04/08/2002 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 2002
3:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 409
"An Act rejecting the use of daylight saving time."
- MOVED HB 409 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 277
"An Act relating to liens by owners of self-storage facilities;
distinguishing self-storage facility liens from another type of
storage lien; and excluding self-storage liens from the
treatment of certain unclaimed property."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 448
"An Act relating to establishing a data base of residential
telephone customers who do not wish to receive telephone
solicitations, providing that the data base be compiled at no
cost to the customers, requiring telephone solicitors to
purchase the data base, and requiring paid solicitors to
register; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 429
"An Act relating to certain licenses for the sale of tobacco
products; relating to tobacco taxes and sales and cigarette tax
stamps; relating to provisions making certain cigarettes
contraband and subject to seizure and forfeiture; relating to
certain crimes, penalties, and interest concerning tobacco taxes
and sales; relating to notification regarding a cigarette
manufacturer's noncompliance with the tobacco product Master
Settlement Agreement or related statutory provisions and to
confiscation of the affected cigarettes; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 409
SHORT TITLE:ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)LANCASTER BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/13/02 2233 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/02 2233 (H) L&C
03/06/02 2496 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
03/15/02 2563 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT
03/25/02 2674 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILSON
03/27/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/27/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/03/02 2788 (H) COSPONSOR REMOVED: WILSON
04/04/02 2806 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER
04/08/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 277
SHORT TITLE:SELF-STORAGE FACILITY LIENS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DAVIES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1947 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/02
01/14/02 1947 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1947 (H) L&C, JUD
01/30/02 2100 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
03/27/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/27/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/08/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 448
SHORT TITLE:TELEMARKETERS PHONE LISTS/REGISTRATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CRAWFORD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2309 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2309 (H) L&C, JUD
03/13/02 2530 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MORGAN
03/15/02 2564 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PORTER,
KERTTULA
03/18/02 2593 (H) COSPONSOR(S): LANCASTER
03/19/02 2611 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HUDSON
03/22/02 2654 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN, HAYES
03/25/02 2674 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HALCRO
03/26/02 2691 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GUESS, WILSON
03/27/02 2720 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MEYER, CROFT
04/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/01/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/02/02 2765 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BERKOWITZ
04/04/02 2806 (H) COSPONSOR REMOVED: LANCASTER
04/05/02 2820 (H) COSPONSOR(S): LANCASTER
04/08/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 409.
JUSTIN CARRO, Intern
for Representative Lancaster
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided clarification with regard to
Alaska data regarding accidents during a time change.
DENNIS HARRIS
PO Box 21214
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Indicated opposition to HB 409 and in
relation to HB 277, provided information regarding seizure of
the property of military personnel stationed overseas.
Testified in favor of HB 448, but suggested improvements.
RICH POOR
PO Box 240176
Douglas, Alaska 99824
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 409.
RANDY LORENZ
326 North Bailey House
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 409.
PAULA RAK
PO Box 1852
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 409.
ROY HOYT, JR.
PO Box 2121
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 409.
ROBERT TOBEY
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 409.
LEIGH DENNISON
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 409.
CHARLES BROBST, President and CEO
North Pacific Auctioneers Limited
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of staying on standard
time and related concerns and suggestions for HB 277.
JOEL CURTIS
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed problems with the current system
of changing between daylight saving time and standard time.
LYNN WILLIS
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 409.
BOB WOLVINGTON
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 409.
JOANN JACKINSKY
PO Box 1025
Kasilof, Alaska 99610
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 409.
HELEN DONAHUE, Staff
to Representative Ken Lancaster
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 409.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 415
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 277.
AMY KAUFMAN, Staff
to Representative Davies
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 415
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided additional information regarding
HB 277.
GRANT CARLIN, Self-Storage Operator
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 277.
STEVE CONN (ph)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in agreement with Mr. Brobst's
comments.
CODY RICE, Intern
for Representative Joe Hayes
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 422
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 448.
BOB TAYLOR
Alaska Commission on Aging
PO Box 110209
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the approach of HB
448.
MARIE DARLIN
AARP
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that AARP would like to see HB
448 passed once the concerns of the attorney general's office
are addressed.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-52, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:25 p.m.
Representatives Murkowski, Halcro, Meyer, and Crawford were
present at the call to order. Representatives Kott, Rokeberg,
and Hayes arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 409-ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 409, "An Act rejecting the use of daylight
saving time."
Number 0129
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER, Alaska State Legislature,
testified as the sponsor of HB 409. Representative Lancaster
stated that HB 409 allows Alaska to stay on year round standard
time just like Hawaii, Arizona, parts of Indiana, and numerous
areas around the world. Representative Lancaster explained that
daylight saving time was originally introduced as a health
measure in the seventeen hundreds, and was again implemented in
World War I and World War II and during the energy crisis in the
1970s. "The modern world no longer starts and stops with the
rise and fall of the sun," he said. Representative Lancaster
informed the committee that to date his office has received 100
letters in support of HB 409 and 5 against it.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted his support of this legislation. He
inquired as to why this legislation has been introduced in the
past, but hasn't passed.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER noted that Representative Rokeberg is
the one who held the last bill introduced on this topic in
committee. Representative Rokeberg and others claim that
elimination of daylight saving time could have some detriment
economically. However, Representative Lancaster indicated that
he wasn't convinced it made such a difference. In further
response to Representative Meyer, Representative Lancaster
acknowledged that one concern is that a 5-hour difference
between here and the East Coast is too much. With regard to
that concern, Representative Lancaster related his belief that
there should be a West Coast stock market and it should be
located in Alaska.
Number 0410
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that the committee packet includes a
study produced by the National Sleep Foundation (NSF) with
regard to fatal accidents following changes to daylight saving
time. The NSF study seemed to conclude that the day after time
changes, there was a higher degree of fatal accidents. However,
the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
indicates that this isn't an issue in Alaska.
Number 0466
JUSTIN CARRO, Intern for Representative Lancaster, Alaska State
Legislature, related his understanding that the system used by
the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities is
too archaic for the department to extract that specific data,
while nationally the data supports [what NSF reports].
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER informed the committee that the school
district [in his area], especially the Soldotna High School
government class, wanted this legislation to pass.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD related his experience as a construction
worker. He informed the committee that for the first few weeks
after a time change it's difficult for the body to adjust.
Furthermore, he has noticed that there are more accidents when
people are tired and sleepy and thus he applauded Representative
Lancaster for bringing this legislation forward.
DENNIS HARRIS related that he enjoyed the extra hour of daylight
that he received due to the change. "Quite frankly, I think it
isn't broke and it doesn't need fixing," he said.
Number 0654
RICH POOR provided the following testimony:
This letter is to register my objection to keeping
Alaska on Alaska standard time year-round. The bill,
if passed, would make doing business between Alaska
and the Lower 48 more difficult. It would reduce
after-hour recreational activities, and would impact
travel to and from Alaska. Here are some of the
examples of the potential problems that would occur
seven months out of the year:
* After-work recreational opportunities such as
fishing, softball, baseball, football, hiking, soccer,
et cetera will lose an additional hour of evening
daylight. This would definitely impact Southeast
Alaska in particular, and the rest of Alaska during
the late summer and fall. Communities have put
millions of dollars into the construction of outdoor
recreational facilities that would be used less if
this bill were passed.
* Businesses with suppliers and home offices in the
Lower 48 states would lose an additional hour of
communication time.
* Communication with Washington, D.C., would be
reduced by an additional hour.
* Stockbrokers, financial institutions, and people in
general that deal with the New York Stock Exchange
would have to get up an hour earlier to deal with the
opening of the stock market.
* Tourists crossing the borders into Alaska would have
to change their watches back two hours instead of one
hour.
* People flying south in the morning with connecting
flights out of Seattle would have to get up an hour
earlier. ... Also people traveling outside would
face increased jet lag even traveling to the West
Coast.
* Telephone contact with relatives in the Lower 48
would be reduced by two hours ....
Number 0766
There is a misperception in other parts of the state
that the governor and the legislature had the time
zone changed in the early 1980s just to accommodate
Juneau. This is not true. Prior to the change,
Southeast [Alaska] was on Pacific time, Yakutat was on
Yukon time, the Rail Belt was on Alaska/Hawaii time
and western Alaska was on Aleutian time. So everyone
in the state had to make an adjustment except for
Yakutat. This, however, did put 95 percent of the
state's population on one time zone and made a major
improvement in communication throughout the state.
If it is decided that Alaska should be on one time
year round, then make it Alaska Daylight Savings time.
You would still accomplish one of the objectives in
this bill, not having to change your clock back and
forth twice a year, but you would also eliminate the
examples identified above. The most positive impact
with daylight savings time would be that five months
out of the year Alaska would be on the same time as
the rest of the West Coast, and an hour closer to the
Heartland and the Eastern Seaboard.
After talking to several stockbrokers, businessman,
and people in the financial and tour industry, the
common response was "Why do we want to put Alaska
further behind the rest of the nation seven months out
of the year?" They did say, however, that they would
be mildly supportive to stay on Alaska daylight
savings time year round because it would bring us
closer to the Lower 48 states five months out of the
year.
MR. POOR turned to the issue of safety and highlighted that in
Fairbanks and Anchorage the worst traffic accidents occur in the
winter, usually in the evening. If Alaska was on Pacific
daylight time all year, there would be an extra hour of daylight
in the evening during the winter. Therefore, rush hour would
occur in the daylight rather than in the dark.
Number 0889
RANDY LORENZ, former committee aide for the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee, testified via
teleconference. He informed the committee that during his time
as the committee aide he worked on HB 4, the legislation to
eliminate daylight saving time. He noted that the committee
should have his written testimony in the committee packet. Mr.
Lorenz also informed the committee that the [U.S. National]
Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted research of 33
states in the Lower 48. The study found that during the change
to daylight saving time there was a 7 percent increase in
traffic fatalities and there was a corresponding decrease during
the change back to standard time. Furthermore, the increased
sleep deficiency caused by that change is compounded by the
changes in illumination when driving to and from work. Mr.
Lorenz pointed out that the aforementioned [difficulties with
the change to daylight saving time] and [the fact that] our
society is sufficiently sleep deprived result in a significant
increase in one's susceptibility to accidents. The
aforementioned results in higher costs for insurance and
workers' compensation claims. He noted that the his testimony
doesn't [even] address the impact the change to daylight saving
time has on mentally and emotionally ill individuals. He
further noted that his testimony doesn't discuss the positive
economic benefits to staying on standard time, especially with
regard to developing Alaska's connection with the Pacific Rim
and the possibility of a mobile logistic center.
MR. LORENZ informed the committee that he performed his on [an
informal] study on this matter. After interviewing about 200
individuals on this matter, 178 were significantly impacted by
the change and complained about being anxious, tired, and
irritable. He related that 50 people he interviewed said they
were unable to get to sleep until their normal standard time and
thus were sluggish the next morning. With regard to suggestions
that Alaska go to Alaska standard time, Mr. Lorenz pointed out
that federal law only allows a state to go to daylight saving
time or not. A change to standard time would require an act of
Congress.
Number 1185
PAULA RAK testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 409.
Although some may be inconvenienced by changing their clocks
twice a year, it's not as inconvenient as being two hours off of
Seattle half the year. Ms. Rak pointed out that federal
statutes 15 U.S. Code 260-64 says, "Time zones were established
in the U.S. with the regard for the convenience of commerce and
the existing junction points and division points of common
carriers engaged in inter-state commerce." She informed the
committee that the convenience of commerce has been defined to
include the consideration of all impacts upon a community, which
includes impacts on individuals, families, businesses, and other
organizations. She noted Southeast's tie to Seattle with regard
to commerce. Were HB 409 adopted, [Alaska] would be one hour
off of Seattle's time in the winter and two hours off in the
summer.
MS. RAK recalled that in 1983 elected officials wanted to unify
Alaska by combining time zones, and therefore most of Alaska
changed to Alaska standard time, while most residents in
Southeast Alaska wanted to stay on Pacific standard time. When
most of Alaska changed [to Alaska standard time], it placed the
farthest east and farthest west residents on a time zone that
wasn't natural for the rhythms of the sun in either area.
Although it was touted as a compromise, unfortunately everyone
found it inconvenient. Ms. Rak suggested that Alaska either
live with the compromise or return to the situation before 1983.
If there is objection to changing clocks twice a year, then
let's just stay on daylight saving time all year.
MS. RAK, speaking as a business owner, noted that she finds it
very inconvenient to be four hours different from the East
Coast. The change proposed in HB 409 would result in Alaska
being five hours different part of the year. Ms. Rak reminded
committee members that Southeast is much farther south [than the
northern areas] and thus the longer days [in the Interior] are
still shorter than those in Southeast. She pointed out that
children would lose an hour of play time after school. Ms. Rak
concluded by suggesting that northern residents could change to
the time zone they like and Southeast could continue changing
between standard time and daylight saving time, or perhaps
Pacific standard time could be utilized for the entire state.
Number 1378
ROY HOYT, JR., testified via teleconference in opposition to HB
409. He noted that he has experienced all the time zone changes
in the state, and was even a resident of Yakutat when it had its
own time. He related his belief that elimination of daylight
saving time would adversely impact commerce. With regard to
sleep deprivation concerns, Mr. Hoyt indicated that it was in
the hands of the individual.
Number 1484
ROBERT TOBEY, Small Business Owner, testified via teleconference
in opposition to HB 409. In fact, HB 409 would increase the
cost of doing business and decrease Alaska's competitiveness in
the business world. Were HB 409 to pass, the five-hour
difference between the East Coast and Alaska would only offer a
two- to three-hour overlap during the business day, which makes
it extremely difficult to place orders and conduct business.
The turn-around time [for orders] would effectively be
lengthened by at least a day. He pointed out that most outside
businesses won't attempt to place orders, start jobs, or conduct
conferences during the last hour or two of the business day.
Increasing the time gap with the Lower 48 will cause Alaska to
suffer due to increased resistance to business travel. The time
difference on travelers is a very negative factor that would
have to be overcome in order to promote Alaska has a business
site or convention center. Furthermore, studies have shown that
more daylight in the evening saves energy due to longer light
during peak demands for energy, which is an area in which
Alaskans need all the help available. Moreover, this change
will disrupt communications because five hours will be a big
difference for Alaskans attempting to contact folks in the Lower
48. Additionally, Mr. Tobey noted that he prefers to receive
prime time programming, news, and current shows rather than paid
programming and advertisements.
MR. TOBEY recalled the compromise with the time zones and urged
the legislature, if it must tinker with the time zones, to
reduce the gap between the Lower 48 and Alaska rather than
increase it. Mr. Tobey, as a parent, echoed earlier testimony
that he would prefer added daylight after school when there are
sports and other activities going on. More daylight provides
increased safety for kids.
Number 1629
LEIGH DENNISON testified via teleconference on behalf of herself
and her husband. She testified in favor of HB 409.
CHARLES BROBST testified via teleconference. He informed the
committee that he is the Chairman and CEO of North Pacific
Auctioneers Limited. Mr. Brobst related his experience living
in Indiana, which does not change to daylight saving time. Mr.
Brobst announced his support of staying on standard time. He
noted that he also works for Anchorage International Airport,
and informed the committee that international flights don't
change to daylight saving time.
Number 1728
JOEL CURTIS testified via teleconference. He noted that
although he is the Science and Operations Officer for the
National Weather Service in the Anchorage Forecast Office, the
opinions he will provide will be his own. Mr. Curtis turned to
the concerns that HB 409 will hurt commerce and said that he
could provide numerous examples of how changing time actually
"throws us off." For example, [the National Weather Service] in
Anchorage has some of the best computer programmers in the
nation. Yet, every year these programmers have to check the
computers every year because of the change in data streams due
to the time zones. Mr. Curtis pointed out that one must
consider the lost wages and confusion related to the time
changes. Mr. Curtis noted the current 24/7 environment of today
and suggested that a business person could wake up earlier
rather than a child going to school in the dark in Unalaska or
Nome.
Number 1828
LYNN WILLIS testified via teleconference. He indicated that the
committee packet should include a copy of his testimony. Mr.
Willis echoed earlier testimony regarding the fact that when
Alaska's time zones were combined in 1983, the time of day no
longer matched the location of the sun, which is exacerbated by
daylight saving time. For example, under daylight saving time
in Anchorage and Fairbanks the sun is highest at about 2:00 p.m.
rather than noon. He related the difficulties Alaskans face
when changing to daylight saving time. Mr. Willis informed the
committee that daylight is gained naturally. In the
Southcentral area, between April 7th and 17th of this year
approximately 59 minutes of daylight will be gained and thus he
suggested waiting for that time to gain the hour.
MR. WILLIS discussed the 24/7 connectedness of our society. He
clarified that moving an area on or off daylight saving time is
accomplished by the state and Alaska wouldn't be changing time
zones, which would require federal action. The few benefits of
[daylight saving time] shouldn't be forced on the majority [who
want to eliminate daylight saving time]. In conclusion, Mr.
Willis announced his support of HB 409.
Number 1918
BOB WOLVINGTON testified via teleconference. He informed the
committee that he is an air traffic controller. He said that he
supported HB 409 and stressed that [the Eagle River/Anchorage
area] is already one hour advanced of its true geographical time
zone. With regard to the notion that the Southeast Panhandle is
sacrificing to compromise for [the Interior], the majority of
the population of Alaska is sacrificing to meet Southeast's time
zone. Mr. Wolvington related his belief that there wouldn't be
any economic detriment to staying on standard time.
Number 1973
JOANN JACKINSKY testified via teleconference in strong support
of HB 409. Ms. Jackinsky informed the committee that those
teenagers living in Fairbanks, Kenai, and Anchorage who wake at
6:00 a.m. per the clock are actually waking at 4:00 a.m. per
their body clock. She related her belief that such was entirely
too early to be expected to go to school and function. She
informed the committee of the circadian clock and its relation
to [sleep problems] of teenagers. She noted that the committee
packet should include the pamphlet from the Anchorage School
District, which includes the facts [related to sleep patterns of
teenagers] and studies from which they came. Ms. Jackinsky
pointed out that there are 600 licensed stockbrokers in the
state, which is one-tenth of 1 percent of Alaska's population.
"The other 99.9 percent of us, including our children, are
forced into a clock-based system which works against our
biological clocks," she explained. Therefore, she requested
that the committee pass this bill on.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI, upon determining that there was no one else to
testify, closed public testimony. She turned the discussion to
the committee.
Number 2085
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER remarked that this is a policy call. He
said he hasn't heard enough of the history as to why this bill
hasn't passed in the past to not support it.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that today's testimony was about 50:50 for
and against. She noted her surprise that people focus on this
matter when there are such weighty issues before the
legislature. However, it has been mentioned that this issue has
been bothering folks for many years.
Number 2174
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the debate about time has
been going on in Alaska since before the capital was moved from
Sitka to Juneau. Over the state's history there have been
numerous time changes. With an area that geographically has
four time zones, Representative Rokeberg predicted that the
debate over time will continue. He acknowledged that for much
of its history Southeast Alaska has been Pacific standard time
and the daylight saving time impacts them the most.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO expressed the importance of realizing that
changing clocks only occurs twice a year and for only one hour.
With regard to the impact on business, Representative Halcro
said that his rental car business is a perfect example because
the headquarters are located in Garden City, New York. If
daylight saving time was not observed, his business would be
five hours behind. With regard to the difficulties this would
create for those traveling, Representative Halcro didn't see how
hard it would be for the human body to [transition] for an hour
change. Furthermore, the change occurs on Saturday night and
thus a person has Sunday to transition. Also, daylight saving
time is used to promote checking things such as smoke detectors.
Representative Halcro related his belief that eliminating
daylight saving time does create impacts on commerce.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if the "chamber" has taken a position
on this matter.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG related his belief that in the past the
State Chamber of Commerce has taken a negative position on this.
HELEN DONAHUE, Staff to Representative Ken Lancaster, informed
the committee that no response has been received.
TAPE 02-52, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD remarked that he isn't so concerned
about what time zone Alaska is in, although changing time twice
a year is [difficult]. Representative Crawford said that
changing Alaska's time zone to Alaska daylight saving time for
all year would be fine with him because it would bring Alaska
closer to the business hours of the Lower 48.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI related her understanding that the state's don't
have the option suggested by Representative Crawford. The
states can either opt in or out of daylight saving time.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD recalled that all the time zones were
changed in Alaska 15-20 years ago, save Yakutat. Therefore,
there must be a way.
MS. DONAHUE echoed earlier testimony that a change in time zone
would have to be implemented by Congress, a state can't do so
with state legislation. She said her understanding was that
Congress would have to approve such a change.
MR. POOR interjected that when Alaska did change its time zones,
the Department of Transportation did so.
MR. POOR, in response to Chair Murkowski, pointed out that
Metlakatla was able to change its time zone because it's a
reservation.
Number 2266
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG related his belief that this is a
federal issue. Whether there should be daylight saving time
should apply to the entire country uniformly. Representative
Rokeberg noted that he is sympathetic to school children and
pointed out that in Anchorage it has been determined that it's
not appropriate to start high school at 7:30 a.m.
Representative Rokeberg stressed the need for Alaska to be part
of the United States.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said that he envisioned Alaska being more
like Hawaii, which doesn't change to daylight saving time, than
the rest of the Lower 48. Somehow those states that don't
change to daylight saving time seem to manage fine. He
expressed curiosity with regard to why Hawaii, Arizona, and
parts of Indiana haven't changed to daylight saving time.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said he believes that those states
haven't changed to daylight saving time for the same reasons
proposed here in Alaska. In response to Chair Murkowski,
Representative Lancaster confirmed that changing to Pacific
standard time would have to be done at the congressional level.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI informed the committee that changing to Pacific
standard time requires sending a petition to the U.S. Department
of Transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD reiterated his belief that the best
solution would be for Alaska to be on Alaska daylight saving
time all year and if it requires a petition to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, then so be it.
Number 2019
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report HB 409 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 409 was reported from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 277-SELF-STORAGE FACILITY LIENS
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 277, "An Act relating to liens by owners of
self-storage facilities; distinguishing self-storage facility
liens from another type of storage lien; and excluding self-
storage liens from the treatment of certain unclaimed property."
Number 1958
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, Alaska State Legislature, testified
as the sponsor of HB 277. Representative Davies informed the
committee that the bill has received a fair amount of comment to
which he has responded via the proposed committee substitute
(CS). The CS addresses all the concerns raised to date.
Number 1973
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to adopt Version 22-LS0175\L,
Bannister, 4/5/02, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version L was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted that an owner of a self-storage
facility brought forth this issue. The problem arises when
someone fails to make payment or leaves town and the owner of
the facility ends up having a storage unit with full of stuff.
Existing statute requires that the facility owner dispose of the
material at a public auction, which the facility operators have
found to be inconvenient. Once it's determined that the bill
isn't going to be paid, it can take six to eight months to
coordinate an auction. During that time, the facility owner has
to keep the material safe and thus, it generally means that one
of the storage units is in use and can't be rented.
Therefore, this legislation proposes changing the requirement
such that the facility owner can dispose of the material in the
manner of their choice. The bill does include some protections
in that the proceeds from the disposal of the material must be
held for a year so that the individual who owned the material
could apply for the proceeds of the sale of the material in the
storage unit minus the cost of disposal.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained that Version L clarifies that
the statute of the residential Landlord and Tenant Act doesn't
apply in these situations. The CS also clarifies that if the
rental charges are unpaid for four days, then the facility owner
may place an over lock on the unit and hold it until the rent is
paid. If the rental charges are unpaid for 60 days, the
facility owner may take possession of the personal property.
There was objection to the language requiring the name of the
facility owner to be included in the mailed notification, and
therefore that was removed. If there is more than one
delinquent unit at a time, a single publication can include
several delinquent units. Section 34.35.649 includes the
definitions of facility owner, rental agreement, and unit
renter.
Number 1762
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO informed the committee that the two places
he has contacted in Juneau require a security deposit, which
means that the facility owner receives one month's [rent] for a
security deposit. Instead of utilizing the security deposits,
the legislation specifies that after four days the locks can be
changed. In Section 34.35.600(c) the legislation further
specifies that "a facility owner is not required to apply a
security deposit received by the facility owner to the reduction
of the rental charges when determining whether the rental
charges have been paid when due." He questioned why the
language wouldn't specify that the security deposit be applied
until it has been liquidated at which time the locks on the unit
could be changed.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES related his belief that the current
practice is to change the locks after there has been no payment
for three to four days. Although he said he wouldn't have a
problem with [Representative Halcro's suggestion], he suspected
that the facility owners probably would.
Number 1623
AMY KAUFMAN, Staff to Representative Davies, Alaska State
Legislature, testified on behalf of Representative Davies. Ms.
Kaufman related her understanding that typically the security
deposit is used to cover how the unit is left [upon termination
of the agreement]. She acknowledged that various storage
facilities could have different agreements with regard to the
security deposit.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI directed attention to the definition of "amount
owed" in Version L. She related her belief that the security
deposit should be used to offset the amount owed once the lien
on the personal property is eliminated, at the end of the day.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted his agreement. However, with regard
to changing the locks after four days, he said that would still
be the preference.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO expressed concern with the timelines,
especially for those in the military. He said that there seems
to be little protection for those who might be suddenly called
away. Upon hearing from the audience that military personnel
are covered under federal law, Representative Halcro questioned
whether that [exemption for military personnel] should be
specified in the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that he wasn't sure that in fact
[military personnel are exempt per the federal law]. He
explained that the legislation attempts to clarify existing
state statute and change the mechanism of disposal.
Representative Davies remarked that even if someone is called
away [for military purposes], that individual is still
responsible for their affairs. Furthermore, a valid mailing
address is required, which would be utilized with the certified
mail notification. Therefore, maintaining normal business
practices, such as a current address, would avoid problems.
Number 1465
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out that the definition of "amount owed"
includes personnel and administrative costs, which is fairly
broad term. She asked if there is a way in which to define what
is included in personnel and administrative costs.
MS. KAUFMAN said that hasn't been addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES commented that the normal remedy for those
charges viewed to be unreasonable is to go to civil court.
Representative Davies related his belief that when an individual
enters into an agreement to rent a storage unit, the terms and
conditions should be specified in the rental agreement.
Perhaps, this aspect of state law could be required to be
included in the rental agreement.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI turned to Section 34.25.640 on page 4. She
related her understanding that when a lien is satisfied, an
acknowledgement of satisfaction has to be provided.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that he wasn't sure when the
aforementioned requirement arose, and therefore he offered to
look into it.
Number 1315
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT returned to the certified letter
[requirement]. He posed a situation in which an individual is
receiving medical treatment out-of-state for four months.
Although the certified letter could have went to the
individual's house, someone else could've signed for it and the
individual never saw the letter. Representative Kott asked if
there is another way to deliver notice such as restricted
delivery, which means that the individual with the agreement
would actually be the individual who signs the delivery receipt.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES pointed out that requiring more than a
certified letter would provide no recourse if an individual
dodges the receipt of the letter or doesn't specify a valid
address. In existing statute, if an individual doesn't pay the
rent for their unit for three months, the material inside the
unit is auctioned. Although the details are being changed, the
principles and timelines aren't being changed too much. In
response to Chair Murkowski, Representative Davies said that
Section 34.35.175(b) specifies that the facility owner may sell
the articles in the unit at a public auction if the charges
aren't paid within three months. Representative Davies related
his belief that there are some noticing [requirements] that are
included within the three months.
Number 1156
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired as to the protections for the
renter with regard to ensuring that the facility owner sells the
items within the unit for a reasonable price. He posed a
situation in which one of the articles left in a storage unit is
a portrait worth $1,000 and it's given away. The renter would
still be liable for the back payments and administrative costs,
and the renter's goods have been sold. He surmised that the
renter had no recourse.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied yes. Under the present statute,
the only recourse is the auctioning of the items in the storage
unit.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT interjected that the auctioneer would
attempt to obtain the best amount possible.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that an auction can still be done;
it's one of many options.
MS. KAUFMAN pointed out that most [owners] are attempting to
recover lost costs and thus chances are that the [owners] would
want to recover those costs.
Number 1047
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT informed the committee that he has a storage
unit in Juneau that costs $45 a month. In that unit he has
about $10,000 worth of equipment. If he falls into arrears for
three months, the owner could attempt to recover the costs for
the last three months by selling the equipment for $500.
Representative Kott said that is a potential situation.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES indicated agreement. He pointed out that
an individual with a storage unit containing $10,000 worth of
stuff should be responsible and have a forwarding address.
Representative Davies said he wasn't sure for whom
Representative Kott was concerned.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT remarked that there is nothing in the
legislation that ensures fair market value for whatever is in
the storage unit.
CHAIRMAN MURKOWSKI directed attention to page 3, line 26, which
reads as follows: "(b) If the property subject to the lien
appears to be salable, the facility owner shall attempt to sell
the property. If the facility owner cannot sell the property or
if the property appears to have little value, the facility owner
may sell, give away, or throw away the property."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted that his equipment is probably not
salable in this city. Yet, it could be given away and he would
still be responsible for the back rent, et cetera.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES pointed out that if the equipment was
given away, there is no need to pay. He specified that the
equipment would only be given away because there was no response
to a letter noting that the rent was due.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that the question then becomes
whether giving away the items stored in the unit would satisfy
the lien if the owner hasn't recovered enough money.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied yes.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI surmised then that when a lien is satisfied the
facility owner should be required to submit an acknowledgement
of satisfaction.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that nothing in the
legislation seeks to maximize the recovery. There could be a
situation in which the value of the property significantly
exceeds the rent.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES mentioned the good faith clause. The
problem is that there is a lot of different property housed in
storage units, some of which is junk and some of which are
hidden heirlooms. If there is [too much specificity], it's
going to be difficult for facility owners to dispose of the
property.
Number 0756
GRANT CARLIN, Self-Storage Operator, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 277. Mr. Carlin informed the
committee that storage facility operators would rather receive
rent, and therefore they do everything possible to contact
delinquent tenants in an attempt to avoid disposal of the
property. A home telephone number, a work telephone number, and
emergency contacts are all required. He noted that he has even
gone through units in an attempt to find an address of
relatives. Often, tenants move without providing a forwarding
address or phone contacts and the emergency contacts aren't
reachable. Therefore, the facility owner is left with the
burden of disposing of the property, which is frequently
worthless. With regard to changing the locks, Mr. Carlin
clarified that no locks are changed but rather a double lock is
utilized. The security deposit collected in Fairbanks isn't
equivalent to a month's rent. He informed the committee that in
Fairbanks's the security deposits range from $15 to $30.
MR. CARLIN recalled that the administrative process was brought
up. He explained that the administrative process includes
things such as running a newspaper advertisement, drafting
notices, making copies, and office filing. If the legislation
is amended to require a satisfaction of lien document, the time
and work involved with that would be included in the
administrative costs. Presently, in Alaska there is no statute
that addresses mini-storage or self-storage facilities. The
language in Chapter 45, Unclaimed Property, is an antiquated law
that really deals with forwarding merchants, wharf and warehouse
operators, and tavern keepers. The self-storage industry is a
relatively new industry that has come about in the last 25
years. The Unclaimed Property statute involves judicial
proceedings and action by peace officers, which would be cost
prohibitive and impossible with which to comply.
MR. CARLIN noted that another possibly relevant statute may be
the Improvement Lien on Personal Property. However, he related
his belief that the aforementioned statute doesn't apply to
self-storage units because there is no improvement done to the
property. Without any legislative guidelines, the facility
operator is at risk for lawsuits without any authority to
dispose of a tenant's property. Additionally, HB 277 provides
steps for notification for delinquent tenants, which would
standardize the procedures for all self-storage operators in
Alaska. Hopefully, this would provide a degree of legal
protection. Also, this legislation serves the delinquent tenant
better than the current situation. [Currently] there is no
requirement of notification that the tenant's property is being
disposed of, which would be required under HB 277. Furthermore,
HB 277 requires notification of disposal of property via the
mail as well as broad newspaper notification. For these
reasons, Mr. Carlin encouraged the committee's support of the
legislation.
Number 0479
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES requested that Mr. Carlin comment on the
release of recorded liens under the current situation and the
concern with being required to provide the release.
MR. CARLIN informed the committee that he has only had one
tenant request a satisfaction of lien. Due to the infrequency
of this, it isn't a major issue, he said. The [satisfaction of
lien] isn't a great burden; it requires going to the recorder's
office and filling out paperwork that is mailed to the tenant.
MR. CARLIN, in response to Representative Rokeberg, confirmed
that most of what is unclaimed doesn't have any real value and
ends up going to a charity. In further response to
Representative Rokeberg, Mr. Carlin stated that he has been in
business since 1984.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Carlin has had any
experience with tenants who are part of the military.
MR. CARLIN replied yes, and informed the committee that about
one-third of his customers are military. In his experience,
military folks usually know in advance when they're going out on
maneuvers and thus they pay in advance. He noted that he does
what is possible to accommodate military customers, and he even
offers military customers a discount. In response to
Representative Rokeberg, Mr. Carlin said that he hasn't had any
problems with his military tenants.
MR. CARLIN, in response to Chair Murkowski, specified that the
costs at his facility would be fairly representative of those in
Fairbanks. He informed the committee that his smallest unit is
$27 a month, a medium-sized unit is about $60 a month, and the
[largest] size would run about $95 a month. He confirmed that
he requires a $15 security deposit so that he wouldn't have to
face the cleaning [costs] for things that a tenant decided not
to move. Therefore, the security deposit is essentially a
cleaning deposit that is returned if the unit is vacated in the
same state in which it was rented.
Number 0245
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if the delinquent tenants with which Mr.
Carlin has had experience were delinquent for many months.
MR. CARLIN answered that in the past he has held properties for
six months to a year, sometimes because the weather doesn't
allow for disposal. Mr. Carlin related that frequently tenants
abandon their property because the property being stored isn't
worth the value of the rent owed.
Number 0078
CHARLES BROBST, President and CEO, North Pacific Auctioneers
Limited, testified via teleconference. Mr. Brobst informed the
committee that for a five to six year period, his company did
over 90 percent of the storage auctions in Anchorage. With the
changes to the code, the interest of the renter and the
warehouse must be kept in mind equally. Section 34.35.600(b)
provides the owner the ability to have some leverage on the
renter. However, when the unit is over locked, the facility
owner should send a registered letter, return receipt requested,
to the renter stating that the renter is in arrears ...
TAPE 02-53, SIDE A
MR. BROBST turned to Section 34.35.610(b)(2) and Section
34.35.620 require publication of notice one time in a newspaper
of general circulation. He stressed that one time isn't enough
notice. He suggested publishing the notice once a week for a
two week period in a newspaper of general circulation in the
town where the storage facility is located. If there isn't a
newspaper of general circulation, Mr. Brobst suggested four
notices posted in a public location one of which would be the
post office serving the area and the other being the storage
facility itself and then two other general locations. This
notification should give the date, time, and location of the
sale and also the amount owed plus reasonable disposal costs and
related fees.
Number 0127
MR. BROBST moved on to Section 34.35.630 and characterized it as
a license for the facility owner to steal. When a facility
owner takes possession of the property, he questioned who would
determine whether the property is salable or not. A
disinterested third party, such as a certified auctioneer or
certified appraiser, should make the aforementioned
determination. Although having a disinterested third party make
the aforementioned determination will be an additional cost, a
good sale [will allow the facility owner] to recover that cost.
Mr. Brobst informed the committee that he has had [the property]
in units bring as little as $5 and up to $28,000. He related
the various types of property he has found in units that fell
into delinquency.
MR. BROBST specified that when the over lock is done, the
notification should begin with a registered letter specifying
that the property will be sold. When the 60 days have past,
provide [the renter] a date, time, and place where the property
will be sold. If the property isn't sold on the specified date,
time, and place, then the process should start over. He
emphasized that too many of the auctions in Anchorage specify
that the auction will occur "on or after" a certain date. Mr.
Brobst said that he attempts to return all of the personal
papers and photographs of the [delinquent renter] via the
facility owner. Furthermore, these individuals are allowed to
purchase their items at the auction. Mr. Brobst also emphasized
the need for the property to be sold at the location of the
storage facility.
MR. BROBST mentioned that sometimes facility owners take a
partial payment and don't apply it to the bill but rather hold
the partial payment until the property is sold in hopes that
there will be enough to cover the bill. Mr. Brobst said that
when a partial payment is taken, the facility owner should start
the notification procedure. Personally, Mr. Brobst stressed
that a partial payment shouldn't be taken unless the facility
owner knows that the individual is acting in good faith and
attempting to get caught up because after 30 days an individual
is too far behind to get caught up. With regard to the
[facility owner] not following the procedures, Mr. Brobst
related his feeling that the [facility owner] should face a
felony and the facility owner and manager and auctioneer should
be held liable. He noted that there are some storage facilities
in the area that he won't do auctioneering for because of their
improper notification. Mr. Brobst concluded by offering to fax
the remainder of his testimony to the committee.
Number 0556
MR. BROBST, in response to Representative Rokeberg, said that an
outcry auction isn't required currently, although in order to
obtain the "best bang for your buck" one would perform an outcry
auction. Without a disinterested third party [determining the
salability of the property], the legislation opens the process
up for abuse by unscrupulous managers. Mr. Brobst reiterated
that an auctioneer or certified personal property appraiser
would be an appropriate disinterested third party. He also
reiterated the need for "falsification" to be a felony.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that although some of the
smaller communities might be large enough to have a storage
facility, the community might not have auctioneers or appraisers
available.
MR. BROBST suggested that a magistrate, notary public, or some
other prominent official in the town could possibly determine
the value of property.
Number 0754
STEVE CONN (ph) testified via teleconference. He noted his
agreement with Mr. Brobst. Mr. Conn said this would be a poor
time to weaken the present law. He agreed with the suggestion
for a registered letter [of notification]. He also agreed that
a disinterested party other than a certified appraiser or
auctioneer could sign-off in order to ensure value. Mr. Conn
expressed the need for the committee to think of their
constituents who, in times of need and crisis, use a storage
facility and may well lose track.
Number 0861
DENNIS HARRIS addressed the question regarding what happens to
the property of individuals in the military when their absence
is due to overseas duty. Mr. Harris recalled that there is a
federal law called the Soldiers and Citizens Relief Act, which
prohibits seizures of property with liens and foreclosures on
mortgages while someone is stationed overseas in the military.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI recalled that shortly after the September 11th
tragedy, relief was given to those in the active military.
MR. HARRIS informed the committee that almost every time folks
are called for active duty with the National Guard, there is
almost always a news release reminding everyone of the
[prohibition of seizures of property with liens and foreclosures
on mortgages].
Number 0947
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if Section 34.25.630(c) is already in
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied no and pointed out that there is
no statute that applies directly to this circumstance.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT questioned why one would want to make the
facility owner the beneficiary of any excess money. For
instance, excess money from disposal of property at the state
level is forwarded to the Department of Treasury.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES related his interpretation of the current
statute that the facility owner can sell the property and keep
the proceeds. He explained that current statutes say that the
proceeds of the sale are applied to pay the expenses, to the
discharge of the lien, and the balance to the owner of the
article, in that order. There doesn't seem to be a provision
with regard to what happens when the owner can't be found.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that she has identified several areas that
need work, and therefore she announced that HB 277 would be
assigned to a subcommittee. She announced that Representative
Halcro would be the Chair and she as well as Representative
Hayes would be members of the subcommittee.
MR. BROBST, in response to Representative Halcro, agreed to
forward his suggestions to the subcommittee.
[HB 277 was held over.]
HB 448-TELEMARKETERS PHONE LISTS/REGISTRATION
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 448, "An Act relating to establishing a data
base of residential telephone customers who do not wish to
receive telephone solicitations, providing that the data base be
compiled at no cost to the customers, requiring telephone
solicitors to purchase the data base, and requiring paid
solicitors to register; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI also announced that it was not her intention to
move HB 448 from committee today.
Number 1244
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt 22-LS1407\L, Craver, 4/8/02,
as the working document. There being no objection, Version L
was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, testifying as the sponsor, related his
belief that there is consensus that the present law isn't
working properly because it isn't well publicized. He explained
that under current law the consumer is charged to be on a do-
not-call list. This legislation would transfer the cost to the
telemarketers. Representative Crawford pointed out that having
a single list would make it easier for the telemarketers and for
enforcement when telemarketers call folks listed on the do-not-
call list. Representative Crawford concluded by expressing his
desire to work with all involved in order to develop a good law.
Number 1361
CODY RICE, Intern for Representative Joe Hayes, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HB 448 addresses the following main
problems: the promulgation of the current statute, the payment
of service for being included on the [do-not-call] list, and the
clarity of definitions and exemptions. This legislation
modifies the existing statute such that the burden of paying for
the do-not-call list is on the users of the list, which is the
telemarketer. The legislation also increases public awareness
of the consumer's option to participate in the do-not-call list.
Furthermore, the legislation removes the loopholes of paid
solicitors operating under exemptions of organizations by which
they are contracted. Therefore, better regulation and increased
revenue results. Mr. Rice said that HB 448 will return privacy
to Alaskan homes while clarifying current law and increasing the
safety of consumers who are the subject of predatory
telemarketing.
Number 1452
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER posed a situation in which staff for
politicians are being paid to make calls and asked if those
staff would be included in HB 448.
MR. RICE answered that exemptions already exist for those
soliciting political opinions or thoughts and those exemptions
haven't been changed. In further response to Representative
Meyer, Mr. Rice said that the exemptions include pollsters so
long as they aren't soliciting money. In response to
Representative Rokeberg, Mr. Rice specified that currently
politicians are exempt and would remain so as long as they are
soliciting political opinions or campaign funds from those who
have expressed an interest or have contributed in the previous
six months.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER posed a situation in which a politician is
calling to solicit an individual's vote.
MR. RICE said that would be considered a political opinion and
would be exempt.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER remarked that in some ways he felt that
this legislation should pertain to politicians.
Number 1549
CHAIR MURKOWSKI posed a situation in which a charitable
organization is soliciting funds.
MR. RICE answered that charitable organizations will continue to
have exempt status so long as they operate under the current
exemption clause. He explained that the current exemption
clause specifies that the charitable organization [can only
solicit people] who have expressed previous interest in donating
funds or have done so within a specified amount of time.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI posed a situation in which her child is a
participant in the Boys & Girls Club and she pays for their
soccer fees. In such a situation would it be appropriate for
the Boys & Girls Club to do a direct financial solicitation to
me.
MR. RICE responded that he wasn't sure.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD reiterated that the current statute
isn't being changed. The legislation only places the paid
solicitor under this law.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI surmised then that it would be appropriate for
the financial director of the Boys & Girls Club to call her.
However, if the club pays for a solicitor, the club cannot call
her if she [is on the do-not-call list].
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he believes that to be correct.
Number 1625
CHAIR MURKOWSKI turned to Section 1 of [Version L] and asked if
there are penalties associated to the violations [discussed in
Section 1].
MR. RICE replied yes. He directed attention to the Voice of the
Times article, which specifies that fines can sum up to $5,000.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if that would be the case because [the
telemarketer] has violated the unfair trade practices and the
penalties are already attached. The initial drafts don't appear
to assess any civil penalties. In many states, [the
telemarketer] can face $500 or $1,000 a call. She related her
belief that there should be some penalties attached.
MR. RICE deferred to the representative from the Department of
Law.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD related that there seems to be fairly
good consensus on Sections 1 and 3-7. However, Section 2 has
been the subject of some discord, which he has attempted to work
through. If this legislation is held today, Section 2 could be
brought back in an acceptable form. Representative Crawford
explained that [everyone] is working towards putting this under
a third-party contractor rather than having local exchanges or
the attorney general's office being responsible for this. The
third-party contractor would administer the do-not-call list and
the 1-800 number.
Number 1793
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the same third party would have
a database of who can be called. Representative Rokeberg
indicated that the legislation doesn't seem to prohibit anything
like that.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that it seems that the legislation
is encouraging the establishment of a database of telephone
solicitation. Perhaps that's why the solicitors don't mind
paying for it. He inquired as to how updates of the list would
be done.
MR. RICE answered that many states have updated the list
quarterly. Mr. Rice agreed that this list would make it easier
for telemarketers to call those not on the [do-not-call] list
and it would make their job more efficient. However, those on
the [do-not-call] list have the option to be on the list for
free.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the cost of being on the
[do-not-call] list in Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that in Anchorage it costs about
$6.50 and is a one-time fee. In response to Chair Murkowski,
Representative Crawford agreed that the fee is dependent upon
the carrier and he was referring only to Anchorage and ACS.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER pointed out that one could have caller id.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted that [many] of the telemarketers
have their id blocked and so no id shows up.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT informed the committee of a new item
available to attach to a phone that supposedly eliminates 99.9
percent of the telemarketing telephone calls.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO explained that the aforementioned product
is based on the idea that most telemarketers utilize an
automated dialing system and when the recipient of the call
answers the call is forward to an operator. When that happens,
the product sends a signal that disengages the telephone.
Number 1988
BOB TAYLOR, Alaska Commission on Aging, informed the committee
that he was filling in for the Executive Director of the Alaska
Commission on Aging. Mr. Taylor said he wasn't sure whether the
commission has had the opportunity to take a firm position on
this legislation. However, all the comments thus far have been
that the commission favors this type of legislation and
restrictions on predatory solicitations.
Number 2039
MARIE DARLIN, AARP, expressed pleasure that these hearings are
taking place. Ms. Darlin announced AARP's support of HB 448
because 50 percent of those receiving telemarketing calls are to
seniors who are often the ones that are taken advantage of by
telemarketers. In a recent survey of AARP members in Alaska,
AARP members were asked their top priorities for legislative
issues. Of the seniors age 50-59, 19 percent specified that
consumer fraud was one of the prime concerns. Of the seniors
age 75 and older, 30 percent specified that consumer fraud was
one of the prime concerns. She said AARP would like to see HB
448 passed once the concerns of the attorney general's office
are addressed. She highlighted that if HB 448 passes it won't
cost the individual to be on the [do-not-call] list.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if this legislation should include
those running for elected office.
MS. DARLIN said there don't seem to be too many complaints about
a survey that is political in nature. In fact, seniors are
often very willing to provide their opinion when their are
surveys.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER surmised then that Ms. Darlin is saying
that most AARP members wouldn't mind a candidate calling and
requesting their vote because the AARP member could ask
questions.
MS. DARLIN reiterated her former answer and indicated agreement
that the AARP member would probably ask the candidate questions.
Number 2211
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if AARP's support for HB 448 is
related to [the belief] that the "black dot system" [the do-not-
call list] isn't working.
MS. DARLIN answered that this legislation clarifies a lot of
issues. Also, the legislation doesn't require the individual to
pay to be on the [do-not-call] list.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Darlin feels that Alaskans
aren't being served by the "black dot system."
MS. DARLIN pointed out that in lots of places in the state this
system isn't even available. She pointed out that whether this
system is available or not depends upon an individual's carrier
as is the case with the fee.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD informed the committee that Alaska's
current "black dot list" includes about 2 percent of the
telephone customers in the state. The average in the states
that do this is 10-20 percent. Therefore, it seems that it
isn't being utilized [in Alaska]. Most of the other states
charge the telemarketers rather than the consumers. Having the
consumers pay to be on this list is a barrier, he related. He
noted that the cost to be on the list ranges from $6.50-$12.50.
There is even a telemarketer that has approval to charge up to
$50. Currently, many of the telemarketers utilize computer-
generated lists on which the black dot isn't specified.
Therefore, many people on the "black dot list" receive calls
from telemarketers. This legislation attempts to create a
centralized list for the entire state.
MS. DARLIN interjected that AARP members have mentioned that
they have paid to be on the "black dot list," but still receive
calls.
TAPE 02-53, SIDE B
Number 2338
DENNIS HARRIS informed the committee that he isn't on the "black
dot list" because he was opposed to paying for it. No one
should have to pay for the privilege of having an unlisted
telephone number. Furthermore, he didn't believe anyone should
have to pay for telemarketers to not call him. For what this
legislation does in that vein, he was much appreciative.
However, he expressed concern that on the state's web page, only
six solicitors are listed under the current law. Therefore, he
surmised that many of the people calling from outside the state
aren't following Alaska's law. He informed the committee that
under the federal "Junk Fax" law there is a provision that
allows people who receive junk faxes to go to small claims court
and obtain a judgment against the person who sent the junk fax.
He expressed the need for the same type of provision in HB 448
so that consumers won't have to depend upon the government or a
government contractor to enforce this. Under the federal law,
if an individual has informed someone to place him/her on the
do-not-call list and the calls continue or the
person/organization can't send the individual a copy of their
do-not-call policy the individual can take them to court. A
parallel provision in state law would be useful, he said.
MR. HARRIS expressed concern with the elderly and
[telemarketers]. However, he related his belief that the First
Amendment protects the rights of politicians who want to make
these calls. He informed the committee that people who solicit
money from him via the telephone generally don't receive money
from him permanently. Mr. Harris said that he believes this
legislation is necessary because he doesn't want to have to pay
for the black dot next to his name in the telephone book. Mr.
Harris informed the committee that most telemarketers use
predictive dialers and block their caller id as does he.
However, he suggested that this legislation require
telemarketers to unblock their caller id so that there is a way
to record the number and have it traced [so that the consumer
can] keep a record of their calls. Mr. Harris directed
attention to a recent Washington Post article in which Ms.
Manners noted her support of a national do-not-call list, which
the Federal Trade Commission is accepting comments on until
April 15th. He discussed how the device that disconnects
telemarketers works in more depth.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD informed the committee that there are
over 16 local exchanges that provide separate "black dot lists."
Many local exchanges don't sell their "black dot list" and thus
the telemarketer has to go through the telephone book.
Number 2080
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT turned to Section 2 and inquired as to why
business owners weren't included in this. In other words, why
was this legislation limited to residential telephone numbers,
he asked.
[HB 448 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
6:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|