Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
04/12/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB482 | |
| HB434 | |
| SB261 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 482 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 261 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 434 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 12, 2006
1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 482
"An Act relating to harassment, intimidation, and bullying in
schools."
- MOVED CSHB 482(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 434
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of transportation and
public facilities to participate in certain federal highway
programs and relating to that authorization; relating to powers
of the attorney general to waive immunity from suit in federal
court related to those programs; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 434(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 261(FIN)
"An Act relating to the designation of traffic safety corridors;
relating to the bail or fine for an offense committed in a
traffic safety corridor and to separately accounting for such
fines; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 261(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE; ADOPTED A HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE TITLE CHANGE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 482
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL:BULLYING/HARASSMENT/INTIMIDATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ANDERSON
02/13/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/06 (H) EDU, HES, JUD
03/16/06 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/16/06 (H) Moved CSHB 482(EDU) Out of Committee
03/16/06 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
03/20/06 (H) EDU RPT CS(EDU) 1DNP 3NR 1AM
03/20/06 (H) DNP: LYNN;
03/20/06 (H) NR: GARA, THOMAS, NEUMAN;
03/20/06 (H) AM: GATTO
04/03/06 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
04/04/06 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/04/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 04/06/06>
04/06/06 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/06 (H) -- Rescheduled from 04/04/06 --
04/10/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/10/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 04/12/06>
04/11/06 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/11/06 (H) Moved CSHB 482(HES) Out of Committee
04/11/06 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/12/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 434
SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZE HWY PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/08/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/06 (H) TRA, JUD, FIN
03/14/06 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/14/06 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/14/06 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/15/06 (H) TRA RPT 4DP 2NR
03/15/06 (H) DP: KOHRING, NEUMAN, GATTO, ELKINS;
03/15/06 (H) NR: KAPSNER, THOMAS
04/12/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 261
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF HWYS; TRAFFIC OFFENSES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/01/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/06 (S) TRA, FIN
02/09/06 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
02/09/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/09/06 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
03/09/06 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/09/06 (S) Moved CSSB 261(TRA) Out of Committee
03/09/06 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
03/15/06 (S) TRA RPT CS 3DP SAME TITLE
03/15/06 (S) DP: HUGGINS, FRENCH, KOOKESH
03/21/06 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/21/06 (S) Moved CSSB 261(FIN) Out of Committee
03/21/06 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/22/06 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 1NR SAME TITLE
03/22/06 (S) DP: WILKEN, GREEN, BUNDE, DYSON,
STEDMAN
03/22/06 (S) NR: OLSON
04/05/06 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/05/06 (S) VERSION: CSSB 261(FIN)
04/06/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/06/06 (H) JUD, FIN
04/12/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CRYSTAL NOVOTNEY, Staff
to Representative Tom Anderson
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 482 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Anderson.
BILL BJORK, President
NEA-Alaska (National Education Association, Alaska branch)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 482.
JOHN MACKINNON, Deputy Commissioner of Highways & Public
Facilities
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 434 on behalf of the
administration and responded to questions; presented SB 261 on
behalf of the administration and responded to questions.
PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Transportation Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 434; responded to questions during discussion of SB 261.
JAMES A. HELGOE, Lieutenant, Legislative Liaison
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of SB 261.
KURTIS J. SMITH, P.E., Statewide Traffic & Safety Engineer
Design & Construction Standards
Division of Design & Engineering Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of SB 261.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:36:03 PM. Representatives
McGuire, Kott, Wilson, Anderson, and Coghill were present at the
call to order. Representatives Gara and Gruenberg arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 482 - SCHOOL:BULLYING/HARASSMENT/INTIMIDATION
1:36:21 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 482, "An Act relating to harassment,
intimidation, and bullying in schools." [Before the committee
was CSHB 482(HES).]
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, speaking as the sponsor, relayed that
his staff would present HB 482.
1:36:35 PM
CRYSTAL NOVOTNEY, Staff to Representative Tom Anderson, Alaska
State Legislature, sponsor, relayed on behalf of Representative
Anderson that HB 482 address a growing problem in Alaska's
schools that is often overlooked by teachers and administrators.
Bullying has a truly negative effect on the social environment
of schools, and on the emotional and mental well being of
Alaska's children. Recent studies suggest that bullying creates
a climate of fear among students, inhibits their ability to
learn, and leads to other anti-social behavior such as
vandalism, shoplifting, skipping and dropping out of school,
fighting, and using drugs and alcohol. Furthermore, 60 percent
of the males studied who were bullies in grades six through nine
were convicted of at least one crime as an adult, and 35-40
percent of these former bullies had three or more convictions by
the age of 24. Only 15 of the 53 school districts in Alaska
have made an attempt to address the bullying issue. With the
increase in students in Alaska today, there is a growing need to
ensure the safety of Alaska's children in their learning
environment.
MS. NOVOTNEY said that HB 482 requires school districts, city
and borough offices of education, law enforcement agencies, and
youth-serving agencies to develop and implement interagency
strategies on bullying and harassment. Currently, 21 states
have some sort of anti-bullying law, and another 24 states are
in the process of adopting similar legislation. Members'
packets contain endorsement letters by the National Education
Association (NEA), the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence &
Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), and [Allan A. Morotti, Ph.D.,
University of Fairbanks]. Bullying is a problem everywhere,
even in Alaska, and its causes and effects cannot be overlooked.
This bill not only gives teachers and administration officials
the tools to deal with such a growing issue, but also allows for
input from parents, guardians, students, and concerned members
of the community during the development of a comprehensive
bullying policy.
MS. NOVOTNEY relayed that successful programs focusing on
recognizing, preventing, and effectively intervening in bullying
behavior have improved safety and created a more inclusive
learning environment. Some such programs include in-service
training and other activities to improve school attendance and
reduce school crime and violence. House Bill 482 is targeted at
reducing vandalism, drug and alcohol abuse, gang membership and
violence, hate crimes, bullying, teen-relationship violence,
discrimination, and all harassment, including sexual harassment,
in grades K-12. The House Special Committee on Education
revised the bill, eliminating the mandate that school districts
have an actual bullying policy. However, the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee, amended the
bill back to the original form so that school districts must
implement such a policy, and added sexual orientation as an
additional [target] of bullying.
MS. NOVOTNEY, in conclusion, said that ultimately, HB 482 will
protect Alaska's children, discipline unruly students, and
instill in Alaska's schools a message of civility and respect or
suffer the consequences. She offered her understanding that
CSHB 482(HES) now has a zero fiscal note, and relayed that
Representative Anderson urges the committee's support of this
important legislation and thanks Representatives McGuire, Kott,
and Gruenberg for their co-sponsorship of the bill.
1:41:16 PM
BILL BJORK, President, NEA-Alaska (National Education
Association, Alaska branch), after relaying that NEA-Alaska has
submitted a letter of support and testimony to the House Special
Committee on Education, stated that every school in Alaska ought
be a sanctuary where all students can learn and teachers can
teach and all school employees and the general public can work
without the fear of intimidation or harassment. Many schools in
Alaska are already engaged in good efforts to address these
issues, and [CSHB 482(HES)] guarantees that every school will
take the steps necessary to provide a good school climate for
learning that is safe for everyone. He thanked the sponsor and
co-sponsors of the bill, and the committee for its
consideration.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 482.
1:42:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT referred to language on page 2, line 18, and
suggested that it ought to stipulate that the information
referenced shall be reported to the appropriate committees of
the "Alaska House of Representatives and the Alaska Senate".
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he would support such a change.
CHAIR McGUIRE, calling the aforementioned suggested change
Amendment 1, asked whether there were any objections. There
being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
[Following was a brief discussion regarding other legislation
pertaining to similar issues.]
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that he is supportive of HB 482.
1:46:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report CSHB 482(HES), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
482(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
HB 434 - AUTHORIZE HWY PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
1:46:47 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 434, "An Act authorizing the commissioner of
transportation and public facilities to participate in certain
federal highway programs and relating to that authorization;
relating to powers of the attorney general to waive immunity
from suit in federal court related to those programs; and
providing for an effective date."
1:47:07 PM
JOHN MACKINNON, Deputy Commissioner of Highways & Public
Facilities, Office of the Commissioner, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), explained that the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), included a pilot program
- the [National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)]
delegation pilot program - for five states: Alaska, California,
Oklahoma, Ohio, and Texas. This pilot program gives these five
states the ability to apply for delegation of the secretary of
the U.S. Department of Transportation's NEPA responsibilities;
under this pilot program, the state will assume the NEPA
decision-making responsibility that is currently - for highway
programs - under the purview of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA).
MR. MACKINNON said that this [pilot program] puts the
responsibility on the DOT&PF to determine what level of
environmental documentation is required, whether it's an
environmental impact statement (EIS), an environmental
assessment, or a categorical exclusion. He explained that 95
percent of what the DOT&PF does are categorical exclusions - for
example, repaving a road requires a "CATEX" - but very few EISs
are done - perhaps only two or three a year - and only about a
half dozen environmental assessments are done. Currently,
though, the state doesn't determine what type of documentation
is required; instead, this determination is made by the FHWA.
Participating in the pilot program will not result in less
environmental protection, but it will put the decision-making
process in the hands of the state.
CHAIR McGUIRE surmised that HB 434 was referred to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee because Section 1 of the bill would
affect the attorney general's power in that it would allow
him/her to waive the state's immunity from federal court.
MR. MACKINNON concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked how much it will cost the state to
take over a job that the federal government is currently doing
for the state for free. For example, how much would it
typically cost the state to defend itself against a legal
challenge regarding the way it performs its [EISs, environmental
assessments, or CATEXs]? Also, what percentage of highway
projects get litigated under the NEPA?
1:52:59 PM
PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Transportation
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL),
offered his belief that it's unlikely that a lot of litigation
will occur, since most of the projects that the DOT&PF works on
have six- to eight-year lead times, whereas the pilot program is
slated to last only six years. Furthermore, very few projects
will go through the entire environmental process that results in
an EIS. He mentioned that he doesn't know what the statistics
are with regard to what percentage of highway projects get
litigated under the NEPA.
MR. MACKINNON added that since passage of the NEPA, [the state]
has been challenged on only two projects: the "Whittier Tunnel"
- in which the FHWA prevailed; and the "Iliamna-Nondalton bridge
project" - in which [the DOT&PF] has so far prevailed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA predicted that the "Knik Arm Bridge" will
also get litigated, and that such litigation will occur before
the aforementioned six- to eight-year period is concluded. If
this proves true, would the state have to defend itself in that
litigation?
MR. MACKINNON explained that because that project was started
under the purview of the FHWA, the federal government would
continue to defend that project. Under HB 434, the state would
only be responsible for defending itself against litigation
engendered by projects that the state begins after it's been
accepted into the pilot project.
MR. MACKINNON in response to a question, said that the federal
law authorizing the pilot project went into effect August 10,
2005, and is slated to sunset on August 10, 2011. "We're
halfway through [the] first year," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT and REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pondered
whether a sunset clause ought to be added to the bill.
MR. MACKINNON offered his belief that such won't be necessary
because the federal legislation authorizing the pilot program
already has a sunset clause, a sunset clause that will
effectively terminate the states' participation on August 10,
2011.
MR. PUTZIER concurred.
1:58:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT offered his understanding that inserting a
sunset clause will ensure that the revisor automatically removes
the proposed language from statute after the sunset date,
whereas without a sunset clause, the proposed language will end
up being left on the books.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred, pointing out that the state
could potentially be saddled with lawsuits as a result of
participating in the pilot program.
MR. PUTZIER said he would research the issue.
CHAIR McGUIRE observed that HB 434 has also been referred to the
House Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL predicted that the five new positions
created by HB 434 won't simply go away after the pilot project
terminates unless a sunset clause is added to the bill.
MR. MACKINNON pointed out that the state would be receiving
federal funds to pay for those positions, which are capital
improvement project (CIP) positions. With regard to HB 434, he
said:
We look at this as an opportunity to speed up many of
these environmental documents by getting the big
decisions closer to home, and when a document is
sitting on a desk in the [FHWA] ... or some other
federal agency, we have a difficult time when we pick
up the phone and try ... [to] speed it up and get it
off that desk and either approved or disapproved - or
getting some action on it - because they're a
different agency. But when those decisions are
sitting in the [DOT&PF], ... it's much easier to
affect their movement through the [DOT&PF], and we see
the opportunity here of moving them through faster as
a way of actually more than paying for the $650,000
cost of the program; [a] one year delay of a project
can cost millions of dollars to that project just in
inflation alone.
2:00:59 PM
MR. PUTZIER, in response to a question regarding the requirement
that the state waive its immunity from suit in federal court,
said that [under SAFETEA-LU,] it is simply one of the
requirements of the pilot program. He surmised that this is
because under the pilot program, the state would essentially be
fulfilling a role of the FHWA. In response to another question,
he said that if the state didn't prevail in such lawsuit and the
position the state took in the action was found to not be
substantially justified, then the state might get saddled with
paying some attorney fees, for example, to the prevailing party.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how much money the state will
receive as a result of participating in the pilot program.
MR. MACKINNON said no additional funds will be forthcoming,
though reauthorization over the five-year life of the program -
"including the earmarks above the line" - comes to approximately
$2.5 billion, a portion of which will be used to pay for the
NEPA pilot program; for example, when one of the environmental
NEPA experts in the department is working on a project, he/she
will bill out to that particular project.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that the DOT&PF will
have access to those funds.
MR. MACKINNON concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that the waiver referenced in
the bill is above and beyond that provided in existing state
statutes.
2:04:26 PM
MR. PUTZIER concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Section 1 of HB 434
waives any additional sovereign immunity. Specifically, does it
additionally affect AS 09.50.250 in any way?
MR. PUTZIER replied:
I believe it would subject us to the procedural rules
in federal court. For example, we might be subject to
... the Equal Access [to] Justice Act, which might
apply ... different [attorney fees] provisions. ... We
would be standing, basically, in the shoes of the
FHWA.
MR. PUTZIER, in response to a question, offered his
understanding that the Equal Access to Justice Act is codified
in 28 U.S.C. 2412, and reiterated the earlier comment that as a
practical matter in environmental litigation, if the state
doesn't prevail and the position the state took in the action is
found to not be substantially justified, the state might have to
pay some attorney fees to the prevailing party.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the use of the term,
"may" [in Section 1] is specifically mandated by the federal
legislation. In other words, why is discretion in this matter
being given to the attorney general?
MR. PUTZIER surmised that there was a concern about a potential
separation of powers issue if the legislature were to mandate
that the attorney general waive sovereign immunity. He noted,
though, that the federal language says "shall", and that before
the DOT&PF is allowed to adopt the aforementioned NEPA
authorities, the attorney general would have to enter into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the FHWA; also, there
would have to be "separate certification," either project-by-
project or for all projects. The bill itself only lets Alaska
get its "foot in the door" to be able to assume the NEPA
responsibilities; it is not in and of itself an assumption of
any responsibility nor is it a waiver of any of the State's
normal sovereign immunity protections.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that under AS
09.50.250, it is the purview of the legislature - not the
attorney general - to waive sovereign immunity.
MR. PUTZIER, in response to a question, said he can't recall any
statutes written similarly to HB 434.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the language of Section 1
meets the federal law's requirement, particularly given that
this proposed state law only says "may".
MR. PUTZIER indicated that this [issue] was vetted extensively
with the FHWA, and the language was approved on the condition
that there be "sufficient follow-up." Again, HB 434 doesn't
implement anything; it merely allows for the implementation of
the pilot program by giving the DOT&PF the authority to proceed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that once the DOT&PF exercises
that authority, he doesn't want to see the attorney general
refuse to waive the state's immunity from suit in federal court.
"I think if somebody is injured by the actions of the State,
they should have access to federal court," he remarked, adding
that he may offer an amendment to that effect.
MR. PUTZIER indicated that he would like see the wording of such
an amendment.
2:10:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how the five states were chosen, and
whether the other four states have "fully fulfilled their
commitment for entry."
MR. MACKINNON offered his understanding that every one of the
five states is represented by a "ranking member" of the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation &
Infrastructure, and that the other four states also have
enabling legislation in the works.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether changing the language in
HB 434 would preclude Alaska from being part of the pilot
program.
MR. MACKINNON explained that by entering into an MOU with the
FHWA, the State shall be waiving its immunity from suit in
federal court, and that the bill drafter in the attorney
general's office simply chose to use "may" instead of "shall" in
HB 434; the MOU itself will still contain a "shall".
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his recollection that the State is
reluctant to waive sovereign immunity in one type of case
because it might then have to waive sovereign immunity in all
other types of cases. He asked whether the attorney general has
taken a position on this issue in the past and whether it is a
concern.
MR. PUTZIER said he is not sure whether the attorney general has
taken a position on this issue, but acknowledged that it is
probably a valid concern. However, [the language regarding the
waiver] is very narrowly tailored to a NEPA program, and so [the
administration] would only accept being in federal court for the
purpose of just that particular program. "I don't perceive that
there would be any long-term negative consequences of what I
will call a limited waiver of sovereign immunity," he remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he would like something to that effect
in writing from the attorney general's office.
2:15:00 PM
MR. PUTZIER agreed to get that for the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that the language of Section 1
already limits the waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Conceptual Amendment 1,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
p 1 l 7
delete "The attorney general may,"
Page 1 line 9
delete "waive"
Page 1 line 11 insert after States
"is waived."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the sovereign immunity
clause of the Alaska State Constitution should also be
referenced. [Note to the reader: no clause specifically using
the words, "sovereign immunity" exists in the Alaska State
Constitution.] In response to a comment, he said that he would
want that clause to apply solely to "claims under this
paragraph."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether the funding that is meant to
pay for this pilot program could be used for something else if
the state did not enter into the pilot program.
MR. MACKINNON said yes, adding, though, that 9 percent of the
funds are state funds - a state match.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised, then, that the other 91 percent of
the funds could be used for some other highway projects if the
state did not enter into the pilot program.
MR. MACKINNON concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that since there seem to be more
highway projects than can be funded, delaying the groundbreaking
on some of them isn't such a big deal; therefore, he is
questioning why they would spend the money to enter into this
pilot project.
2:19:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 [text provided previously].
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT and REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to amend Conceptual
Amendment 1 such that a reference to "the relevant provision in
the [Alaska] State Constitution" is added after the reference in
the bill to the U.S. Constitution.
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that Representative Gruenberg instead
simply make a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, as
amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected, indicated that he would prefer
to see the language of the provision that Representative
Gruenberg wants referenced, and relayed that he is nervous about
waiving sovereign immunity to begin with.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:21 p.m. to 2:24 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to amend Conceptual
Amendment 1 such that it would read:
p 1 l 7
delete "The attorney general may,"
Page 1 line 9
delete "waive"
Page 1 line 11 insert after "States" the following
language
"and under Article II, Section 21, of the Alaska
Constitution is waived."
CHAIR McGUIRE - noting that there was already a motion before
the committee regarding a different Conceptual Amendment 1, as
amended - suggested that the objections be removed so that the
first motion could be withdrawn.
REPRESENTATIVES COGHILL, KOTT, and ANDERSON removed their
objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew the first motion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then made a motion to adopt
Amendment 2:
p 1 l 7
delete "The attorney general may,"
Page 1 line 9
delete "waive"
Page 1 line 11 insert after "States"
"and under Article II, Section 21, of the Alaska
Constitution is waived."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected, and stated that he does not
want to waive the Alaska State Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that that is not his intent;
specifically, the waiver would only be for those provisions on
page 1, lines 7-10, and nothing else.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.
2:27:27 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted that with the adoption of Amendment 2,
there will also need to be a conforming title amendment.
CHAIR McGUIRE concurred.
CHAIR McGUIRE stated that Representative Kott has made the
motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, a conforming title
amendment. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he is not yet prepared to offer an
amendment adding a sunset provision, but would be researching
the issue further.
2:28:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report HB 434, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 434(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
SB 261 - REGULATION OF HWYS; TRAFFIC OFFENSES
2:29:53 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 261(FIN), "An Act relating to the
designation of traffic safety corridors; relating to the bail or
fine for an offense committed in a traffic safety corridor and
to separately accounting for such fines; and providing for an
effective date."
2:30:01 PM
JOHN MACKINNON, Deputy Commissioner of Highways & Public
Facilities, Office of the Commissioner, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), relayed that SB 261
will give the department the ability to establish highway
traffic safety corridors and assess double traffic fines [for
violations occurring within] those highway traffic safety
corridors, which will be defined as a stretch of road that has
significantly higher than statewide average fatality rates. He
referred to a chart, and noted that it illustrates the Seward
Highway from "Potter Marsh" to Girdwood and the locations of the
fatal accidents that occurred on it from 1997 to 2005. He
mentioned that this past January there was a serious fatality
caused by a young driver with a history of bad driving - he hit
a couple traveling to Anchor Point and killed them. In
response, the DOT&PF got together with the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) in order to find some solutions.
MR. MACKINNON relayed that the department has what he called
"highway safety sanction funds," adding that they are "soft
sanctions of construction dollars that are pulled out of the
construction side that go into education." He said that the
department was able to use that money to fund additional
enforcement by the DPS on that stretch of road, and though there
may not be a correlation, there have been no fatalities on that
stretch of road since then. Because of environmental conditions
coupled with driver behavior, it is a stretch of road that a
driver must pay particular attention to while traveling on it,
and education efforts have increased people's awareness of that
fact.
MR. MACKINNON shared that in 2005, State troopers wrote 722
citations for the entire Seward Highway, from Anchorage to
Seward; this year, for the Girdwood "detachment" alone, from
mid-January through mid-March, the State troopers wrote 730
citations, thus illustrating that increased enforcement works.
He said that the aforementioned traffic safety corridors will
have signage at both ends and intermittently throughout, and
that the proposed double fines will help pay for the increased
enforcement because 50 percent of those double fines will be
returned to the DOT&PF, which in turn will provide those funds
to the DPS or any other law enforcement agency that assists with
enforcement. In other words, once initially funded, this
[program] will continue to pay for itself.
MR. MACKINNON offered his recollection that speeding fines
ranged between $75 and $100, and surmised that doubling those
fines will result in a lot of money. He went on to relay that
the DOT&PF has already identified a number of areas, mostly in
the central region of the state, that would qualify for a
highway traffic safety corridor, such as the Parks Highway from
Wasilla to Big Lake, and Knik-Goose Bay Road.
MR. MACKINNON, in response to a question, acknowledged that the
department has not yet done an analysis of roads in
Representative Coghill's district, adding that his sense is that
the traffic volumes are not high enough, though perhaps some
small pieces of road in that area would qualify as highway
traffic safety corridors. He explained that the department is
not focusing on urban highways, where intersections can trigger
accidents, but is instead focusing on rural roads because that's
where driver behavior is the main cause of accidents. Referring
to one of the charts, he noted that when the DOT&PF provided it
to the Division of Alaska State Troopers, the troopers became
aware of where they needed to focus their enforcement efforts,
and that a "blue box" indicates an accident where it was proven
that drug or alcohol played a part in the accident, and that a
"yellow box" indicates an accident where it was not proven that
drug or alcohol played a part.
MR. MACKINNON, in response to questions, indicated that he is
anticipating that one of the highway traffic safety corridors
will be located along the Seward Highway between Anchorage and
Girdwood, and that the proposed additional fines will pay for
enforcement efforts rather than for educating the public that
the fines will be double in those designated areas.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. MacKinnon to look favorably on an
amendment he is considering that would substantially increase
the fines - by more than just double - in highway traffic safety
corridors for those drivers that pass vehicles when they
shouldn't, such as passing when there is a solid [double] yellow
line. "That is not just a simple traffic violation at that
point," he remarked, "that is something that is killing people,
and we know it."
MR. MACKINNON offered his understanding that the fine schedule
for that behavior is established via regulation by the Division
of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and so the DOT&PF would be willing to
cooperate with the DMV to see if they would be able to raise
that type of fine. In response to a question, he said he is not
sure what the current fine is for crossing a double yellow line
in order to pass another vehicle.
2:38:43 PM
JAMES A. HELGOE, Lieutenant, Legislative Liaison, Division of
Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
relayed that under 13 AAC 02.075(b), the fine for driving left
of center in a no passing zone is $150 plus 2 points. He asked
that members keep in mind that if one is driving left of center
in a no passing zone and another person has to take evasive
action, one could be charged with either reckless driving or
negligent driving, both of which carry a substantially higher
penalty.
MR. MACKINNON, in response to a question, surmised that doubling
the current fine for driving left of center in a no passing zone
would result in a fine of $300, though he, too, commented that
if the driver was doing so in an erratic manner, it would most
likely result in a reckless driving or negligent driving charge.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that singling out the driving-
left-of-center-in-a-no-passing-zone concept by tripling the fine
for that conduct would allow the DOT&PF to make a public
education point. His preference, he remarked is for people to
know that that conduct is unacceptable, especially in highway
traffic safety corridors.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 261.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that Title 11 contains crimes
involving vehicles, asked whether they ought to have Section 3
apply to violations of Title 11 as well as to violations of
Title 28.
2:44:22 PM
PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Transportation
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), said
that the question of whether to double the fines for the
vehicular crimes listed under Title 11 is simply a policy call.
He pointed out, though, that for certain felony crimes, it could
result, for example, in doubling [what is already] a $50,000
fine.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the DOT&PF would like to
assess more points for violations occurring within highway
traffic safety corridors.
MR. MACKINNON said that the department spoke with the DMV and
discovered that doing so would raise a due process issue because
a person can't be assessed so many points for a single offense
that he/she loses his/her driver's license. Currently, when a
person is close to losing his/her license because of points
being assessed, the DMV is required to go through the process of
notifying that person; therefore, the DMV strongly recommended
against doubling the points that could be assessed for
violations that occur within highway traffic safety corridors.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that it would be in order to assess
an additional 2 points and quadruple the fine for driving left
of center in a no passing zone located within a highway traffic
safety corridor. He said he would like to offer both of those
changes as a single amendment. [Although no formal motion was
made, this was treated as Amendment 1.]
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed some discomfort with the
concept of even doubling the fines, and offered his belief that
the lack of adequate signage and adequate "pull offs" is as much
a factor as bad driving habits. He said he might agree to the
concept of doubling the fines if the DOT&PF were to improve
signage and increase the number of "pull offs."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that page 2, lines 4-5, says
in part, "A claim for damages may not be made against the state
or its officers, employees, or agents for an act or omission
relating to the designation of and erection of signs regarding a
traffic safety corridor."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the bill should include
signage requirements; putting up more signs will result in only
a minimal expense and could prevent infractions. He asked what
the current signage requirement is.
MR. MACKINNON relayed that the department is amending the
"Alaska Traffic Manual", which stipulates signage requirements,
such that signage notifying the public of the double fines will
be required at the beginning and end of each highway traffic
safety corridor, at any intersecting road, and on every speed
limit sign within a highway traffic safety corridor.
2:50:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wants to insert a requirement
that there be speed limit sign announcing the double fines every
three miles in addition to any other signage already required.
KURTIS J. SMITH, P.E., Statewide Traffic & Safety Engineer,
Design & Construction Standards, Division of Design &
Engineering Services, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), relayed that the "Alaska Traffic Manual" is
being modified to require a speed limit sign every five miles in
a highway traffic safety corridor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that having a speed limit sign
every three miles in a highway traffic safety corridor would be
more appropriate. He said he would also like to double the
fines for vehicles going too slowly, because he feels that that
is a very dangerous practice.
MR. MACKINNON said that those concepts would be best addressed
via the "Alaska Traffic Manual" - which can be adjusted very
quickly - or via regulation, adding that the goal is to promote
highway safety and target high-risk drivers. He gave his word
that he would see that the "Alaska Traffic Manual" is altered to
require signage every three miles.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he would write a letter
of intent, which would follow the bill, that the committee can
review at its next hearing.
2:54:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, to alter
the bill such that an additional 2 points shall be assessed for
driving left of center in a no passing zone located within a
highway traffic safety corridor. There being no objection,
Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT referred to the aforementioned language on
page 2, lines 4-5, and asked why that language was included.
MR. PUTZIER said that the department is required to erect signs
designating highway traffic safety corridors, and the concern
was that someone could argue that an accident or injury occurred
simply because the department failed to erect such signage; the
DOT&PF is trying to implement additional safety measures and is
trying to alert people, but does not want to have to defend
itself in litigation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether the DOT&PF should also be
required to post signage designating highway work zones.
MR. MACKINNON relayed that that issue had been discussed but a
corresponding clause was not included because the department did
not want to complicate the bill.
2:57:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3, to include highway work zones in the language on
page 2, lines 4-5. There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that Conceptual Amendment 3
will require a title change, as well as a House concurrent
resolution (HCR) to that effect.
2:58:04 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, to [conform
the title with regard to Conceptual Amendment 3] and to adopt an
HCR addressing the title change.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA observed that Amendment 4 should also
conform the title with regard to Amendment 2.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that there were no objections
to Amendment 4, announced that Amendment 4, along with the
accompanying forthcoming title change HCR, was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to language on page 2, line 7 -
which says in part, "The legislature may appropriate 50 percent
of the fines ..." - pointed out that the legislature can't be
told how to appropriate funds, and characterized this language
as unenforceable because it violates the prohibition against
dedicated funds and attempts to bind a future legislature.
CHAIR McGUIRE agreed, but surmised that that language was
probably meant to be merely an expression of intent.
2:59:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report CSSB 261(FIN), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations, the
accompanying fiscal notes, [and the forthcoming House concurrent
resolution authorizing a title change]. There being no
objection, HCS CSSB 261(JUD) [and what later became HCR 44] was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|