Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/29/2019 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB71 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 29, 2019
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Shelley Hughes, Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Peter Micciche
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 71
"An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as
recommended by the revisor of statutes."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 71
SHORT TITLE: 2019 REVISOR'S BILL
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
03/01/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/19 (S) STA, JUD
04/12/19 (S) STA REFERRAL WAIVED
04/29/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
Senator John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 71 on behalf of the Senate
Rules Standing Committee.
JEAN MISCHEL, Revisor of Statutes
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the changes in the revisor's bill,
SB 71.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:30:06 PM
CHAIR SHELLEY HUGHES called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Reinbold, Kiehl, and Chair Hughes.
SB 71-2019 REVISOR'S BILL
1:30:30 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the only order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 71, "An Act making corrective amendments to the
Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes."
1:31:14 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, said that SB 71 was introduced by the
Senate Rules Standing Committee at the request of the
Legislative Council. She explained that the Legislative Legal
Services reviews approximately 10-12 titles in statutes each
year, as well as the Constitution of the State of Alaska. She
explained that the revisor of statutes makes changes to conform
to the legislative drafting manual, to correct grammatical
errors, and to eliminate obsolete statutes.
1:31:53 PM
JEAN MISCHEL, Revisor of Statutes, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, Juneau, explained that the agency
conducts a scheduled review of all of the statutes over the
course of five or six years, rotating through all of the titles,
including the Constitution of the State of Alaska. This bill was
the result of about one and one-half years of work conducted by
the agency's editors, drafting attorneys, and the publisher.
This year the agency reviewed Title 6 and several other titles.
Some titles required very few changes, either because they were
previously interpreted by the courts or because the relevant
departments have interpreted the provisions, even if they were
drafted inconsistent with the legislative drafting manual. She
offered to review the changes in SB 71 by grouping them into
types of changes.
1:33:25 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked what she said about the Constitution of
the State of Alaska.
MS. MISCHEL answered that the agency periodically reviews the
Constitution of the State of Alaska for any technical errors,
which are not normally found or changed. For example, a change
may pertain to a capitalization or it may happen that a case
interpreted a provision. If so, the revisor might make a
reference to it in the notes following the constitution, she
said.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she was not aware that the revisor
reviewed the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
1:34:15 PM
MS. MISCHEL detailed the changes she made as revisor. She said
that grammatical changes were made in Sections 1-6. She
explained that the bill drafters strive to draft legislation
using the active voice and to avoid using shorted terms such as
exam for examination. The language "early chartered" should not
have been hyphenated in AS 06.01.010(e), she said.
CHAIR HUGHES referred to the memorandum dated February 28, 2019
from Legislative Legal Services that provided a sectional
summary of the 2019 revisor's bill. She said that the memo
indicates certain sections delete repealer updates, some
sections correct errors or oversights, and some sections improve
the form or substance of the law. She asked her to explain
"substance" because it seems to imply content.
MS. MISCHEL answered that there are two meanings for substance.
The revisor and bill drafters do not intend to change any
substantive legal effect in legislation, but occasionally words
are relocated or deleted. For example, the bill drafters will
remove definitions that are no longer used in the statutes. The
agency considers those changes of substance, even if it does not
have any legal effect, she said.
CHAIR HUGHES said that since the document was posted online, she
thought it would be helpful to clarify that this bill is not
addressing substantive changes to law.
1:35:45 PM
MS. MISCHEL clarified that if anyone were to suggest that a
change had a substantive legal effect, the agency would remove
that provision. She said that she was not aware of any
substantive changes and she had carefully reviewed the bill. She
agreed that the sectional summary generally consists of three
different categories of changes. These changes all use the
statutory basis for making changes to the current statutes under
AS.01.05.036.
MS. MISCHEL reviewed the sectional summary. She said that
Sections 1-6 were changed to improve form and not substance.
1:36:35 PM
MS. MISCHEL read Sections 7 and 8.
Bill section 7 amends AS 06.50.400(c) to update a
cross-reference to the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Bill section 8 amends AS 06.55.406(a) to remove a
cross-reference to a federal regulation that is
covered by a cross-reference to the federal statute.
She explained that the agency is biased against referring to
federal regulations since they change frequently.
1:37:03 PM
MS. MISCHEL said that in Section 9 a comma was removed and the
language "but not limited to," was removed.
MS. MISCHEL stated that in Section 10 and several other sections
she removed an obsolete reference to "telegraphs" since these
are no longer available in the state or the country. The agency
took the opportunity to remove all references to "telegraphs"
and "telegrams", including a crime involving "telegraphs." She
said at the end of the sectional a lot of the repealers
pertained to "telegraphs" and "telegrams". She noted that she
placed the text of repealed provisions in the sectional for
members' review.
1:38:10 PM
MS. MISCHEL said she was unsure of the level of detail the
committee wanted to hear since many corrections involved comma
placement. She said that the editor, Lexus Publishing, seeks to
correct commas in the statutes. However, if the drafting
attorneys, editors, and she as the revisor, determine that it
has a substantive effect, the agency would not insert or remove
a comma. She explained that the commas in [the bill] are simply
for clarification and grammar purposes and not intended to
change any provision or its effect.
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether any Oxford comma debates arise, such
as "I really like my parents, humpty-dumpty, and Lady Gaga."
MS. MISCHEL answered that some Oxford commas were added in the
bill to clarify that it was a serial list rather than grouping
the last two clauses.
She said the revisor and drafters changed "Alaska" to "state"
per the [Manual of Legislative Drafting]. The drafters also
removed some arcane phrasing, such as "it being understood" and
changed it to an active voice in Section 14, she said.
1:39:47 PM
MS. MISCHEL said that Sections 15-18 all reference the Alaska
State Bar. These were fairly bold statutes that had some
improper references and use of pronouns, she said. For example,
the title for the Council of Legal Education of the American Bar
changed, so the agency updated the reference.
1:40:20 PM
MS. MISCHEL referred to changes in Section 19, which were all
grammatical changes. For example, the language "provided that"
was replaced with ["if"] for consistency with the Manual of
Legislative Drafting.
She said that a reference to "Alaska" in Section 20 was changed
to "the state" consistent with the Manual of Legislative
Drafting.
1:40:47 PM
MS. MISCHEL said that changes in Sections 20-22 removed the term
"telegraph."
She reviewed the changes in Section 23. She noted that "the
department" was already defined for purposes of AS 08.48
regarding architects and landscape architects, so the drafters
removed the whole phrasing "the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED)" and replaced it with
"the department." She said that the language "whether or not" is
redundant so "or not" was removed. She said that change was also
made in Sections 23-26. She said that the definition of
department was added to Section 27.
1:41:53 PM
MS. MISCHEL explained that Section 28 fixed an omission by
adding a definition for "opioid" in the statutes relating to
optometrist licensing. That definition should have been added
when the restrictions on opioid prescriptions were added to AS
08.72 when it was changed for all the other health care
professionals. She explained that a definition was added, which
was identical to the one in Section 28.
1:42:32 PM
CHAIR HUGHES referred to page 11. She noted that the language
"but not limited to" was removed. She asked whether it was
standard that when "including" was used that it would be
necessary to add "only." She said she wanted to be certain that
whatever followed was not limited, even if the words were
removed.
MS. MISCHEL answered that Title 1 describes the word "including"
as meaning "but not limited to" so every time that phrase was
inserted into the statutes, it was redundant. She said if it
were to be limited to one item or a list of items, the drafters
would not use the word "including."
1:43:22 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Section 29.
Bill section 29 fixes a word usage error by
substituting the phrase "provides outpatient
dispensing" for "dispenses", consistent with the
defined terms for the chapter
She explained that "dispenses" was not defined but since the
term "outpatient dispensing" was defined, legal services
converted "dispenses" to "outpatient dispensing." "Outpatient
dispensing" has a definition for pharmacies, she said.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that hospitals provide
inpatient and outpatient services. Dispensing medicine to an
outpatient would mean the person would leave the hospital with
the prescription. She asked whether nursing homes would be
considered as "inpatient services.
MS. MISCHEL said it was possible but the revisor would not
remove it from the list because it could have a substantive
effect. For example, it might be possible for a nursing home to
prescribe for outpatient services if the person was being
transferred to another facility.
1:44:51 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that "dispenses" would
cover both "inpatient" and "outpatient." He asked if this change
would limit the requirement for a pharmacist to be in charge of
"outpatient dispensing." He asked whether provisions elsewhere
in statutes would require a licensed pharmacist to be in charge
when dispensing to a patient in a facility.
MS. MISCHEL answered that this provision was limited to
outpatient treatment. She said other provisions would address
inpatient pharmacies.
1:45:29 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Sections 30-31.
Bill section 30 makes changes as described above for
bill sec. 9.
Bill section 31 substitutes "may not" for "shall not",
consistent with the Manual of Legislative Drafting.
MS. MISCHEL said that the language "shall not" was not used in
the statutes. She said that "may not" means "shall not."
CHAIR HUGHES said she struggles with this because the phrase
"may not deprive a person of the following" implies that a
person could be deprived. She questioned the change opining that
the term "shall" seems clear as opposed to the term "may" which
is more questionable.
MS. MISCHEL replied that editor's manuals and drafting treatises
also inform the legal services drafters and "may not" has been
interpreted as a straight prohibition. She explained that "shall
not" is arcane way of saying "may not." Even though may is a
permissive term, adding "not" changes it to a strict
prohibition. She explained that the legislative drafters strive
for consistency, so if any "shall not" phrases are in statute a
court may wonder if it means something other than "may not"
which is a strict prohibition. Further, "not" means "not." She
said the Legislative Legal Services seeks to make the statutes
with strict prohibition read "may not." She offered her belief
that this was the only remaining "shall not" in the 44 titles.
She said this change is consistent with the Manual of
Legislative Drafting.
CHAIR HUGHES said she understands the consistency issue, but she
questions whether boards and others will always interpret "may"
as hard and fast as "shall." She opined that the term "may"
opens a window and pointed out that a lot of policy changes are
based on "may" versus "shall" in the positive. "Do we use
"shall" in the positive in statute?"
MS. MISCHEL replied it is used as a command. "It's a
disallowance of something somebody could do physically and we're
saying you may not do it under the law."
CHAIR HUGHES responded, "If "shall" in the positive isn't
considered archaic, why is "shall not" considered archaic - and
we're changing it. If we want to be consistent, why do we not
use "shall" in the positive and "shall not" in the negative."
There is no confusion and no wiggle room, she said.
MS. MISCHEL answered that there is no wiggle room with the
phrase "may not." She said she understands the pause because
"may" is a permissive term but adding "not" to the permissive
makes it a prohibition. She said this matter is described in the
Manual of Legislative Drafting so the courts would not interpret
it any other way. "May not" would be interpreted as a
prohibition, she said.
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether "may not" and "shall not" were
interpreted this way universally or something that was
established in Alaska. She said she was more comfortable with
"shall not" and she finds it odd to use "shall" in the positive
but prohibit its use in the negative. She offered her belief
that someone not familiar with the drafting standards would
think otherwise. She said, "If I say they 'may not' operate to
deprive a person, I'm thinking well maybe they could operate to
deprive a person."
1:49:55 PM
MS. MISCHEL explained that the only way the person could operate
would be if the term "unless" was inserted after "may not." She
said it is an interesting debate, but the drafting attorneys
must follow drafting conventions. The drafters also use
Dickerson [ALWD Citation Manual, under editor Darby Dickerson]
as a reference. She explained that this manual is nationally
applied in legislative drafting. She said a handful of states
may still use "shall not" but it is not common.
1:50:36 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked who chose to use Dickerson and what she
means by drafting convention.
MS. MISCHEL answered that Manual of Legislative Drafting was
adopted by the Legislative Council. The legislature as well and
the drafting attorneys are required to follow those standards,
which is what she means by convention. Those decisions were
heavily debated, she said. The legislature makes changes to the
manual every year or two, which is approved by the Legislative
Council. By statute, legislators are required to follow the
manual. Further, the legislature always has an opportunity to
amend the manual. She remarked that the Constitution of the
State of Alaska uses "shall not" since it was written as a
document that has a particular history and context. In this
instance, "shall not" is a remaining reference for real estate
appraisers that is not consistent with the rest of that or any
title, she said.
1:52:01 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD remarked that she found the debate interesting
and she could relate to both arguments.
1:52:28 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked who would make the decision to amend the
Manual of Legislative Drafting.
MS. MISCHEL answered that the agency conducts an annual review
process. This year some changes were proposed by the Chief Clerk
and the Senate Secretary related to bill engrossment. Those
changes were added to the end of the manual, she said.
Occasionally the editor internally suggests changes, and the
revisor and assistant revisor examines every page of the manual
annually looking for errors or inconsistencies.
CHAIR HUGHES summarized that the decision to make changes comes
from within the Legislative Affairs Agency.
MS. MISCHEL answered yes, but the Legislative Council makes the
final determination, she said.
CHAIR HUGHES suggested that the committee might wish to hold a
conversation with members of the Legislative Council. She
reiterated that she prefers "shall not" to make it "crystal
clear."
1:53:39 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Sections 32-33.
Bills sections 32 and 33 make changes as described
above for bill secs. 10 and 13.
MS. MISCHEL related that Section 32 had another reference to
"telegraph" and Section 33 changed the term "Alaska" to "state."
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Section 34.
Bill section 34 fixes an oversight by adding a
definition of "opioid" for statutes relating to
veterinarian licensing, consistent with changes made
in secs. 6, 8, 23, and 35, ch. 2, SSSLA 2017, for
other professional licensees.
She said the agency discovered this oversight when a bill passed
in 2017 that restricted opioid prescriptions.
1:54:06 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Sections 35-40.
Bill sections 35 - 38 make changes removing
"telegraph" as described above and substitutes "on"
for "upon" in sec. 35.
Bill sections 39 and 40 move a cross-reference for the
term "party in interest" and add a definition section
to improve readability.
She explained that whenever the agency discovers that a phrase
is used more than once, they seek to move it outside of the body
of the text. That was done in AS 13.12.550.
1:54:48 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Sections 41-54.
Bill sections 41 and 42 move definitions from AS
13.12.603(a) and (c) to subsection (d) to improve
readability, consistent with the Manual for
Legislative Drafting. Bill section 103 repeals AS
13.12.603(c).
Bill sections 43 - 54 make changes as described above
for bill secs. 9 and 10.
She said that Section 43 was another instance of "not limited
to" with an added comma. Sections 44-45 removed references to
"telegram.
1:55:46 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said she understands not using "telegram," but this
change relates to transmitting the "ballot count." She said the
current language does not mention submitting ballots by any
other electronic means. She asked why the results could not be
forwarded by e-mail but could be sent verbally by telephone or
radio.
MS. MISCHEL answered that the legislature had a bill pending to
address that issue.
CHAIR HUGHES suggested that if precincts in Alaska had bad
connections, they might not be able to send in the results.
SENATOR REINBOLD agreed that was an important finding.
MS. MISCHEL acknowledged that was a legitimate question, but it
was not something that the revisor could address.
CHAIR HUGHES said it would be a policy call but she found it
interesting that it had not been addressed.
1:57:39 PM
MS. MISCHEL said that Sections 45-46 removed references to
"telegram" and "telegraph."
CHAIR HUGHES commented that Section 46 is interesting since it
extends the time from 5 p.m. to midnight. She asked whether that
change would be considered substantive.
MS. MISCHEL answered no; that section only relates to the
receipt of a telegram by 5 p.m.
CHAIR HUGHES pointed out that it talks about mailing.
MS. MISCHEL suggested that reading the sentence in its entirety
clarifies that it is related to the delivery of a telegram.
CHAIR HUGHES asked if the section relates to "telegram" why the
language would not be removed.
MS. MISCHEL answered that the language Senator Hughes was
referring to was bracketed meaning it will be deleted.
MS. MISCHEL said that in Section 47 the agency removed
"telegram" and in Section 48 they removed the term "not limited
to." Further, the agency changed "the primary election," to "a
primary election" since the reference is to a specific primary
election.
MS. MISCHEL said in Sections 49-52, the agency removed absolute
references to "telegrams" and in Section 53 it removed the
language "but not limited to." The agency changed the article
from "the" to "a" since it was not speaking about a specific
official. In Section 54 an errant a comma was removed.
1:59:51 PM
MS. MISCHEL said the next 10 sections relate to dates that did
not have any future relevance and were obsolete.
Bill section 55 removes an obsolete date reference and
substitutes "after" for "of" for clarity.
MS. MISCHEL referred to AS 17.37.060, which read, "not later
than August 31, 1999 the department shall adopt regulations."
The regulations were adopted prior to 1999 so the reference was
no longer necessary. She stated that another change made was to
the language "within 180 days of submission." The agency does
not use "180 days of submission" and instead uses "before" or
"after."
2:00:49 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Sections 56-67.
Bill sections 56 - 67 make changes to the marijuana
control law, ch. 53, SLA 2016, consistent with the
Manual of Legislative Drafting as described above for
bill sec 13.
She explained that these changes relate to the marijuana
initiative that the voters passed. The language did not always
comply with the drafting rules. The most significant changes are
found in the repealers, she said.
CHAIR HUGHES commented that in the marijuana sections, changing
the language "shall not be an offense" to "is not an offense,"
does not substantively change anything. She referred to AS
17.38.190 on page 25, Section 63 that uses the "may not" and
"shall not" language. She read, "Regulations under this
subsection may [SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL] not prohibit the
operation of marijuana establishments." She opined that someone
could interpret this differently. She related her understanding
that the board regulating marijuana would know that "may not"
means "shall not." She referred to page 25, line 21, which reads
"(2) a schedule of application, registration, and renewal fees;
[, PROVIDED,] application fees may [SHALL] not exceed $5,000,
." She said that she reads it to mean that application fees
could exceed $5,000.
2:02:55 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to the term "displaying" on page 22,
line 5. She said it appears that this states that displaying
marijuana accessories or one ounce or less of marijuana is not
illegal. She acknowledged that the bill does not change this
provision but it gives her pause since the regulations are
fairly strict.
MS. MISCHEL answered that the revisor cannot modify that
language in SB 71. She agreed that the marijuana regulations
have interpreted this provision fairly strictly, but it is what
the voters passed in the initiative.
SENATOR REINBOLD talked about the reasons the regulations were
tightened and opined that the bill seems to undoing those
protections. She asked whether AS 17.38.020 was being rewritten.
MS. MISCHEL answered no. The Revisor bill is replacing "Alaska"
with "state" and fixing the reference to "basis."
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether she could see the ambiguity in
the language on line 5, which reads:
(1) possessing, using, displaying, purchasing, or
transporting marijuana accessories or one ounce or
less of marijuana;
She said the regulations seem to contradict that language.
2:05:35 PM
CHAIR HUGHES referred to Section 63, page 26, [lines 7-11],
which reads:
(b) In order to ensure that individual privacy is
protected, the board may [SHALL] not require a
consumer to provide a retail marijuana store with
personal information other than government-issued
identification to determine the consumer's age, and a
retail marijuana store may [SHALL] not be required to
acquire and record personal information about
consumers.
She said this is another instance where "shall not" will be
replaced with "may not." She maintained that the common reading
is "they could possibly be required to acquire and record
personal information."
MS. MOSS suggested that Senator Hughes bring the issue to
Senator Stevens' attention.
MS. MISCHEL clarified that without the word "not" it would be
permissive, but the "not" changes the meaning significantly.
CHAIR HUGHES said she was just reiterating her position to make
a point. She said she understands that the drafters and revisor
read it differently.
2:06:53 PM
MS. MISCHEL referred to page 26, Section 64, lines 12-16, which
removes a reference to subsection (g).
* Sec. 64. AS 17.38.210(d) is amended to read: (d) A
local government may establish procedures for the
issuance, suspension, and revocation of a registration
issued by the local government in accordance with (f)
of this section. The [OR (g) OF THIS SECTION. THESE]
procedures are [SHALL BE] subject to all requirements
of AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act).
She explained that subsection (g) is being repealed since it
contains a February 2015 date and is no longer relevant. It
relates to the state board adopting regulations for the
regulation of marijuana, which was done, she said.
SENATOR KIEHL asked if that means that if the state did not
adopt regulations timely, that a municipality could put in its
own approval procedures. He said he wants to ensure this would
not remove any functional ability for a municipality to regulate
marijuana within its boundaries.
MS. MISCHEL answered that is correct. This relates to the
initial state oversight of the industry. If the state had not
adopted regulations to allow the licensing of establishments,
the municipalities would have done it regionally.
MS. MISCHEL referred to Sections 65-66 AS 17.38.210(e)-(i). The
agency does not use the phrase "provided the" but would normally
use "provided that." She explained that it is fairly common with
initiatives that grammatical or lack of clarity issues arise. It
also removes the cross reference to subsection (g), which is
being repealed. Section 67 corrects an error in the use of the
plural "consumptions."
2:09:32 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Section 68 and Sections 70-75.
Bill sections 68, and 70 - 75 make changes as
described above for bill secs. 9 and 10.
She referred to Title 21 related to insurance. In Section 68,
the comma was moved inside the quotations, the language "any
such" was removed and an Oxford comma was added on page 27, line
30 to reflect the series. She said the drafters changed "that"
to "the" and on page 28, line 17, rearranged the placement of
"and," and removed the phrase "but limited to." She explained
that the agency seeks to use the article "the" not the term
"those" in terms of contract. On page 28, line 31, the drafters
removed an errant comma. She said that the use of "any" is
disfavored in statutes, which was another drafting convention,
so "any" was changed to "an." For editorial reasons the drafters
often remove the term "upon" and replace it with the term "on."
MS. MISCHEL said that an error in Section 69 related to the
federal reference to the HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996) was corrected. She said that the
phrase "but not limited to" in Sections 70-72 was removed. In
Section 73, the drafter removed a reference to "telegram," and
in Section 74 added "the Commonwealth of" to a reference to
Puerto Rico. She said that in Section 75, the drafter combined
compound words, including handpicking and babysitter. The
drafter replaced the phrase "for purposes of" with the term "in"
relating to a particular paragraph, which is also a drafting
convention. The drafter also made grammatical changes on [lines
29-30]. On page 33, the drafter replaced the term "upon" with
the term "on."
2:12:01 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Section 76-83.
Bill section 76 removes references to "telegraph" and
makes word usage changes as described above for sec.
10.
Bill sections 77 - 83 make style, grammar, and word
usage changes. Sec. 78 adds a comma in AS
25.25.611(a)(2) to clarify that individual parties
must consent to the jurisdiction of a state court to
modify a foreign child support order when the child is
a state resident. This change was requested by the
Department of Law and the Alaska Court System. Sec.
79, changes the term "fair appraised market value" to
"appraised fair market value" in the State Lands Act.
She said that the drafter corrected a compound word to
"babysitter" and on page 37 the term "and" was inserted.
MS. MISCHEL said the Department of Law requested the change in
Section 78 for a statute related to foreign child custody
orders. She noted that the comma that was inserted on page 39,
line [25] was significant because it would have allowed a
modification of a foreign child support order without parental
consent.
2:13:12 PM
MS. MISCHEL said that Section 79 changes "fair appraised market
value" to "appraised fair market value," which is consistent
with the rest of the statute.
She said that drafters removed an errant comma in Section 80. An
additional comma was added in Sections 81 and 82, based on
drafting convention. In Section 83 the drafter changed the term
"libraries" to "library" consistent with drafting rules about
using singular terms whenever possible.
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Sections 84-89.
Bill sections 84 - 89 make style, grammar, and word
usage changes including removal of "but not limited
to" as described for bill sec. 9.
She said that in Section 84 "but not limited to" was removed.
She said grammatical errors were corrected in Sections 85-88. In
Section 84, the drafter added "the special fittings" to
eliminate an ambiguity in the original phrasing.
2:14:14 PM
MS. MISCHEL said that in Section 89 the drafter added "by the
commission" since it was not clear who would reject a tariff or
provision. This is consistent with the previous sentence, she
said.
2:14:45 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Sections 90 and 91.
Bill sections 90 and 91 remove references to
"telegraph" as obsolete and clarify in AS 42.20.390
that definitions are provided for terms "unless the
context otherwise requires" a specific definition.
She said that Section 91 clarifies the general definition in AS
42.20.390 since a special meaning was given to an "eavesdropping
device" in a separate section in that chapter for purposes of
ensuring that the general definitions did not override the
specific definition. On page 43, line 3, a reference to "or
telegraph" was removed and "a telephone" replaced "such an" to
clarify which noun was referenced.
2:15:38 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Sections 92-93.
Bill section 92 adds an Oxford comma, also called a
serial comma, immediately before the conjunction to a
series of three or more terms for clarity.
Bill section 93 corrects a reference to the Rural
Electrification Act by providing a federal cite to the
Act.
She explained that the federal statute cite was added to Section
93.
2:16:06 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Section 94.
Bill sections 94 - 97 improve the references to
specified state entities by using consistent
terminology and a definition for each.
She explained that the agency took out the phrase "Regulatory
Commission of Alaska" and replaced it with "commission" and
defined it in that same chapter. She said that normally the
agency would not have made a change but AS 42.45 uses the term
"commission" frequently without a definition. A similar issue
exists with Sections 96 and 97, such that "Alaska Energy
Authority" was replaced with "authority" since the chapter
defined it.
2:16:51 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Section 98.
Bill section 98 corrects a reference to AS 43.20.043,
previously repealed, as "former" law.
She said that Section 98 references a provision, AS 43.20.043,
which was repealed in 2010. It was changed into "former" since
it may have some relevance for tax credits or deductions that
may be applied retrospectively. At some point, she said she
envisions that it will be deleted as an obsolete reference.
However, that may not be the case currently.
2:17:34 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether that was the same for AS 43.55.025
referenced on page 47, line 5.
MS. MISCHEL clarified that "former" only refers to AS 43.20.043.
2:18:09 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Sections 99-100.
Bill sections 99 and 100 remove obsolete references to
"telegram" and "telegraph."
She said that in Section 100, the term "telefax" is replaced
with the term "facsimile."
2:18:29 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Section 101.
Bill section 101 corrects an oversight in a 2025
sunset to include definitions of terms used in a
temporary program in AS 14.07.180(o) by ch. 73, SLA
2018.
She explained that this was an amendment to uncodified law to a
sunset provision in 2025, related to a pilot project for
curriculum review. She said that when the agency inserted the
sunset into the bill, it missed three of the five definitions
that were not used elsewhere in statute. These provisions were
added to the 2025 sunset, she said. She explained that they were
definitions for "rural," "urban," and "school districts ADN"
which are not used elsewhere after the sunset.
2:19:28 PM
MS. MISCHEL reviewed Section 102.
Bill section 102 repeals obsolete provisions and
definitions for unused terms or for placement in
another section.
She explained that this was a series of repealers, some of which
were inserted in the bill in other places. Some refer to
obsolete provisions or definitions that are no longer used in
the statute, she said.
MS. MISCHEL clarified that if the definition is not used for
that purpose, it would be removed. However, it does not mean
that the term is not used elsewhere in statute.
2:20:20 PM
CHAIR HUGHES referred to Section 100. She said that facsimiles
or faxes are still used by some people. She asked whether
telefax means the same thing.
MS. MISCHEL answered that it does, but the statutes refer to
them as facsimiles. She agreed that the machines are not
obsolete.
2:20:58 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked how the revisor actually reads all of the
statutes.
MS. MISCHEL answered that she reads every bill and every
opinion. She said that all staff read the bills line by line. In
this case, it took five drafting attorneys to review the
statutes addressed in SB 71. As revisor, she would assign a
title to a drafting attorney during the legislative interim.
Sometimes the agency staff will pull the old bills to determine
if there are errors, she said.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether it takes months to accomplish
this.
MS. MISCHEL answered yes. In this case the project spanned two
legislative interims. Further, the agency received a large
number of suggested changes from LEXIS Publishing. The agency
must decide whether to include them in a revisor's bill or if
the change could be made as a manifest error. She said that
sometimes the agency discovers errors and as revisor, she would
send a memo to the publisher. In response to Senator Reinbold's
remark, she agreed it is very interesting. She added that the
agency is very conservative when it recommends the repeal of any
statutes. For example, the Longevity Bonus Program is still in
statute [even though the program is no longer active]. It could
be brought to the legislature as part of the revisor's bill, but
some topics and issues are better presented by the legislature,
she said.
CHAIR HUGHES asked if they note missing items as they go through
the review and bring those to the attention of Legislative
Council. For example, she asked whether an issue such as one
discussed earlier that related to using electronic means to
report ballot counts.
MS. MISCHEL answered that the agency typically leaves it up to
the legislature. At the point when a bill drafter discusses a
topic with a legislator, the agency would bring up the
recommendation. The agency would not ask to submit substantive
bills, except for a special revisor's bill, which would be
closer to substantive law changes in instances in which
ambiguity exists or if an issue exists throughout the statutes
that needs to be addressed. In that case, the revisor would go
to the Chair of the House or Senate Rules or Judiciary Committee
for assistance. However, that would be rare she said.
2:25:29 PM
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the agency and the
Senate Rules Committee carefully reviewed the bill. She recalled
that Ms. Moss found an error during that review.
MS. MOSS answered that it related to public utilities and
changed "regulatory" to "certified." This change had some
repercussions for federal law, so that language was removed
before SB 71 was introduced, she said.
2:26:17 PM
CHAIR HUGHES referred to page 4 of the memo to the "Text of
Repealed Provisions, which reads:
TEXT OF REPEALED PROVISIONS
AS 08.62.900(4).
"knowingly" has the meaning given in AS 11.81.900(a);
AS 08.80.480(35)[renumbered as (35) in 2018].
"prospective drug use review" means a review of the
patient's drug therapy and prescription drug order, as
defined in the regulations of the board, before
dispensing the drug as part of a drug regimen review;
AS 08.86.230(3).
"private agency" means a clinic or private practice,
or custodial, rehabilitative, or health care
organization whose mental health services are under
the direction of a licensed psychologist or
psychiatrist;
AS 09.55.240(a)(9).
telegraph lines;
AS 11.61.145(c)
In this section, "animal" means a vertebrate
living creature not a human being but does not include
fish.
AS 13.12.603(c)
In (b) of this section,
(1) "primary devise" means the devise that would have
taken effect had all the deceased devisees of the
alternative devises who left surviving descendants
survived the testator;
(2) "primary substitute gift" means the substitute
gift created with respect to a primary devise;
(3) "younger-generation devise" means a devise that
(A) is to a descendant of a devisee of a primary
devise;
(B) is an alternative devise with respect to the
primary devise;
(C) is a devise for which a substitute gift is
created; and
(D) would have taken effect had all the deceased
devisees who left surviving descendants survived the
testator except the deceased devisee or devisees of
the primary devise;
(4) "younger-generation substitute gift" means a
substitute gift created with respect to a younger-
generation devise.
AS 17.20.370(2)
"antiseptic", in the labeling or advertisement of a
drug, is a representation that it is a germicide,
except in the case of a drug purporting to be, or
represented as, an antiseptic for inhibitory use as a
wet dressing, ointment, dusting powder, or other use
involving prolonged contact with the body;
AS 17.38.210(g)
(g) If the board does not adopt regulations
required by AS 17.38.190, an applicant may submit an
application directly to a local regulatory authority
after one year after February 24, 2015, and the local
regulatory authority may issue an annual registration
to the applicant.
AS 17.38.210(k)
(k) A subsequent or renewed registration may be
issued under (g) of this section on an annual basis if
the board has not adopted regulations required by AS
17.38.190 at least 90 days prior to the date upon
which such subsequent or renewed registration would be
effective or if the board has adopted regulations
pursuant to AS 17.38.190 but has not, at least 90 days
after the adoption of such regulations, issued
registrations pursuant to AS 17.38.200.
AS 42.05.381(k)(2)
"liquefied natural gas storage facility" has the
meaning given in AS 42.05.990.
AS 42.20.050
Altering message; punishment. (a) A person is
guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of
not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment for not more
than one year, or by both if the person willfully
alters a message by adding to it or omitting from it a
word or figure so as to materially change the sense,
purport, or meaning of the message, to the injury of
the person sending or desiring to send it, or to whom
it was directed.
(b) When numerals or words of number occur in a
message the operator or clerk sending or receiving may
express them in words or figures, or in both words and
figures, and this may not be considered an alteration
of the message or to affect its genuineness, force, or
validity.
AS 42.20.060
Sending or delivering false or forged message;
punishment. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor and is
punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by
imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both if
the person
(1) knowingly and willfully sends by telegraph a false
or forged message;
(2) willfully delivers, or has delivered, a false or
forged message, falsely purporting to have been
received by telegraph; or
(3) furnishes or conspires to furnish, or have
furnished, to an agent, operator, or employee in a
telegraph office, to be sent by telegraph, or to be
delivered, a false or forged message, knowing that it
is false or forged, with the intention to deceive,
injure, or defraud any person.
AS 42.20.070
Punishment and civil liability for use by
employee of information derived from message. An
agent, operator, or employee in a telegraph office who
uses or appropriates information derived by that
person from a private message passing through the
person's hands and addressed to another, or
information acquired by reason of the person's trust
as agent, operator, or employee, or who trades or
speculates upon this information, or who turns or
attempts to turn it to personal account, profit, or
advantage is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable
by a fine of not more than $1000, or by imprisonment
for not more than one year, or by both, and is liable
in treble damages to the party aggrieved for loss or
injury sustained.
AS 42.20.080
Delaying or refusing to send or deliver message;
punishment. (a) An agent, operator, or employee in a
telegraph office who unreasonably and willfully
refuses or neglects to send a message received at the
office for transmission, or who unreasonably or
willfully postpones the message out of its order, or
unreasonably and willfully refuses or neglects to
deliver a message received by telegraph is guilty of a
misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of not more
than $500, or by imprisonment for not more than six
months, or by both.
(b) This section does not require a person to receive,
transmit, or deliver a message unless the charges are
paid, or to require the sending, receiving, or
delivery of a message counseling, aiding, abetting, or
encouraging treason against the government of the
United States, or other resistance to the lawful
authority, or a message calculated to further a
fraudulent plan or purpose, or to instigate or
encourage the perpetration of an unlawful act, or to
facilitate the escape of a criminal or person accused
of crime.
AS 42.20.085
Priority of official communications; penalty for
refusal, delay, or alteration of transmission. On
application of an officer of the state in case of war,
insurrection, riot, civil commotion, or resistance of
public authority, for the prevention and punishment of
crime, or for the arrest of persons suspected or
charged with crime, a telegraph company shall give
immediate dispatch to the communication of the officer
at the price of ordinary communications of the same
length. An officer, agent, operator, or employee of
the company who refuses or willfully omits to transmit
the communication, or designedly alters it or
falsifies it is, upon conviction, punishable by a fine
of not more than $1000, or by imprisonment in jail for
not more than one year, or by both.
AS 42.20.090
Punishment and civil liability for opening or
obtaining message addressed to another. A person not
connected with a telegraph office who, without the
authority or consent of the person to whom the message
is directed, willfully opens a sealed envelope
enclosing a telegraph message, and addressed to
another, with the purpose of learning the contents of
the message, or who fraudulently represents another
person, and thereby procures to receive a telegraph
message addressed to another, with the intent to use,
destroy, or detain it from the person entitled to
receive the message, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is
punishable by a fine of not more than $1000, or by
imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both
and is liable in damages to the party injured for all
loss and damage sustained by reason of the wrongful
act.
AS 42.20.110
Bribing operator or employee to disclose private
message; punishment. A person who, by the payment or
promise of a bribe, inducement, or reward, procures or
attempts to procure a telegraph agent, operator, or
employee to disclose a private message, or the
contents, purport, substance, or meaning of a private
message, or who offers to an agent, operator, or
employee a bribe, compensation, or reward for the
disclosure of private information received by reason
of the position of trust as agent, operator, or
employee, or who uses or attempts to use the
information so obtained, is guilty of a misdemeanor
and is punishable by a fine of not more than $1000, or
by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by
both.
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether this was the only committee of
referral.
MS. MOSS answered yes.
CHAIR HUGHES referred to the repealers and asked whether these
provisions were addressed in other statutes. For example, the
third one in the memo reads:
AS 08.86.230(3).
"private agency" means a clinic or private practice,
or custodial, rehabilitative, or health care
organization whose mental health services are under
the direction of a licensed psychologist or
psychiatrist;
MS. MISCHEL answered that this term is not used in the specific
chapter. It is the same issue for the two definitions preceding
it, she said. The term "animal" in AS 11.61.145(c) is already
defined in AS 11.61.900. She said the agency strives to remove
redundancies.
CHAIR HUGHES read:
AS 11.61.145(c).
In this section, "animal" means a vertebrate
living creature not a human being but does not include
fish.
She asked whether that was the definition of animal.
MS. MISCHEL answered yes.
2:28:05 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said that when the bill was introduced it also
had a referral to the State Affairs Standing Committee. She
asked whether that referral was removed.
MS. MISCHEL answered that the Senate State Affairs Committee
waived the referral.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she did not recall that action. She asked
whether any fiscal note was attached to the bill.
MS. MISCHEL said that she requested the fiscal note belatedly.
However, it will be a zero-fiscal note, she said.
2:28:40 PM
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony and after determining no
one wished to testify, closed public testimony on SB 71.
[SB 71 was held in committee.]
2:28:52 PM
At-ease.
2:29:24 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Hughes adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:29 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 71 - Version S.PDF |
SJUD 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/1/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 71 |
| SB 71 - Sectional 19-108mjt.pdf |
SJUD 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/1/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 71 |
| SB 71 - Revisor's Bill Explanation.pdf |
SJUD 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/1/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 71 |
| SB 71 - Department of Law Approval.pdf |
SJUD 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 5/1/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 71 |