04/24/2006 02:13 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB12 | |
| SB273 | |
| SB249 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 24, 2006
2:13 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
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 12(STA)
"An Act relating to financial relationships with persons
conducting business in or having headquarters in countries that
support or ignore slavery and trafficking in persons."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 12(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 273
"An Act relating to a motor vehicle dealer's selling or offering
to sell motor vehicles as new or current models or as new or
current model motor vehicles having manufacturer's warranties."
- MOVED SB 273 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 249(JUD)
"An Act relating to criminal justice information."
- MOVED CSSB 249(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 12
SHORT TITLE: LIMIT RELATIONS WITH CERTAIN NATIONS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DYSON
01/11/05 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/11/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/11/05 (S) STA, JUD
02/08/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/08/05 (S) Heard & Held
02/08/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/14/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/14/05 (S) Moved CSSB 12(STA) Out of Committee
04/14/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/15/05 (S) STA RPT CS FORTHCOMING 4DP
04/15/05 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, HUGGINS, DAVIS, ELTON
04/18/05 (S) STA CS RECEIVED NEW TITLE
04/26/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/26/05 (S) Moved CSSB 12(STA) Out of Committee
04/26/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/26/05 (S) JUD RPT CS(STA) 4DP 1NR
04/26/05 (S) DP: SEEKINS, FRENCH, THERRIAULT,
HUGGINS
04/26/05 (S) NR: GUESS
05/02/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/02/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 12(STA)
05/03/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/03/05 (H) STA, JUD
02/16/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/16/06 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/21/06 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/11/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/11/06 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 12(STA) Out of Committee
04/11/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/06 (H) STA RPT HCS(STA) NT 6DP
04/12/06 (H) DP: LYNN, GATTO, GRUENBERG, ELKINS,
RAMRAS, SEATON
04/21/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/21/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/24/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 273
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE SALES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) COWDERY
02/08/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/06 (S) TRA, L&C
02/23/06 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
02/23/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/02/06 (S) TRA AT 2:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
03/02/06 (S) Moved SB 273 Out of Committee
03/02/06 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
03/03/06 (S) TRA RPT 4DP
03/03/06 (S) DP: HUGGINS, THERRIAULT, COWDERY,
KOOKESH
03/16/06 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/16/06 (S) Moved SB 273 Out of Committee
03/16/06 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/17/06 (S) L&C RPT 5DP
03/17/06 (S) DP: BUNDE, DAVIS, ELLIS, SEEKINS,
STEVENS B
03/20/06 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/20/06 (S) VERSION: SB 273
03/22/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/22/06 (H) L&C, JUD
03/27/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/27/06 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/06 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/29/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/29/06 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/06 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/31/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/31/06 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/31/06 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/03/06 (H) L&C RPT 3DP 2NR 1AM
04/03/06 (H) DP: LYNN, KOTT, ANDERSON;
04/03/06 (H) NR: CRAWFORD, ROKEBERG;
04/03/06 (H) AM: GUTTENBERG
04/19/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/19/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 04/21/06>
04/21/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/21/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/24/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 249
SHORT TITLE: REPORTING BAIL AND RELEASE INFORMATION
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) FRENCH
01/23/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/06 (S) JUD
02/15/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/15/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/01/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/06 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/02/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/02/06 (S) Moved CSSB 249(JUD) Out of Committee
03/02/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/03/06 (S) JUD RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
03/03/06 (S) DP: SEEKINS, FRENCH, GUESS, THERRIAULT,
HUGGINS
03/20/06 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/20/06 (S) VERSION: CSSB 249(JUD)
03/22/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/22/06 (H) STA, JUD
03/30/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/30/06 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/30/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/06 (H) STA RPT 5DP
03/30/06 (H) DP: GARDNER, LYNN, GATTO, ELKINS,
SEATON
04/21/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/21/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/24/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JASON HOOLEY, Staff
to Senator Fred Dyson
Senate Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 12 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Dyson.
RYAN MAKINSTER, Staff
to Senator John Cowdery
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 273 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Cowdery.
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
SB 273.
JON COOK, Legislative Director
Alaska Auto Dealers Association (AADA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 273, and
responded to questions.
CINDY SMITH, Staff
to Senator Hollis French
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 249 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator French.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:13:18 PM. Representatives
McGuire, Wilson, Kott, Gara, Gruenberg, and Coghill were present
at the call to order. Representative Anderson arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
SB 12 - LIMIT RELATIONS WITH CERTAIN NATIONS
2:13:31 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 12(STA), "An Act relating to financial
relationships with persons conducting business in or having
headquarters in countries that support or ignore slavery and
trafficking in persons." [Before the committee was HCS CSSB
12(STA).]
2:13:42 PM
JASON HOOLEY, Staff to Senator Fred Dyson, Senate Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee, Alaska State
Legislature, explained on behalf of the sponsor, Senator Dyson,
that SB 12 addresses the international disgrace of human
trafficking, which, sadly, has occurred in both the U.S. and
Alaska. Senate Bill 12 references a federal report produced
annually entitled, "Trafficking in Persons Report", which is
published under the authority of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act and which ranks countries according their stance
on sex trafficking and human trafficking. Specifically, SB 12
imposes procurement restrictions on the State's three branches
of government, thereby precluding the state from entering into
or maintaining financial relationships with those companies that
are headquartered in the countries identified by the
aforementioned report as "Tier 3" countries.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he sees no flaws in the bill.
MR. HOOLEY, in response to questions, relayed that the
aforementioned report is published annually through the U.S.
Department of State, and that according to Anchorage Police
Department reports, sex trafficking rings are currently
operating in Alaska - the women [and children], often from Asian
countries, are promised lucrative careers but are then held in
captivity and forced to do sex acts.
MR. HOOLEY, in response to another question, offered his
understanding that SB 12 will have very little impact on the
State's procurement process for any of the three branches of
government.
2:16:44 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 12.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether the proposed procurement
prohibition is optional or mandatory.
MR. HOOLEY explained that under the bill, the three branches of
state government would be prohibited from procuring goods or
services with any company/organization headquartered in a Tier 3
country. He added, "If the organization is not necessarily
headquartered in a Tier 3 country but does business there, we
may set up provisions for restricting that."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he wants to make sure that the
procurement restrictions would apply to any company making money
in a Tier 3 country.
MR. HOOLEY said that under the bill's current language, the
State would not be required to cut off business with a country
that merely does business in a Tier 3 country.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that he will be attempting to amend
the bill on the House floor such that the procurement
restrictions would also apply with regard to companies doing
business in Tier 3 countries.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that in the House State Affairs
Standing Committee, he'd offered an amendment to add, after the
words, "that has headquarters", the phrase, ", is incorporated
in, is established in, or is owned in whole or in major part by
a person residing in"; however, that amendment was not adopted,
perhaps because it was felt that "maybe the ownership thing was
more cumbersome."
MR. HOOLEY offered his recollection that there are a number of
businesses and organizations that the State of Alaska does
business with that do conduct business in, but don't have
headquarters in, Tier 3 countries. For example, a lot of oil
companies do business in Venezuela - a Tier 3 country.
2:20:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would support "such an
amendment," adding his understanding that members of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee felt that his suggested change
was too broad.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that he might consider adding
language along the lines of, "or has a physical presence in".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that some companies have
headquarters in several countries.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to comments, indicated that he
would consider limiting his forthcoming proposed House floor
amendment to "those who have headquarters there or a physical
location there as opposed to somebody who just does pass-through
business."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, too, raised the point that many
companies have headquarters in several countries.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to comments, indicated that for
him, the question is whether the state is really going to take a
stand against companies that make money off of human trafficking
and slavery, even if that means establishing procurement
prohibitions against brand-name companies that are making
substantial money in those countries.
MR. HOOLEY, in response to a question, offered his understanding
that the House State Affairs Standing Committee has introduced a
title change resolution pertaining to SB 12.
2:24:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report HCS CSSB 12(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 12(STA) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
SB 273 - MOTOR VEHICLE SALES
[Contains brief discussion of HB 383.]
2:25:06 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 273, "An Act relating to a motor vehicle
dealer's selling or offering to sell motor vehicles as new or
current models or as new or current model motor vehicles having
manufacturer's warranties."
2:25:13 PM
RYAN MAKINSTER, Staff to Senator John Cowdery, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, explained on behalf of Senator Cowdery
that SB 273 removes the words, "or current model" from AS
08.66.015(a); [adds a new paragraph (2) that stipulates that a
dealer must also have a current sales and service agreement with
the manufacturer in order to sell a vehicle as new;] and repeals
AS 08.66.015(b). He indicated that the change proposed via
SB 273 merely reflects current practice, since the Department of
Law is not actually enforcing the current statute that prohibits
a dealer from selling a used current model vehicle.
Characterizing SB 273 as a consumer protection bill that all
parties are comfortable with, he suggested that it will allow
anyone to sell a used current model vehicle without first having
to wait until the next year's model comes out.
2:28:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that he is considering offering the
following proposed amendment, labeled 24-LS1607\G.2, Bannister,
4/24/06:
Page 1, line 3, following "warranties":
Insert "; relating to the disclosures required
for certain motor vehicle transactions; and relating
to the financing of motor vehicle purchases"
Page 1, following line 11:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 45.25.610(c) is amended to read:
(c) If a motor vehicle dealer arranges financing
for a buyer, the motor vehicle dealer may deliver the
motor vehicle to the buyer before final approval by
the financing entity if
(1) the buyer and seller sign an agreement
separate from the motor vehicle installment contract
on an 8 1/2 x 11 inch sheet of paper that clearly and
conspicuously informs the buyer that final financing
arrangements have not yet been approved and that
clearly sets out the amount that will be financed, the
annual percentage rate of the finance charge, the
amount of the finance charge, the number and frequency
of payments, and the amount of each payment;
(2) the separate agreement in (1) of this
subsection clearly and conspicuously informs the buyer
that accepting delivery of the vehicle before final
financing approval obligates the buyer to terms of the
motor vehicle sales contract if the terms on the
separate agreement are identical to the terms finally
approved by the financing entity; [AND]
(3) the motor vehicle dealer complies with
the disclosure requirements of (f) of this section;
and
(4) the separate agreement in (1) of this
subsection provides that the separate agreement, the
motor vehicle sales contract, and any and all other
conditions of the purchase will be void if any of the
terms contained in the separate agreement are changed
by either the motor vehicle dealer or the financing
institution as a condition of sale or final financing
approval.
* Sec. 3. AS 45.25.610 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(f) In addition to the other requirements of
this section, if a motor vehicle dealer arranges
financing for a proposed buyer or offers financing to
a proposed buyer, the dealer shall disclose in writing
and before the sale is finalized
(1) whether the interest rate quoted to the
proposed buyer is different than the interest rate
charged to the dealer; and
(2) that the interest rate quoted to the
buyer may not be the lowest interest rate available."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that this proposed amendment is
intended to address a practice among some car dealers and banks
wherein the bank charges the dealer a lower interest rate than
the dealer in turn charges the consumer for arranging financing
and the difference between the two rates is split between the
bank and dealer and is called a "dealer reserve." The proposed
amendment would require the consumer to be notified if the
dealer will be keeping a portion of the interest being charged,
thus providing the consumer with the opportunity to perhaps
consider alternative financing.
MR. MAKINSTER relayed that the sponsor would not be in favor of
such a change.
2:32:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he is concerned with the
provision that would delete AS 08.66.015(b) - even though some
of its language is being retained in proposed AS 08.66.015(a)(2)
- because presumably it offers protection to the consumer; AS
08.66.015(b) currently reads:
(b) A person who does business as a dealer in the
state may not offer to sell or sell a motor vehicle as
a new or current model motor vehicle having a
manufacturer's warranty unless
(1) the dealer has a current sales and service
agreement with the manufacturer and the agreement
requires the dealer, upon demand of the motor vehicle
buyer, to perform or arrange for, within a reasonable
distance of the dealer's place of business in the
state, the repair and replacement work required of the
manufacturer under the warranty; or
(2) the dealer offers to give the buyer a rebate
to cover the repair and replacement work that the
dealer cannot perform or arrange for within a
reasonable distance of the dealer's place of business.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that if the bill passes as
currently written so that that language is deleted from statute,
any sales and service agreement might no longer require that any
repair and replacement work be performed within a reasonable
distance from the dealer's place of business, nor would there
any longer be a requirement that the dealer give a rebate to the
buyer to cover the cost of the repair and replacement work if
such work cannot work be performed within a reasonable distance
from the dealer's place of business. He suggested that the lack
of these requirements could prove costly to the consumer, and
hence, as a practical matter, they should be considered to be
important consumer protection provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to comments, pointed out
that aside from AS 08.66.015(b), no other statute stipulates
that a sales and service agreement between a manufacturer and
dealer must contain the aforementioned requirements; therefore,
even if all such current agreements do contain those
requirements, future agreements could be different. He
mentioned that he has seen many instances in which consumer
protections are watered down, adding that in his view,
therefore, simply deleting AS 08.66.015(b) would not provide for
adequate consumer protection.
2:40:52 PM
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law (DOL), in response to questions and comments,
attempted to clarify that once a new vehicle is sold, it loses
the [manufacturer's certificate of origin], thus making it
impossible, under the current statutory language, for a dealer
to sell a used current model vehicle. Deletion of the words,
"or current model" from AS 08.66.015(a) should rectify this
situation. In response to further questions, he indicated that
simply removing the words, "or current model" from AS
08.66.015(b) as well would then prohibit a dealer from selling a
new vehicle unless he/she were able to perform service work.
MR. SNIFFEN went on to say:
Every modern sales and service agreement between a
dealer and a manufacturer requires that the [dealer]
perform that work already, so it didn't seem to make
sense to remove the phrase, ["or current model"] and
then leave the rest of [subsection (b)] in, because it
just didn't have any application.
MR. SNIFFEN explained that simply altering subsection (b) in an
attempt to provide the aforementioned consumer protections would
essentially require used car dealers to offer repair services to
consumers who buy current model used vehicles - a very narrow
and specific type of used car. It made more sense, therefore,
to simply make changes as proposed by SB 273.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that simply removing
the phrase, "or current model" from both AS 08.66.015(a) and AS
08.66.015(b) would solve the problem as stated by Mr. Makinster.
He then posed a question regarding the agreements and contracts.
MR. SNIFFEN said that the contracts he's viewed don't have any
provisions for rebate because they instead have the provisions
regarding the sales and service agreements between the
manufacturer and the dealer, agreements that require the dealer
to have a facility to make repairs.
2:47:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that AS 08.66.015 as currently
written gives Alaska consumers more protection than they would
have under the bill, because under current law, the rebate
provision would give consumers in remote areas of the state the
option of possibly receiving a rebate for the purpose of having
repairs done locally. He is therefore reluctant to see AS
08.66.015(b) deleted because although the dealer will benefit,
the consumer will pay more.
MR. SNIFFEN pointed out, though, that under current law, any
repair or replacement work must be done within a reasonable
distance of the dealer's place of business - not the buyer's
residence; deleting subsection (b) will not result in a
reduction in consumer protection because even currently
consumers who live in remote areas are not entitled to a rebate.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested having something in the law
that prohibits franchise agreements from being changed.
MR. SNIFFEN acknowledged that there is always the risk - though
minimal - that a manufacture and a dealer might change the terms
of their franchise agreement so that the dealer would not be
required to perform specific warranty repairs, but he has never
seen that happen and he does not know that as a consumer he
would be willing to do business with such a dealer.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it seems that although, in the
legal sense, the consumer is a third party beneficiary of such a
contract - the franchise agreement - there is nothing
prohibiting the dealer and manufacturer from changing it, even
for an existing vehicle, and thus the consumer would have no
cause of action.
MR. SNIFFEN explained that the consumer would always have the
ability to bring a private cause of action for breach of
contract or perhaps product liability claim and tort, but under
AS 08.66.015, if the dealer sold the vehicle as a new vehicle,
the dealer would be required to have that franchise agreement in
place that included a sales and service agreement which in turn
would require the dealer to repair the vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that he is uncomfortable
with repealing AS 08.66.015(b), and indicated that he would
instead prefer to simply remove the phrase, "or current model
motor vehicle" from both AS 08.66.015(a) and AS 08.66.015(b) as
a way of curing the problem.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that the words, "motor
vehicle" should be left in.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred.
MR. MAKINSTER relayed that when [a similar change] was proposed
in the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, the sponsor
was not comfortable with it.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON concurred, and recommended keeping the
bill as is.
2:55:36 PM
JON COOK, Legislative Director, Alaska Auto Dealers Association
(AADA), relayed that the AADA supports the passage of SB 273 as
it is currently written, and opined that the bill will benefit
both new and used car dealers as well as consumers. The AADA
has been working on this issue for two years, and has submitted
a letter of support to the committee. Under current law, as a
dealer, he is prohibited from selling current model used
vehicles until August of the following year; fortunately, the
DOL has chosen not to enforce that law, but dealers don't like
being in technical violation of the law regardless and so have
sought to have AS 08.66.015 changed.
MR. COOK mentioned that SB 273 will still require those who sell
new vehicles to have a current sales and service agreement with
the manufacturer, and that he has four such agreements, all of
which require him to provide service to the customer. He
summarized by saying that used car dealers, new car dealers, and
the DOL are all fairly happy with the current language of the
bill, and he therefore urges the committee to support the
passage of SB 273.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Cook to comment on his proposed
amendment regarding the issue of "dealer reserve".
MR. COOK indicated that he'd testified on that issue on behalf
of the AADA during discussion of HB 383 in the House State
Affairs Standing Committee, outlined some of the problems he
sees with HB 383, and expressed a preference for keeping SB 273
simple and focused on the one issue it is designed to address.
[Following was further brief discussion on HB 383.]
MR. COOK, in response to a question regarding the proposed
deletion of subsection (b), suggested that subsection (b) could
prove problematic if its language became the subject of
litigation, and pointed out that current dealer agreements
already stipulate the same requirements as listed in AS
08.66.015(b)(1). Furthermore, even if a manufacturer were to
change the sales and service agreement it has with the dealer,
the manufacturer would still have to honor the warranties of
vehicles purchased while the previous sales and service
agreement was in effect.
3:08:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pondered whether they should simply put
the language of the franchise agreement in statute.
MR. COOK noted that all of the sales and service agreements he
currently has with manufacturers have slightly different
wording.
MR. SNIFFEN, in response to a question, verified that the DOL is
responsible for enforcing AS 08.66.015(b).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that AS 08.66.015(b) provides
important practical protection for the consumer.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 273.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that he would not be offering his
proposed amendment at this time.
3:10:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, to rewrite the bill such that it only deleted the
phrase, "or current model" from both AS 08.66.015(a) and AS
08.66.015(b). This change, he suggested, would address the
sponsor's concern while retaining existing consumer protections.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that it would be alright to get rid
of subsection (b) because all the cars that would be sold under
AS 08.66.015 would come with the manufacturer's warranty.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that it's up to the dealer
whether to follow AS 08.66.015(b)(1) or AS 08.66.015(b)(2).
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he is not convinced of the need for
Conceptual Amendment 1.
3:15:12 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg voted in
favor of Conceptual Amendment 1. Representatives Gara, McGuire,
Coghill, Wilson, Anderson, and Kott voted against it.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-6.
3:15:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report SB 273 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, SB 273 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
SB 249 - REPORTING BAIL AND RELEASE INFORMATION
3:16:00 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 249(JUD), "An Act relating to criminal
justice information."
3:16:22 PM
CINDY SMITH, Staff to Senator Hollis French, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, explained on behalf of Senator French that
in June of 2005, a domestic violence call in his district to the
police resulted in a hostage situation wherein a shot was fired
at the police and a SWAT unit was brought into the neighborhood
before order was eventually restored. Some days later, a
neighbor noticed the defendant back in the neighborhood near the
house [where the hostage situation occurred]; the neighbor knew
that the man had been ordered to stay away as a condition of
bail, but when she called the police the response was that they
didn't have access to the conditions of bail and so had no legal
way of telling the man he couldn't be there.
MS. SMITH said that in subsequent meetings with court and public
safety officials, it became clear that an interagency group has
started the process of providing important public safety data in
a way that law enforcement agencies can access. [To further
those efforts], Senator French has introduced SB 249 to ensure
that conditions of bail are specifically provided for as part of
the criminal justice information system since those orders often
restrict otherwise legal behavior such as driving a car or being
in a particular physical location. The Senate Judiciary
Standing Committee added a provision to also include, for
similar reasons, conditions of probation and parole. The bill
does not seek to establish a particular timeline; rather, it
seeks to ensure that over time, these specific issues are
addressed. She relayed that the agencies affected have no
objections to the bill.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 249.
3:18:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report CSSB 249(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 249(JUD) 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 3:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|