04/11/2009 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR31 | |
| SB72 | |
| SB58 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 11, 2009
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31
Urging the United States Congress to pass the Honor the Written
Intent of our Soldier Heroes Act.
- MOVED CSHJR 31(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(STA)
"An Act relating to use of child safety seats and seat belts."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 72(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 58
"An Act establishing February 2 of each year as Marmot Day; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 58 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act relating to village public safety officers and regional
public safety officers."
- MOVED CSHB 106(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 31
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT SOLDIERS' BURIAL DESIGNATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMAS
04/01/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/01/09 (H) MLV, STA
04/07/09 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/07/09 (H) Moved CSHJR 31(MLV) Out of Committee
04/07/09 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
04/08/09 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 3DP 2NR
04/08/09 (H) DP: OLSON, BUCH, GATTO
04/08/09 (H) NR: KAWASAKI, LYNN
04/09/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/09/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/09/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/11/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 72
SHORT TITLE: CHILD SAFETY SEATS & SEAT BELTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) FRENCH
01/21/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/09 (S) TRA, STA
02/10/09 (S) TRA AT 1:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/10/09 (S) Moved SB 72 Out of Committee
02/10/09 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
02/11/09 (S) TRA RPT 5DP
02/11/09 (S) DP: KOOKESH, MENARD, DAVIS, MEYER,
PASKVAN
02/19/09 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
02/19/09 (S) Moved CSSB 72(STA) Out of Committee
02/19/09 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/20/09 (S) STA RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
02/20/09 (S) DP: MENARD, FRENCH, MEYER, PASKVAN,
KOOKESH
02/25/09 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/25/09 (S) VERSION: CSSB 72(STA)
02/27/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/09 (H) TRA, STA, FIN
03/17/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/17/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/17/09 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/19/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/19/09 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 72(TRA) Out of
Committee
03/19/09 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/23/09 (H) TRA RPT HCS(TRA) 3DP 2NR
03/23/09 (H) DP: DOOGAN, GRUENBERG, WILSON
03/23/09 (H) NR: JOHANSEN, MUNOZ
04/09/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/09/09 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 04/11/09>
04/11/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 58
SHORT TITLE: MARMOT DAY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MENARD
01/21/09 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/16/09
01/21/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/09 (S) STA, RES
03/03/09 (S) STA RPT 4DP
03/03/09 (S) DP: MEYER, FRENCH, KOOKESH, PASKVAN
03/03/09 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
03/03/09 (S) Moved SB 58 Out of Committee
03/03/09 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/09 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/13/09 (S) Moved SB 58 Out of Committee
03/13/09 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/16/09 (S) RES RPT 1DP 3NR
03/16/09 (S) DP: MCGUIRE
03/16/09 (S) NR: WIELECHOWSKI, WAGONER, STEVENS
03/25/09 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/25/09 (S) VERSION: SB 58
03/27/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/27/09 (H) STA, JUD
04/09/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/09/09 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 04/11/09>
04/11/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 106
SHORT TITLE: VILLAGE & REGIONAL PUB.SAFETY OFFICERS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOULE
02/02/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/09 (H) CRA, STA
02/26/09 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/26/09 (H) Moved CSHB 106(CRA) Out of Committee
02/26/09 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/27/09 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 6DP 1NR
02/27/09 (H) DP: CISSNA, HARRIS, GARDNER, MILLETT,
HERRON, MUNOZ
02/27/09 (H) NR: KELLER
04/09/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/09/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/09/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/11/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JOSH TEMPEL, Staff
Joint Veterans' Caucus
Senator Charlie Huggins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Joint Veterans'
Caucus during the hearing on HJR 31.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the prime sponsor of SB 72.
ANDY MODEROW, Staff
Senator Hollis French
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator French,
prime sponsor of SB 72.
NANCY MANLY, Staff
Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 72.
TIM BUNDY, Chief
Injury Prevention & Emergency Medical Services
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 72.
CINDY CASHEN, Administrator
Highway Safety Office
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
72.
JANE FELLMAN, Coordinator
Safe Kids Coalition
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 72.
MARGARET HAYASHI
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 72.
DAVID WALLACE
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 72.
ARLENE PATUC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 72.
JILL HODGES, Alaska Brain Injury Network (ABIN)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 72.
GORDON GLASER
Booster Seat Task Force
Injury Prevention & Emergency Medical Services
Division of Public Health
Department of Health & Social Services
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 72.
JANICE TOWER, Executive Director
Alaska Chapter
American Academy of Pediatrics
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the chapter in
support of SB 72.
JODYNE BUTTO, M.D., President
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Alaska Chapter
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 72.
TIM LAMKIN
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 72.
MICHAEL ROVITO, Staff
Senator Linda Menard
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 58 on behalf of Senator
Menard, prime sponsor.
SENATOR LINDA MENARD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
58, as prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, offered remarks and
answered questions during the hearing on HB 106.
ELIZABETH SAGALAQ HENSLEY, Intern
Representative Reggie Joule
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
106 on behalf of Representative Joule, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:25 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Johnson,
Petersen, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Gatto, Wilson, and Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HJR 31-SUPPORT SOLDIERS' BURIAL DESIGNATIONS
8:05:11 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31, Urging the United States Congress to
pass the Honor the Written Intent of our Soldier Heroes Act.
[Before the committee was CSHJR 31(MLV).]
8:05:51 AM
JOSH TEMPEL, Staff, Joint Veterans' Caucus, Senator Charlie
Huggins, Alaska State Legislature, stated that the proposed
resolution relates to Congressional legislation, H.R. 1633,
which pertains to a soldier's ability to designate [someone
other than a family member] to receive his/her remains in the
event he/she dies in active duty. In response to Chair Lynn,
Mr. Tempel directed attention to a "fact sheet" [included in the
committee packet], and he indicated that the $100,000 death
gratuity payment would still be made to the parent, blood
relative, or adoptive relative, but a soldier could select
anyone for direct disposition of remains - the two factors would
be separate. Mr. Tempel also indicated that the result of this
separation would prevent those with low scruples from taking
advantage of a soldier, would appease an estranged parent who
would still get the $100,000, and would allow the soldier's body
to be placed in the care of the person he/she chose for such an
event.
8:08:46 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else to
testify, closed public testimony.
8:09:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHJR 31(MLV) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 31(MLV) was
passed out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 72-CHILD SAFETY SEATS & SEAT BELTS
8:09:42 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was CS FOR
SENATE BILL NO. 72(STA), "An Act relating to use of child safety
seats and seat belts."
[Before the committee was HCS CSSB 72(TRA).]
The committee took an at-ease from 8:10:15 AM to 8:11:49 AM.
8:11:51 AM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, Alaska State Legislature, introduced SB
72 as prime sponsor. He said the proposed bill would [protect]
children who are too big for a "child" safety seat, but still
too small to wear a regular seatbelt. He explained that the
leading cause of death for children between the ages of 3 and 14
is motor vehicle accidents. Children between those ages need to
be boosted up in a car seat about four inches so that the
seatbelt lies across their sternum, not across their neck. The
device that frequently is used to do so is "a little block of
plastic." He relayed that the U.S. Department of Transportation
would give $200,000 in federal funds
8:13:41 AM
CHAIR LYNN expressed concern that a smaller than average
teenager would be upset by being told he/she had to use a
booster.
SENATOR FRENCH responded that a child who is more than 4' 8" and
weighs more than 80 pounds [would not have to use the device].
8:15:18 AM
ANDY MODEROW, Staff, Senator Hollis French, Alaska State
Legislature, testified on behalf of Senator French, prime
sponsor of SB 72. He stated that he would have been "one of the
children in a booster seat" without [Section 2, subsection (b),
paragraph (5)], which read as follows:
(5) eight years of age [FOR A CHILD SAFETY
DEVICE FOR INFANTS. IF THE CHILD IS FOUR] but less
than [NOT YET] 16 years of age who does not exceed the
height and weight requirements in (3) of this
subsection [THE CHILD] shall be properly secured in a
child safety device approved for a child of that [AGE
AND] size by the United States Department of
Transportation or in a safety belt, whichever is
appropriate for the particular child.
8:16:11 AM
NANCY MANLY, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, testified that her son is in 10th grade and weighs
less than 80 pounds. She stated, "I mentioned to him about ...
maybe having to use a booster seat, and ... it's just a big
laugh; he's not going to wear a booster seat ...." She added,
"And there is ... an exemption that says ... you don't have to
do it, but if you don't have to do it, why is it in the bill?"
8:16:46 AM
SENATOR FRENCH directed attention to [paragraph (5)] on page 2,
lines [18-23], [text provided previously], and said the term
"child safety device" used here refers to "essentially a
shoulder harness."
8:17:13 AM
MS. MANLY again questioned providing an "option," as follows:
But what I'm saying is, why is it even in the bill if
... it's already up to the parents, just take it out
of the bill.
8:17:47 AM
SENATOR FRENCH suggested that at this point in the hearing, it
may be helpful to hear from the experts available to speak. He
stated that the main intent of the bill is to access the
$200,000, not to "ticket and fine parents." He concluded, "No
one is out to harass children or harass high school kids. We're
really just trying to make the state a little bit safer and
qualify for some federal money."
8:18:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what provisions must be in the bill
in order to qualify for the federal money.
8:19:04 AM
SENATOR FRENCH deferred to other people present who could better
answer that question.
8:20:00 AM
TIM BUNDY, Chief, Injury Prevention & Emergency Medical
Services, Division of Public Health, Department of Health and
Social Services(DHSS), read a statement as follows:
Motor vehicle related injuries are the leading cause
of death in the U.S. of children between the ages of 2
and 14. In Alaska, motor vehicles crashes are the
second leading cause of hospitalization of children
who are prenatal to 14 years of age, and the leading
cause of fatality .... In 2006, seven children were
severely injured in motor vehicle crashes, and from
2002-2006, 63 children have been injured in ... motor
vehicle crashes in Alaska per the Alaska Trauma
registry.
Children who are restrained in booster seats are 59
percent less likely to be injured in a crash than
children restrained by a lap belt only. Nationally,
voluntary seatbelt inspections report 80-85 percent of
the children are improperly restrained and one-third
of the children under the age of 14 use the wrong type
of restraint. According to the Alaska Trauma
registry, greater than 85 percent of the children
hospitalized were improperly restrained with lap
belts, shoulder harnesses, or were not restrained at
all.
Current statute that references child safety devices
is confusing about specific standards for age and
weight-based restraints. The bill is designed to
eliminate the confusion about which restraints are
appropriate for each age and weight level. The bill
clarifies the type of passenger restraints required by
children of various ages and size to prevent and
minimize vehicle injuries. Currently, 43 states have
passed booster seat legislation, qualifying them for
U.S. Department of Transportation highway safety
grants.
8:22:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that he finds the language of the
bill confusing, and he asked, "How many kids will be unhurt
because we passed this legislation compared to if we don't pass
it?"
MR. BUNDY said he thinks the bill will clarify the types of
child safety seats and restraints that should be used based on a
child's height and weight. He mentioned rear-facing seats. In
response to Representative Gatto, he said many people use the
seats improperly. He said that Injury Prevention & Emergency
Medical Services has an expert who trains trainers throughout
the state on the proper use of the child safety seats and
restraints, and those trainers then relay that information to
parents and caregivers. Mr. Bundy said the biggest problem has
been that adults are unclear regarding the child safety seat
laws, and offered his understanding that SB 72 is an attempt to
clear up the confusion.
8:25:23 AM
MR. BUNDY, in response to Representative Gatto, said the Alaska
Trauma registry would have statistics showing any reductions in
the number of motor vehicle-related injuries to minors. He said
he could try to get that information. He specified that
fatalities are usually looked at nationally, while serious
injuries are listed in the aforementioned registry.
8:26:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wants to see a copy of any
statute, regulation, or policy that specifies exactly what
Alaska's state law must say.
CHAIR LYNN asked Ms. Cashen to provide that information to his
staff.
8:27:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON referred to [paragraph (5), text provided
previously], and interpreted the language to mean that a child
who is between the age of 8 and less than 16 would be required
to be in a child safety [device] "if they are not 80 pounds."
She offered her understanding that Ms. Manly had said the law
was optional; however, she said it would be law - not optional.
8:28:35 AM
MR. BUNDY read through the bill to highlight its specifications.
He interpreted [paragraph (5)] as meaning that "if you're under
16 and you're over 8, you still have to be in a seatbelt, and
you have to be restrained."
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS indicated disagreement.
8:31:47 AM
CHAIR LYNN suggested that a graph chart showing heights and
weights may be helpful.
8:32:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked where in statute a definition of
"child safety device" exists.
8:32:25 AM
CINDY CASHEN, Administrator, Highway Safety Office, Division of
Program Development, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), offered her understanding that the
description is in Anton's Law [S.980, 107 Congress, 2D Session,
a copy of which is included in the committee packet].
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that Ms. Manly had approached her
and questioned why the cut-off of 65 pounds, which is used in
federal law, is not incorporated in SB 72 so that teenagers
would not have to use a child safety device.
MS. CASHEN responded that SB 72 would exempt anyone over the age
of eight from having to [sit in] a booster seat. In response to
disagreement, she directed attention to the language [on page 2,
lines 15-16], which read: "or in a safety belt, whichever is
appropriate for the particular child."
8:34:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined, "This is one of the most
confusingly drafted statutes I have seen in a long time." He
opined that the federal regulations should have been
incorporated.
8:37:53 AM
MS. CASHEN, in response to Representative Gruenberg, explained
that the provision in [paragraph (5)] of SB 72 is not language
that is found in federal regulation, but is language that is
supported by the federal government.
8:38:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 2, lines 3-4,
regarding the standards of the U.S. Department of
Transportation. He mentioned the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) and asked if there are any
differences between the standards set by "the [U.S.] Department
of Transportation and the language you're proposing in this
bill."
MS. CASHEN asked Representative Seaton to clarify if he wants to
know whether NHTSA standards have changed "between our law and
this bill."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded, "No, I believe that what you're
doing here is just incorporating NHTSA standards."
MS. CASHEN said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated the following:
When we dealt with this before, we ... cited the DOT
standards, so that we would not have to come back and
redo them when NHTSA ... will change the standards at
some point in time and we wouldn't have to create a
new law. So, that's what our current law says. And
apparently the Department of Public Safety cannot
interpret or cannot somehow figure out what the
national standards are - even though they're on the
DOT web site. And the purpose for having this whole
law here is to come in and -- parents aren't going to
read this. I mean, parents don't go to the statute
books and read the statutes. This is solely here so
that the police can more easily understand what the
statute is, because it's the same statute as we're
currently enforcing; these are the DOT standards,
there's no change.
I think it's very confusing. You know, we tried to
get around it two years ago when we passed the law
establishing the DOT standards. We do have those
standards enforced. I don't know why we're not
getting the $200,000, because that should have taken
care of it. But apparently we have the government
saying that they don't want to enforce it.
So, my question again is: what we're putting here,
whether it's up to 16 and all of those things, those
are the currently required ... standards on line for
here, and they're the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Is that correct?
MS. CASHEN answered that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wants everyone to understand
"we're not changing anything in the law." He continued:
This has nothing to do with these [regulations]. The
standards are published ... in the Department of
Transportation, and if you go to their web site,
you'll find all this exact same stuff that we're
putting in here. And the only reason we're putting it
in here - we're changing our law - is because the
Department of Public Safety cannot go to the DOT web
site and see what is required for them to enforce.
8:41:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered her understanding that Ms. Cashen
had said that [paragraph (5)] is totally different from federal
law and that Alaska had been commended by the U.S. Government
for including that language.
MS. CASHEN confirmed that SB 72 goes beyond federal regulations
by including language regarding children who weigh greater than
65 pounds. She said, "Chief Council ... supports states that
provide a broader definition, ... but it's not a requirement."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON clarified then that her conclusion is that
"this indeed is not the same as the federal law."
MS. CASHEN answered that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered her understanding that Ms. Cashen
had previously told Representative Seaton that [SB 72] is the
same as the federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he meant that [SB 72] is
the same as [Alaska's] current law, which requires that the
state enforce the standards of the U.S. Department of
Transportation. He proffered that for some reason, even with
the current law in place, police departments are having trouble
understanding what the Department of Transportation [& Public
Facilities'] web site says.
8:43:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed to [the language in paragraph (5)
that is written in upper case within brackets and is bold and
underlined], and she concluded that the language of the law is
being changed.
8:44:24 AM
MS. CASHEN clarified that current Alaska law requires the use of
proper safety devices for children under the age of 16, but it
does not specify which device must be used based on the child's
age, height, and weight. In response to a request from
Representative Wilson for further clarification, Ms. Cashen said
she believes Representative Seaton is talking about the U.S.
Department of Transportation's federal standards. She explained
that when a booster seat meets the U.S. Department of
Transportation's standards, that approval is designated with a
sticker, which then informs an enforcement officer whether or
not a child is sitting in a DOT-approved booster seat. In
response to Representative Wilson, she restated that [the
language of paragraph (5) of SB 72] does not appear in federal
law.
CHAIR LYNN asked if [paragraph (5)] must be in the language of
SB 72 in order to qualify for the $200,000.
MS. CASHEN answered no.
8:46:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON directed attention to a [five-page list
of child restraint laws in all 50 states and the District of
Columbia, included in the committee packet], and offered his
understanding that no other state requires a restraining device
for children over the age of eight. He asked Ms. Cashen if that
is accurate.
MS. CASHEN answered that since the list is a summary of the
states' laws, she would have to read each state's law entirely
to be able to answer that question with certainty.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, in response to Representative Wilson,
explained that the information on which he was basing his
observation is found in the column [marked, "Must be in a child
restraint."] He asked Ms. Cashen if she would say that based on
the information in the list, there are no states with the
aforementioned requirement.
8:48:44 AM
MS. CASHEN responded that she believes that would be an accurate
assessment based on the information in the list.
8:48:57 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked about the origins of the language in [paragraph
(5)].
MS. CASHEN deferred to the bill sponsor.
MR. MODEROW indicated that [paragraph (5)] clarifies that "a
child seat could be used for a parent who wants that added
protection for their child."
8:51:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that the drafting of SB 72
is problematic. He said that getting rid of [paragraph (5)]
would mean deleting the entire paragraph - new and existing
language. He said that Jerry Luckhaupt, the bill drafter, told
him that he had been reading [paragraph (4)] as "between four
and eight years of age," but Representative Gruenberg said that
is not how it reads. He indicated that deleting "all the
current language in the current law that's not even bracketed"
in [paragraph (5)] would "achieve the result these folks are
talking about." Representative Gruenberg said the federal
regulations are slightly confusing. He referred to page 5112 of
the aforementioned Federal Register, and noted that there are
references made to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) "and
some regulations." He said Alaska is enforcing child restraint
laws that conform to the federal requirements, and he asked if
the bill sponsor could provide the language of those statutes
and regulations.
MR. MODEROW assured Representative Gruenberg that although the
language of those statutes and regulations is not on hand for
the committee, "federal counsel" has reviewed each draft of SB
72 and certified that the language in them fulfills the needs
for the federal grant and meets certain standards. He said he
cannot speak to those standards in particular.
8:54:44 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said he thinks some of the debate over [paragraph
(5)] is a result of not focusing on the word "or" on page 2,
line 22. He said the "or" means a [child eight years of age but
less than 16] can be in a child safety device or wear a safety
belt, "whichever is appropriate".
CHAIR LYNN said that seems rather simple.
8:55:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is confused because he thought the
intent of [paragraph (5)] is to define what is appropriate for a
child under 57 inches and under 80 pounds who is of a certain
age, as stated previously. He added, "It seems like we're
putting in a caveat that says ... but if you're under 80 pounds
you're in violation of the other because it's not going to be
the appropriate device." He questioned whether this language
would put parents and police in a quandary. He explained that
he is trying to figure out what the police would do if they
found someone who is 65 pounds wearing just a seatbelt.
SENATOR FRENCH said he thinks the point Representative Seaton is
making is the same point as Ms. Manly was making, and is the
reason for [paragraph (5)]. The language would, for example,
give a parent the choice to put their "thin, little nine-year-
old" into a seatbelt if he/she throws a fit at the idea of being
put into a child safety device.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he had thought it would be the police
that would decide what is appropriate, however [it seems] the
sponsor actually means what is appropriate in the view of the
parents. He said if that is the case, then he thinks the
language should be more specific "so that we don't have people
getting citations for following what they think is the law."
8:59:07 AM
MR. MODEROW responded that the proposed bill deals with height,
age, and weight, "and so when they start lining up there's some
difficulty." Current statute reads like [paragraph (5)], but
without the proposed new language regarding height and weight
requirements from [paragraph (3)]. The "whichever is
appropriate" language is already in statute.
9:00:22 AM
JANE FELLMAN, Coordinator, Safe Kids Coalition, told the
committee that she has been a child passenger safety technician
since 1998 and is currently a child passenger safety instructor.
She indicated that [the proposed bill] is confusing. Regarding
state law, she stated, "We've always had the law that said
whichever is appropriate, but it has fallen out of the realm of
... NHTSA and the guidelines saying that we qualify as having
... a booster seat law. That's why we've gone through all this
concern about updating ... and clarifying our current law." She
recognized Representative Seaton's efforts in the past to
improve the language of the law, but it is still necessary to
include the correct wording so that the state does qualify.
MS. FELLMAN related that her job is to educate the public as to
the safest practice. She said part of that education includes
talking about the law. Although there is one group of the
population who will do the safest thing for their children
whether or not it is required by law, there is another group of
the population who looks to the law for guidance.
MS. FELLMAN indicated that the purpose of SB 72 is to fill a
gap. She explained that there are many children between the
ages of 4 and 10 who are riding in vehicles unsafely. She said
it is a simple process to put a child in a booster seat that
will allow the child to then correctly wear an adult seatbelt.
She related that at age 10, one of her children still had to
ride in a booster seat in one of the family vehicles, but not
the other. She opined that "we" owe it to children and the
state of Alaska to "get children into these seats," which is why
SB 72 is critical.
MS. FELLMAN said teenagers are another issue. It is important
to ensure they wear seatbelts correctly and use a booster when
necessary. She talked about the changes in manufacturing
vehicles, and she said she has seen adults in booster seats.
She warned, "But if we delete ... [paragraph (5)] and don't
address the ages between 8 and 16, we're creating a whole new
gap of children that aren't going to be protected." She
concluded by encouraging the committee to support the proposed
legislation. She added, "It will save lives and there are a lot
of gray areas and I appreciate it."
9:06:04 AM
MARGARET HAYASHI told the committee that she has been an
emergency nurse for 43 years and has seen the trauma resulting
from improper use of child restraint devices. She said that as
a child passenger safety instructor, she has checked hundreds of
seats, and thousands of seats have been checked since "this
program" began in 1997. She stated, "The reason that we've
moved to do this is because there is a misunderstanding of our
current law ... [by] not only policemen, but families." She
indicated that "the clarification that you see before you today"
resulted from the feedback of several parents. She said, "What
we've done is in each category we've addressed what is necessary
to restrain a child properly, and our current law does not do
that - it says whichever is appropriate according to DOT's
standards." Ms. Hayashi said unfortunately nobody ever goes
back and looks at DOT's standards. She indicated that there is
a drop in the number of children after age four who are being
put in booster seats; instead they are being put in seatbelts.
MS. HAYASHI said vehicle manufacturers have said that seats and
lap/shoulder belts are not configured for children or adults
under 4 foot 9 inches in height. She said what happens when
children [under that height] use a seat belt [without benefit of
a child safety device or booster seat] is they take the top
portion of the harness and put it behind them, which leaves them
restrained only by a lap belt, which is disastrous in the event
of a crash. Ms. Hayashi said she has seen the result of that
practice in emergency rooms over the years. She indicated that
[because of providing education regarding the use of child
safety devices] the percentage of misuse has dropped from 90
percent to approximately 85 percent. She noted that child
safety devices are now made for children up to 100 pounds,
because "it is the safest way for children to travel."
MS. HAYASHI opined, "As parents and as grandparents, if you deal
with this on a day-to-day basis, you actually can read and
understand what this says." She stated that [SB 72] is vital.
She spoke of two children, seven and eight years of age, who
died as a result of a catastrophic vehicle crash and not being
properly restrained.
9:10:05 AM
DAVID WALLACE told the committee that he is a paramedic with the
Anchorage Fire Department who spends time as a child passenger
safety technician instructor, and he is testifying as a parent.
Mr. Wallace said he has a six-year-old who is reaching the
height requirements but is still under the weight limit, and a
booster seat is still the most appropriate way for her to be
restrained in the back seat of the vehicle. Mr. Wallace said SB
72 is not only important for law enforcement, but is also
important to the education of parents. He said parents do look
to the law for guidance on how to best take care of their
children and on what the best practice is. Mr. Wallace said SB
72 would provide a defined criteria for each age group so that
parents have a way to ensure that their children are safely
restrained while riding in a vehicle. He encouraged the
committee to support the proposed legislation.
9:11:49 AM
ARLENE PATUC testified that she is an RN and a child passenger
safety technician for 10 years. She said she thinks parents who
read the bill are confused and think that a child between four
and eight years of age can be put in a lap/shoulder belt. She
explained that the lap portion of a lap/shoulder harness seat
belt, when used on a child, crosses the child's body above the
hip bone. Therefore, in a vehicular accident, the first "strong
point" in the body that that belt hits is the spine, which would
cause massive internal and spinal injury. Ms. Patuc said that
as a discharge planner, she has had the opportunity to discharge
children with complex medical conditions. The $200,000 the
state stands to gain by meeting federal standards is a "drop in
the bucket" compared to the cost of spinal or head injuries. It
is a massive impact on the family and community. She urged the
committee to support SB 72.
9:13:43 AM
JILL HODGES, Alaska Brain Injury Network (ABIN), said people are
not the same size and shape, but each person has a brain. She
said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states
that traumatic brain injury is the leading cause of death and
disability among children. Ms. Hodges said during past
presentations by ABIN, many legislators have asked what the
legislature can do to help decrease the numbers of traumatic
brain injuries that occur. She stated that passing SB 72 today
is one the things that can be done.
9:14:59 AM
GORDON GLASER, Booster Seat Task Force, Injury Prevention &
Emergency Medical Services, Division of Public Health,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), told the
committee that he is involved in child passenger safety
training. He said, "I just want to echo the words that were
said before me." Regarding a previous question as to whether
passing legislation such as SB 72 would have an impact, Mr.
Glaser noted that research conducted by Children's Hospital in
Philadelphia indicates that those states that have passed such
legislation saw an increase in the use of child safety
restraints from 21 percent to 75 percent for children ages four
to five. He said although there is no way to provide a
definitive number of how many will be saved, of the 39 four- to
eight-year-olds who were injured in Alaska over a five-year
period, 15 were in safety belt harnesses, 9 were in lap belts
only, and 11 were unrestrained - none were in boosters or
[children's car seats]. Mr. Glaser stated that SB 72 will have
a direct impact not only in terms of medical costs, but also in
preventing injuries and securing some federal funds.
MR. GLASER said [paragraph (5)] would offer clarification. He
commended Representative Seaton's past efforts to get a ruling
from the attorney general to encourage compliance. He said, "It
was sent to all the police chiefs," but "unfortunately, without
the clarifying legislation that you have before you, it was just
not something that the police officers could enforce nor parents
could easily understand."
9:17:47 AM
JANICE TOWER, Executive Director, Alaska Chapter, American
Academy of Pediatrics, reported that a 20007 National Survey of
the Use of Booster Seats, conducted by NHTSA's National Center
for Statistics and Analysis revealed that booster seat use rate
for children ages six and seven dropped from 36 percent in 2006
to 25 percent in 2007. The study concluded that there is a
premature graduation of children from birth to age 12 to
restraint types that are inappropriate for their height and
weight.
MS. TOWER said the chapter feels that SB 72 would help increase
the use of booster seats and alleviate confusion [regarding
their proper use]. She stated her belief that pediatricians are
committed to counseling parents during doctor's visits.
9:19:05 AM
JODYNE BUTTO, M.D., President, American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP) Alaska Chapter, stated that AAP, in cooperation with NHTSA
developed guidelines to fully spell out proper use of booster
seats and "five-point" harnesses. She said it benefits children
to be restrained properly while riding as passengers in motor
vehicles, especially in the winter time when driving can be
challenging. She stated that AAP fully supports SB.
9:20:30 AM
TIM LAMKIN told the committee that although he works for Senator
Gary Stevens, he is testifying today on his own behalf as a
concerned parent. He voiced concern that there is both a height
and weight requirement. He remarked that a booster seat "makes
you taller." He mentioned regulations and Anton's Law, and
stated, "Nowhere in the literature does it require that you be a
certain minimum weight to lawfully or safely transition to a
standard seatbelt."
MR. LAMKIN urged the committee to consider amending the bill to
reduce the proposed 80-pound requirement and delete [paragraph
(5)]. He said he thinks the language of [paragraph (4)] - which
states that those over four years of age who exceed the height
and weight requirements "in (3) of this subsection shall be
properly secured in a seat belt" - "logically covers all the
bases." He stated, "If we're trying to set the law up such that
we can get these grant monies, there's already a loophole in
existence and we're not changing that loophole. So, it seems to
me that we continue to set ourselves up for being denied those
funds."
MR. LAMKIN offered his understanding that "this law was passed
in 2002 with $5 million at the federal level for four fiscal
years." He questioned whether the money is really still there.
He further questioned the need to create law in which a mandate
includes a choice.
9:23:57 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
9:25:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, as
follows:
On page 2, line 23:
Following "child"
Insert "as determined by the driver"
9:25:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said Conceptual Amendment 1 would clarify
that the driver of the vehicle would be the individual to make
the determination as to which child safety device is the most
appropriate for children under 16 - not a police officer. He
stated his understanding that that is what is currently in law,
but it is not explicit.
9:26:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN questioned whether Conceptual Amendment
1 would remove any course of action for a police officer who
pulls over a driver and discovers a child in the vehicle
improperly restrained.
9:27:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered no. He explained that Conceptual
Amendment 1 would clarify that a parent could choose whether it
is more appropriate for his/her child to wear a child safety
device or an adult seatbelt. However, it would not eliminate
the requirement for a child to be secured in a seat.
9:28:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:28:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, Line 11:
Delete: "80"
Insert: "65"
Page 2, Lines 18-23
Delete all material
9:28:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected. He asked Representative Johnson
if he would divide the question.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would have no problem with that.
9:29:08 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved to amend Amendment 2, such that it would read
as follows:
Page 2, Line 11:
Delete: "80"
Insert: "65"
[The remainder of Amendment 2 was considered Amendment 3, and
read as follows:]
Page 2, Lines 18-23
Delete all material
9:29:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON spoke to Amendment 2, as amended. He
said it would bring Alaska into concurrence with every other
state in the union and into compliance with federal regulations.
He said he appreciates the accolades that have been received
from the federal government for proposing language above and
beyond federal requirements; however, he said he thinks
Amendment 2, as amended, would eliminate many of the problems
related to weight and height requirements and address the
testimony of "a concerned parent here this morning."
9:30:15 AM
SENATOR FRENCH responded that after hearing from EMS responders,
pediatricians, and other professionals, [Amendment 2, as
amended] is not a step he would take without detailed analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON looked again at other states statistics
and noted that none of the weight requirements exceed 60 pounds.
He indicated that the studies and testimony that the committee
has heard thus far "may only be dealing with those states in
those areas where we're dealing with children under the ...
weight of 65 pounds."
9:32:22 AM
SENATOR FRENCH explained that his reluctance is based on the
related experience of those who have testified.
9:32:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that both North Carolina and
North Dakota have a weight requirement set at 80 pounds. He
said he would like to hear Ms. Cashen's opinion regarding
[Amendment 2, as amended].
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed out that the age limit set by
North Carolina and North Dakota are seven and six, respectively.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that
Wisconsin's child restraint law also goes to 80 pounds.
9:33:10 AM
MS. CASHEN prefaced her remarks by relating that the Office of
Highway Safety is responsible for administering the
aforementioned federal funds to programs based on the
requirements of NHTSA. She then stated that the 65 pounds is a
federal requirement, while the 80 pounds is a recommendation
from APA, CDC, and "all the Health & Social Services."
9:33:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his recollection that he had made
an objection and he removed that objection.
9:34:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected [to the amendment to Amendment
2].
9:34:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to amend Amendment 2, as amended, to
change "65" to "70".
9:34:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected. He said he wants to stick with
the federal limit of 65 pounds.
9:35:19 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wilson and
Gruenberg voted in favor of the amendment to Amendment 2, as
amended. Representatives Petersen, Seaton, Gatto, Johnson, and
Lynn voted against it. Therefore, the amendment to Amendment 2,
as amended, failed by a vote of 2-5.
9:35:55 AM
[REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained his objection to Amendment
2, as amended.]
9:36:06 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gatto, Johnson, and
Seaton voted in favor of Amendment 2, as amended.
Representatives Wilson, Gruenberg, Petersen, and Lynn voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 2, as amended, failed by a
vote of 3-4.
9:37:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt Amendment 3 [text provided
previously].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.
9:37:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON observed that [paragraph (4)] would
provide that any child over age four who exceeds the height and
weight requirements "in (3) of this subsection " shall be
"properly secured in a seat belt", while [paragraph (5)]
provides that any child from age eight through fifteen "who does
not exceed the height and weight requirements in (3) of this
subsection" shall wear either the child safety device or a
safety belt, "whichever is appropriate". She stated, "That
makes more sense to me know than it did before; however, I feel
that if we would have changed the weight to ... 70, then I would
feel a lot more comfortable ... to keep this part in. But at 80
pounds, that's just too much." She said she also thinks the age
is wrong, that the age of 13 should be the cut-off point. She
explained, "I think the problem is that we're clear up into
teenagers and that's just not going to fly."
9:40:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said eliminating [paragraph (5)] would
result in lowering the state's current seatbelt standards. He
said someone who is tall can have a slim build. He said, "I
think with the addition that it's clarified that the driver gets
to make the determination, if they're 15 I think that that gets
us to where we ... can be. I also would have like to have seen
a little less on the weight, but I think that this will take
care of the circumstances that we need to take care of, and so,
I won't support Amendment 3."
9:41:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative Johnson if the
current law would be eliminated if Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON replied that it is his intention to leave
the law the way it is.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that
Representative Johnson means that if Amendment 3 were to be
adopted, the language of [paragraph (5)] would read as follows:
[FOR A CHILD SAFETY DEVICE FOR INFANTS. IF THE CHILD
IS FOUR] but [NOT YET] 16 years of age [, THE CHILD]
shall be properly secured in a child safety device
approved for a child of that [AGE AND] size by the
United States Department of Transportation or in a
safety belt, whichever is appropriate for the
particular child.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated, "I don't think that that
measures with the rest of the bill."
9:42:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded that his concern is not with
anyone under the age of eight, but with the proposed weight
requirement, because there may be a person who is under 80
pounds and 15 years of age. He continued:
I think having them pulled over -- "as deemed by the
parent or the driver" I think is what the actual
amendment was goes a long way to satisfy what I want
to do.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for the chair's permission to make
Amendment 3 conceptual.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for further clarification of what
changes would be made by [Conceptual] Amendment 3.
CHAIR LYNN reminded the committee that the amendment was
conceptual and should be worked out "in the conceptual form."
9:44:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON withdrew Conceptual Amendment 3. He said
he thinks "the driver amendment that we adopted earlier" makes
Conceptual Amendment 3 moot.
9:44:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked how parents might be informed of
any changes made to the law.
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks the word will be spread as it is with
other legislation.
9:46:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that a person 14 years of age
might be a driver, because at that age he/she is eligible to
have a driver's permit.
9:46:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4, on
page 2, line 19, to change "16" to an age that includes 13.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to hear from Ms. Cashen.
9:48:35 AM
MS. CASHEN responded that Conceptual Amendment 4 would not
disqualify the state [to receive the $200,000], because
[paragraph (5)] is not required.
9:49:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected to Conceptual Amendment 4. He
explained that a driver with a learner's permit has to be under
the supervision of a licensed driver, which he said he thinks
covers Representative Wilson's concern.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN suggested clarifying that the driver
must be licensed.
9:50:34 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said he does not support [Conceptual Amendment
4].
9:50:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON clarified that Conceptual Amendment 4
would read "less than 14 years of age" in order to include those
age 13.
9:50:59 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johnson and Wilson
voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 4. Representatives
Gatto, Gruenberg, Petersen, Seaton, and Lynn voted against it.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-5.
9:51:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HCS CSSB 72(TRA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection HCS
CSSB 72(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
SB 58-MARMOT DAY
9:52:09 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that next order of business was SENATE BILL
NO. 58, "An Act establishing February 2 of each year as Marmot
Day; and providing for an effective date."
The committee took an at-ease from 9:53:01 AM to 9:54:03 AM.
9:54:27 AM
MICHAEL ROVITO, Staff, Senator Linda Menard, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced SB 58 on behalf of Senator Menard, prime
sponsor. He said the proposed legislation would establish
February 2nd of each year as Marmot Day, thereby creating a
localized, Alaskan version of Groundhog Day. Mr. Rovito opined
that the Wooley Marmot, abundant in Alaska, embodies the state's
natural beauty.
MR. ROVITO pointed out that by creating Marmot Day, Alaska would
have a new tradition. He emphasized the importance of
traditions and symbols to a state. He spoke of the state's
population and the number of students in Alaska, and opined,
"Establishing traditions for these residents and students is
important legislation." Mr. Rovito talked about the unique
features of Alaska, and opined that a Marmot Day holiday would
"uphold that uniqueness." Furthermore, he suggested, activities
and events that would promote tourism could be stylized around
Marmot Day. He named some supporters of SB 58, including the
Alaska Zoo and the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) School District.
MR. ROVITO relayed that when he moved to Alaska from Ohio, he
was impressed with the abundance of marmots and how amazing the
creature is. He urged the committee to support SB 58.
9:57:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he presumes that since there is a
zero fiscal note, the proposed legislation would not establish a
new state holiday.
SENATOR LINDA MENARD, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the
prime sponsor of SB 58, answered that is correct. She noted
that Alaska has only been a state going on 50 years, thus other
states that have existed for up to 230 years are ahead of Alaska
in having symbols and traditions. She recognized that the
legislature addresses vital issues; however, as a certified
teacher who has served on a school board, she indicated how
important [SB 58] would be to school children. She listed some
other animals that are symbols for Alaska. She noted that
almost 20 percent of the population of Alaska is comprised of
school children, which Senator Menard explained is why she is
promoting "a few symbolic things that we can add to our list."
9:59:42 AM
SENATOR MENARD, in response to Chair Lynn, confirmed that the
Wooley Marmot is related to wood chuck and ground hog. In
response to comments from Representatives Gatto and Johnson
regarding any significance that the marmot might have in
replacing the ground hog, Senator Menard related that her late
husband had held a keen interest in having Alaska "use the
marmot instead of the ground hog." She stated, "I think the
intention, and what I'm trying to get through, is we have our
own unique local hire, and that is the marmot. And so, that's
why I chose to keep it at February 2nd."
10:01:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she came to the meeting not liking SB
58, but has since changed her mind. She concurred that [the
marmot] is unique and it would be "neat" for Alaskan children to
be able to boast that they celebrate Marmot Day rather than
Groundhog Day.
10:01:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the state would prohibit the
shooting of the Wooley Marmot if it were to be designated as an
official state animal.
SENATOR MENARD offered her understanding that Wooley Marmots
could still be hunted.
MR. ROVITO clarified that SB 58 would not establish the Wooley
Marmot as a state animal, but rather it would simply create
Marmot Day as a way to "honor" the marmot.
SENATOR MENARD noted that the moose is Alaska's official land
mammal and it is hunted.
10:03:22 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
10:03:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report SB 58 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, SB 58 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
10:04:22 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:04 a.m. to 10:05 a.m.
HB 106-VILLAGE & REGIONAL PUB.SAFETY OFFICERS
10:05:57 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 106, "An Act relating to village public safety officers
and regional public safety officers."
[Before the committee was CSHB 106(CRA).]
10:06:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 106, Version 26-LS0402\W, Luckhaupt, 4/9/09, as a
work draft.
10:06:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Version W incorporates an
amendment adopted at the last committee hearing, which changed
the word "and" to "or" between "corporations" and
"municipalities", on page 1, line 6.
10:06:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version W was before the committee as a work
draft.
10:06:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE, Alaska State Legislature, indicated
that he would like a member of the committee to offer an
amendment to Version W.
10:07:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26-
LS0402\W.6, Luckhaupt, 4/10/09, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 12, through page 2, line 6:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 18.65.670(b) is amended to read:
(b) With funds appropriated for that purpose, the
commissioner of public safety shall provide grants to
nonprofit regional corporations for village public
safety officers. If a nonprofit regional corporation
for a rural area declines a grant under this
subsection, the commissioner may provide the grant to
a municipality with a population of less than 10,000
willing to administer the grant for the rural area.
Before awarding a grant to a municipality, the
commissioner shall consult with the nonprofit regional
corporation that declined the grant. The commissioner
of public safety shall coordinate with the
commissioner of corrections when providing grants
under this section, and the commissioners shall
jointly execute an agreement with the nonprofit
regional corporations or municipalities, as
appropriate."
Page 2, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 18.65.670 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) In this section, "rural area" means a
community with a population of less than 1,000 within
(1) the unorganized borough; or
(2) a borough, if the community is not
connected by road to Anchorage or Fairbanks."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
10:07:24 AM
CHAIR LYNN objected for discussion purposes.
10:07:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said Amendment 1 is a response to concern
that HB 106 should benefit all communities in the state. He
said he worked with the bill sponsor to formulate the language.
He said it would allow municipalities to administer grants for
the Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) program when it is more
efficient for them to do so. Amendment 1 also provides a
definition of "rural area". He noted that the definition
includes all the communities that have had VPSOs.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he supports Amendment 1.
10:09:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
said there is no VPSO in Eklutna. Furthermore, he indicated
that there would be no possibility [for Eklutna to have VPSOs].
10:10:16 AM
ELIZABETH SAGALAQ HENSLEY, Intern, Representative Reggie Joule,
Alaska State Legislature, in response to Representative Wilson,
confirmed that in the Northwest Arctic Region, there is a
nonprofit [corporation] that does not wish to administer the
[VPSO] program, whereas the borough in that region does.
10:10:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON questioned if Chitna, which is connected
by road, would be eligible for a VPSO under [Amendment 1]. He
noted that that community's population is less than 1,000.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER indicated that [Chitna] is an
unorganized borough.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked, "So, they would be eligible?"
[There was no audible answer.]
10:11:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
10:12:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed concern that [Version W, as
amended] is inclusive rather than exclusive.
10:12:41 AM
MS. HENSLEY offered her belief that any eligible community that
wishes to [administer a VPSO program] would not be excluded.
10:13:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 106, Version 26-LS0402\W, Luckhaupt,
4/9/09, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 106(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
10:14:18 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:14
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|