representatives McGuire, Kott, Dahlstrom, Gruenberg, and Gara
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, failed by
a vote of 2-5.
3:02:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what the reference to AS
12.55.035(c)(1)(D) pertains to.
VANESSA TONDINI, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, House
Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, offered
her understanding that it pertains to the current criminal fine
structure.
MR. THOMPSON remarked, "That defines the violation."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to Sections 4 and 6 of
the bill, and offered his understanding that Section 4 proposes
to change what he termed a substantive rule and so would
therefore not require a two-thirds vote.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, which would be conditional such that if Rule 43.6
of the Alaska Rules of Administration is not a procedural rule,
that Section 6 be deleted.
CHAIR McGUIRE clarified that Conceptual Amendment 2, if it is
adopted by the committee, would take effect if [Legislative
Legal and Research Services] determines that changing Rule 43.6
does not require a two-thirds vote.
3:05:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked what would happen if the response from
Legislative Legal and Research Services is not definitive.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wants Conceptual Amendment 2 to
only take effect if [Legislative Legal and Research Services] is
100 percent sure that a two-thirds vote will not be required.
MR. GOVAARS indicated that he would be amenable to leaving that
determination up to Legislative Legal and Research Services.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "My motion is, 'Let's go with
whatever they recommend'; let's call it to their attention."
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON indicated that he is reluctant to adopt
a conditional amendment, adding that he would rather the
research be done before the bill is heard in the House Finance
Committee, which could then perhaps amend the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he would be comfortable
with that.
CHAIR McGUIRE concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2.
3:06:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 266(TRA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 266(TRA) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
3:07:20 PM
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was recessed at 3:07 p.m.
to a call of the chair. [The meeting was never reconvened.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|