Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 17
02/21/2007 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB121 | |
| HB118 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 21, 2007
3:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 121
"An Act relating to release of information in individual
workers' compensation records; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 121(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 118
"An Act relating to underage possession of alcoholic beverages
in a dwelling."
- MOVED HB 118 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 121
SHORT TITLE: WORKERS' COMPENSATION RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON
02/07/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/07/07 (H) L&C
02/21/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 118
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBIT ALLOWING MINORS TO HAVE ALCOHOL
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MEYER
02/05/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/07 (H) L&C, JUD
02/16/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/16/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/21/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 121.
PAUL LISANKIE, Director
Division of Workers' Compensation, Department of Labor &
Workforce Development (DLWD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during hearing on HB
121.
LINDA HALL, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during hearing on HB
121.
JOHN GARNER, President
NorQuest Seafoods, Inc.
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during hearing on HB 121.
KRIS NOROSZ, Government Relations
Icicle Seafoods, Inc.
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 121.
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff
to Representative Kevin Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 118 on behalf of
Representative Meyer, sponsor.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during hearing on HB
118.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:07:36 PM. Representatives
Gardner, Gatto, Buch, and Olson were present at the call to
order. Representatives Ramras, Neuman, and LeDoux arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 121-WORKERS' COMPENSATION RECORDS
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 121, "An Act relating to release of information
in individual workers' compensation records; and providing for
an effective date."
3:08:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO made a motion to adopt CSHB 121, Version
25-LS0501\C, Bailey, 2/15/07, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version C was before the committee.
3:08:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, Sponsor,
explained that the Workers' Compensation Division has a database
containing personal information that is currently available as
public information. This includes the employees name, address,
social security number, telephone number, and electronic mail
address. She relayed a story of an individual who was contacted
by a law firm attempting to solicit business after a workers'
compensation claim was filed. She explained that Version C adds
"electronic mail address" to the information that may not be
given out. In addition, it includes those records held by the
Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission. The Workers'
Compensation Division, Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission,
and Workers' Compensation Board would be prohibited from giving
out the aforementioned information, unless the employee signs an
affidavit allowing this.
3:11:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, in regard to the employee's ability to
authorize disclosure of the aforementioned information, inquired
as to how the disclosure form would be presented to the
employee.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that this information may be
provided on a separate sheet of paper, to ensure the employee's
understanding. In response to an additional comment, she stated
that the disclosure authorization should be "very obvious" to
the employee. Ways to ensure this may include the size of print
or creating an additional form with this information in order to
keep it separate from other information.
3:13:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that this is "opposed to
transparency [in government]." He asked Representative Wilson
to address this.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated that the intent is to protect
the employee. She surmised that this would also protect the
state, as the aforementioned law firms are likely to contact the
employee and offer to help them receive more money. Any
information regarding workers' compensation cases would remain
public information.
3:15:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether injured employees are
entitled to information regarding options other than workers'
compensation, which provides a "relatively small amount in the
way of settlement."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON opined that employees are entitled to this
information.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether the information given
to injured employees includes information regarding the
aforementioned options. She stated that she "would be very
surprised" if this information was offered.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that she does not have specific
information regarding the information that is provided. She
opined that currently, society is "sue happy," and people are
aware of their options.
3:16:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether there is opposition to HB
121.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered her understanding that there is
not any opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the law firm referenced was
notified of these concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that the Department of Labor &
Workforce Development (DLWD) may have this information.
3:18:27 PM
PAUL LISANKIE, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), opined that
the aforementioned law firm would be unhappy with the proposed
legislation, as it went to great lengths to acquire the
information in question. He explained that the DLWD feels that
once acquired, this information was used in a manner that is
considered to be outside of the scope of the department, which
is prohibited.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that there is a general dislike for
"ambulance chasers," until there is a need for one.
3:20:34 PM
MR. LISANKIE explained that the Workers' Compensation Division
rules on benefit disputes. The benefits are paid by an
insurance company or an employer that is authorized to self-
insure. Certain statutory benefit requirements are set.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that it costs the government time
and money when monitoring is required. He questioned whether
the public should be able to have access to information
regarding individuals receiving an income without working, due
to an injury, if transparency is expected.
MR. LISANKIE agreed that time and money is required. He said:
Certainly there's a policy that you're being asked to
weigh. On the one hand, we try and balance the
legitimate needs of the parties to these disputes, to
get all the information that they need to make sure
that their rights and liabilities are properly ...
lived up to.
On the other hand, I have heard from others - outside
the specific focus of your question. We get requests
from many companies outside. And they just ask:
Please run this person's name and identifying
information, and tell us if they've got workers'
compensation claims. Now, I suppose there might be
some innocent use for that information, or I suppose
it might be a black list, that makes it more difficult
to get a job once you declare that you've been
injured. We really have no way of knowing.
MR. LISANKIE opined that this was the genesis behind the current
statute. He explained that this question was not raised again
until the "non-commercial use" section was interpreted in a
different manner.
3:23:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether claimant information is
shared between insurance companies.
MR. LISANKIE stated his belief that this information is shared.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to why this is allowed, if
there is concern regarding employee privacy.
MR. LISANKIE said:
I would get back to my original statement that ... the
insurance company is not making a decision about
whether to employ that person. I mean, that is one of
the concerns I have. You would have to speak to the
sponsor about exactly what the concerns of the sponsor
are. [However], I am as worried about people not
being able to get jobs, as I am - perhaps not as
worried, because my first responsibility in the state
organization is to make sure that we administer the
workers' compensation program properly. But, I do
know that in the three years that I've been with the
Division at this level, I've been surprised how many
inquiries there are - day after day - asking for
nothing more than the names of people who have
reported injuries.
3:25:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX relayed her experience as a maritime
lawyer. Oftentimes, she said, insurance companies are not
forthcoming regarding the number of similar injuries that occur.
Currently, this information can be obtained by contacting the
Alaska Workers' Compensation Board. She expressed concern
regarding how this information would be obtained if it is no
longer public information.
MR. LISANKIE offered his understanding that if court litigation
is involved, this information would still be available, under
court order. However, he does not know for sure.
3:28:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX repeated her question regarding
litigation.
LINDA HALL, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), replied
that she does not have the answer, and opined that this is a
legal question. In regard to whether insurance companies share
information, she stated that she is not aware of a "sharing
database." She offered to look into this.
CHAIR OLSON offered his understanding that there is a database;
however, it only tracks jury cases that have resulted in a
verdict.
3:30:25 PM
MR. LISANKIE, in response to a comment from Representative
Gatto, clarified that in his experience, he has seen reports
that appear to be a result of a "[data-sharing] arrangement."
However, he reiterated that he has not been formally informed of
this.
3:32:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that whether formal or informal,
the data sharing arrangement allows insurance companies to
determine whether an individual is being forthcoming regarding
the amount of claims filed. Pointing out that the claimant or
the defendant may have "faulty memories," she opined that the
ability to obtain this information may "keep people's memories
[fresh]."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired as to whether this will prevent
some or all access to this information.
MR. LISANKIE offered his understanding that the exceptions that
apply to medical and rehabilitation records would apply. He
explained that currently, there is an exception which allows the
information to be provided to a party to a claim that is filed
by the employee. In response to a question from Representative
Gatto, he reiterated that an employer that was party to a claim
filed by the employee would have access to this information.
3:36:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his understanding that during the
application process, individuals are asked to share medical
history. If false information is given, the company is no
longer liable.
MR. LISANKIE, in response to a question from Representative
Neuman, explained that currently, there is no specific
prohibition on giving out information that is on file with the
Workers' Compensation Division. In response to a request for
clarification, he offered his understanding that the Workers'
Compensation Division is currently required to give out any
information that is on file.
3:38:44 PM
CHAIR OLSON inquired as to whether the Division of Insurance is
in support of the bill.
MS. HALL replied that the Division of Insurance is not effected
by this legislation; therefore it does not have a position.
CHAIR OLSON inquired as to whether the Workers' Compensation
Division is in support of the bill.
MR. LISANKIE expressed concern regarding the ability to maintain
the balance between the individual's privacy and ensuring that
the information is made available when needed, so that rights
and responsibilities are being met. In addition, he stated that
the wording is important.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, referring to Page 1, line 7, questioned
the use of "or any record."
MR. LISANKIE offered his understanding that this wording was
intentional, as it covers the types of information and data in
question. He explained that all forms required by the Division
of Workers' Compensation include the employee's social security
number. He opined that including the phrase "or any record"
prevents the need to include a "laundry list" of forms.
3:41:18 PM
JOHN GARNER, President, NorQuest Seafoods, Inc., stated that he
is in support of HB 121. In regard to insurance companies
sharing information, he stated that this does not "filter down"
to the businesses. Insurance companies do not rate based on the
employees hired. He explained that rating is done based on the
injury rate. Therefore, trading this information does not
effect the hiring practice.
3:42:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to whether NorQuest Seafoods,
Inc. has ever been sued from an outside law firm, on behalf of
an employee.
MR. GARNER replied yes.
3:43:17 PM
KRIS NOROSZ, Government Relations, Icicle Seafoods, Inc.
(Icicle), stated that she is in support of HB 121. She
explained that this concern was raised as a result of an
employee whose private information was given out. The
aforementioned employee was "very alarmed" to discover that this
information was given out, and mistakenly believed Icicle was
responsible for this. She stated that HB 121 is intended to
protect the employee.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to what mechanisms are in
place to protect businesses from individuals filing false
claims.
MS. NOROSZ replied that she does not have this information, and
reiterated that the intent is to protect the employee.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether the injured employees
are informed that they may be able to use the civil law system,
rather than accepting workers' compensation.
MS. NOROSZ replied that Icicle attempts to provide a safe work
environment, and assists its employees through the claims
process. It does not hinder the employee's ability to seek
outside council.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification regarding whether
the employees are informed that they may have the recourse to a
civil law claim.
MS. NOROSZ replied that she is unable to say this with
certainty.
3:48:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned what the employees are being
protected from.
MS. NOROSZ replied that the intent is to protect the employee's
personal information from being released without the employees
consent. In response to further questioning, she explained that
this would also prevent written solicitations, which have been a
concern in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned the amount of intrusion caused
by receiving a letter. She pointed out that during a
governmental campaign, thousands of letters are sent out. She
stated that while an individual's social security number should
not be given out, she does not see a problem with releasing the
person's name and address. She opined that this would not be a
major intrusion to "any reasonable person."
MS. NOROSZ pointed out that members' packets contain letters
from individuals who see this as an intrusion of privacy. She
opined that the concern is in regard to the manner by which the
information was obtained. She said "I'd hate to think that they
wouldn't file [a workers' compensation claim] because of fear of
their information being released." She reiterated that this
would prohibit the information from being given out without the
employees consent; however, permission to divulge this
information may be given if the employee so wishes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned the likelihood of an individual
failing to file a workers' compensation claim for fear of his or
her personal information being given out.
MS. NOROSZ referred to a letter in members' packets which
supports this concern.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired as to the position Icicle holds in
regard to the passage of this legislation.
MS. NOROSZ reiterated that this issue was brought to the
company's attention by an employee who believed Icicle had
released personal information. It was later learned that this
information was released by the DLWD.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her understanding that there have
been lawsuits against Icicle, which were believed to have been
settled under workers' compensation.
MS. NOROSZ replied that this is a part of the concern. She
pointed out that 80 percent of the company is owned by the
employees; therefore, employees are concerned with how certain
issues affect the company.
3:53:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented that while there has been much
discussion regarding "transparency" in government, the citizens
have expressed the wish the have personal information protected.
He is in support of protecting personal privacy. He shared his
belief that employees will be less likely to file workers'
compensation claims if personal information can then be
released. He stated that he is in support of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX shared her concerns regarding whether or
not records would still be available during the course of
litigation. Additionally, she offered her understanding that
this would simply prohibit the employees name, address, phone,
and other identifying information from being released. While
there is "no excuse" for releasing the employees social security
number, she questioned whether the benefit of "protecting an
employee from a letter is worth it."
3:57:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that there has been much concern
regarding identity theft and personal privacy. She stated that
if an individual was in an accident and filed a workers'
compensation claim, he or she would then have the option to have
personal information released to companies that inquire. She
stressed that this is a matter of personal privacy.
CHAIR OLSON offered his belief that everyone has an expectation
of privacy.
3:59:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated that there are many social programs
which enable individuals to access government funds. He asked
"Should that person, who is taking government money, be entitled
to privacy?"
3:59:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that she is not sure.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that it is important to maintain
transparency. While it is important to protect confidential
records, he is concerned that if all information is private,
individuals will be more likely to abuse the system.
4:01:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised that the Division of Public
Assistance would not give out a list of individuals who receive
food stamps. She stated that when information is requested, the
individual's personal information is marked over with black, to
ensure his or her privacy.
4:01:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated that he is a "great proponent" of
the workers' compensation system. He opined that it protects
both the employee and the employer. He said "I am pleased to
see a bill like this, with a bright line drawn around it, that
draws a net of privacy around that relationship, and recognizes
the sanctity of it." He stated his intent to support the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that it is possible to find
out who receives senior property tax relief and a permanent fund
dividend. One reason for this is to inform the public of any
abuse of the system. She shared her belief that social security
numbers should always be protected.
4:04:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report CSHB 121, Version 25-
LS0501\C, Bailey, 2/15/07, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected.
4:04:29 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Ramras, Buch,
Neuman, and Olson voted in favor of reporting CSHB 121, Version
C from Committee. Representatives LeDoux, Gardner, and Gatto
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 121(L&C) was reported out of
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 4-
3.
HB 118-PROHIBIT ALLOWING MINORS TO HAVE ALCOHOL
4:05:19 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 118, "An Act relating to underage possession of
alcoholic beverages in a dwelling."
4:05:46 PM
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska
State Legislature, sponsor, explained that HB 118 is the result
of concerns that have been raised regarding underage drinking in
Alaska. Studies have shown that the majority of underage
drinking in Alaska occurs at home or at a friend's house. He
explained that currently, it is illegal to rent a hotel room for
the purposes of providing alcohol to minors; however, it is not
illegal to have minors in your house consuming alcohol. While
researching this issue, the sponsor looked at how other states
deal with this. He stated that this would give the police an
additional enforcement tool. He explained that the police must
prove that underage individuals were consuming alcohol on the
premises, which the persons in charge of the premises allowed to
happen. The latter would receive a $500 fine.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS inquired as to whether this would require
parents to clear all alcohol out of the house prior to going on
vacation.
MR. PAWLOWSKI replied that there is a blanket exception in
statute which allows a parent, guardian, or spouse to provide
alcohol to a person who is under 21 years of age, as long as the
person providing the alcohol is of legal age. Additionally, he
explained that if the parents were away, responsibility would
fall on the person who is in control of the house at the time of
consumption. In response to additional questions, he clarified
that the $500 fine is a non-criminal penalty and would accrue to
the responsible party regardless of age. He offered his
understanding that if there is no other source of income, the
offenders permanent fund dividend may be revoked as payment.
4:11:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to what would happen if a
youth has been drinking, denies it when confronted by his or her
parents, and is later involved in a traffic accident. He
expressed concern regarding liabilities that may result
MR. PAWLOWSKI replied that there are separate liability
protections for social hosts. He offered his understanding that
if this were to occur, the parent would not be liable. He read
the definition of "recklessly" as follows:
A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or
to a circumstance described by a provision of law
defining an offence, when the person is aware of and
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable
risk, that the result will occur, or that the
circumstance exists. The risk must be of such a
nature and degree, that disregard of it constitutes a
gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a
reasonable person would observe in this situation.
MR. PAWLOWSKI offered his belief that the parents in the
previous example would have satisfied these requirements, and
therefore would not have acted "recklessly."
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked for clarification that the intent is
not for the parent to be found liable.
MR. PAWLOWSKI explained that the parent would only be found
liable if he or she was in control of the house while the
consumption was occurring. If a parent provides a venue for
children to consume alcohol, then this is reckless disregard,
and the parent would be liable. In response to additional
questions, he explained that the current law requires proof that
alcohol was furnished to a minor, which is more difficult to
prove. If a hotel room is rented for purposes of underage
drinking, this would violate current law. He reiterated that
the proposed penalty is a $500 fine, and is a non-criminal
violation.
4:18:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed concern with whether "control"
could be misinterpreted.
MR. PAWLOWSKI replied that this has been discussed at length
with Legislative Legal and Research Services. He explained that
"exercising dominion or control" refers to the moment the
offense is occurring. It is not the sponsor's intent to make
the owner or authoritative figure liable, but rather the person
in control of the dwelling at the moment the offence was taking
place.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER gave an example in which a child is left
home, has a party, and is punished by the parent. She
questioned whether the parent would be considered to have acted
"recklessly" if the child was left home alone the following
weekend, due to the knowledge of a previous offense. She said:
This is my concern: If that kind of thing happened,
and a kid left my house, and was killed - or killed
somebody in a drunk driving accident, I would
definitely feel [that] I shouldn't have gone out. I
was responsible, I could have prevented it. Whether
that's what the law says or not, I would feel that
way.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said "I think you ... bring up a good point about
how you personally would feel." He reiterated that the
sponsor's intent is not to hold the parent liable, and that the
child throwing the party would be held responsible. He
explained that this would allow the police to show up, at that
time, and give a citation to the person "in control" of the
house.
4:21:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said:
Regardless of the sponsor's intent, anybody who has a
teenage kid, who leaves for the weekend, probably
should be aware that it's likely that the kid's going
to have a party at the house. And, if they're not
aware, then they're either hopelessly naïve, or
reckless.
MR. PAWLOWSKI agreed. In response to a question from
Representative Gatto, he explained that a person who leaves his
or her home empty while on vacation would not be held liable or
be considered to have acted "recklessly," if the home was broken
into and underage drinking occurred on the premises. In
response to additional comments, he questioned whether it is
reasonable to believe that the house would be broken into.
However, the police would be able to site the individuals in
charge of the house at that moment, for the $500 fine. This
fine would be in addition to breaking and entering and minor
consuming charges.
4:23:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked why the term "recklessly" was
chosen.
MR. PAWLOWSKI replied that "recklessly" describes a mental state
that best fits the offense. He explained that "knowingly" is
more difficult to prove, as a person may not inquire as to
whether those in attendance were over 21 years of age. The
sponsor wanted to set the bar "a little bit lower than
'knowingly.'"
4:25:11 PM
MR. PAWLOWSKI, in response to a question from Representative
Buch, explained that if the owner of the house was cited and was
not responsible, this could be disputed in the same manner as a
traffic violation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated her belief that it can be difficult
to prove innocence if unfairly cited for a traffic violation.
She expressed concern that this would apply to this violation,
as well. She said "as any of us who have thought we [were]
unfairly cited [for a traffic violation are aware,] that's not
always the easiest thing to rectify."
MR. PAWLOWSKI replied that people may end up on the wrong side
of any law that has a penalty. However, the sponsor believes
this will have a good balance.
4:29:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked for more detail regarding what
"possession" requires.
MR. PAWLOWSKI offered his understanding that this can mean
alcohol within a person's blood system or outside the blood
system, adding that whether a person is over 21 years of age is
also a factor. He stated that he would provide additional
information regarding the definition of "possession." In
response to a question regarding the maximum penalty for a
violation, he reiterated that the maximum penalty would be $500.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated that his is in support of HB 118.
He inquired as to whether the $500 fine would apply to all
individuals in attendance, or if this is limited to the host.
Additionally, he questioned whether the person in control of the
dwelling is more culpable than others who are present. He said
"It's often not the alpha juvenile that says 'let's have a party
at my house tonight.' It's often the best friend who is the
alpha [juvenile] who says 'hey your parents are gone this
weekend, let's have a party at [your] house." He suggested that
the sponsor consider this.
MR. PAWLOWSKI agreed that this is a concern, and will be given
further consideration. He offered his understanding that as the
bill is currently written, the person in control of the dwelling
would be held responsible, regardless of who suggests the party.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX relayed her concern regarding whether this
will encourage driving while under the influence of alcohol, by
creating an obligation to ensure that these individuals are no
longer on the premises.
MR. PAWLOWSKI stated that he does not agree with this. He
opined that the obligation is to ensure that the youth are no
longer in possession of alcohol. He said:
If you come home to find a bunch of 20-year-olds in
your house drinking, and you understand this law, the
first thing you should probably do is - exercising
dominion or control over your house, now - take the
alcohol away from them, and ask them to perhaps stay.
4:38:11 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), in response to a question
from Representative Gatto, explained that the $500 fine would
only be given to the individual in control of the dwelling, and
minor consuming laws would remain in effect. He opined that
individuals "running a party house" would quickly realize that
this is not worth it, therefore resulting in a better quality of
life for others. He also explained the difficulties which
currently arise in regard to minor consuming.
4:40:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what would happen if the fine was
not paid.
LIEUTENANT DIAL replied that non-payment would result in a
warrant being issued for the individual's arrest.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report HB 118 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
4:42:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH objected.
4:42:32 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Ramras,
Gatto, Gardner, Neuman, and Olson voted in favor of reporting HB
118 from committee. Representative Buch voted against it.
Therefore, HB 118 was reported out of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:43 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|