Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/25/2003 01:10 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 25, 2003
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 8
"An Act relating to tampering with public records."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 55
"An Act relating to tampering with public records."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 161
"An Act relating to certain civil actions brought by the
attorney general under monopoly and restraint of trade statutes;
relating to the award of damages in actions brought under those
statutes; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED SB 161 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 171
"An Act relating to certain suits and claims by members of the
military services or regarding acts or omissions of the
organized militia; relating to liability arising out of certain
search and rescue, civil defense, homeland security, and fire
management and firefighting activities; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 98
"An Act relating to civil liability for guest passengers on an
aircraft or watercraft; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 98(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 8 - See HESS minutes dated 3/5/03, 3/10/03 and 3/24/03.
SB 55 - See HESS minutes dated 3/5/03, 3/10/03 and 3/24/03.
SB 161 - No previous action to record.
SB 171 - No previous action to record.
SB 98 - See Transportation minutes dated 4/8/03 and Judiciary
minutes dated 4/23/03
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Karen McCarthy
Staff to Senator Bunde
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 98
Mr. Richard Benavidas
Staff to Senator Davis
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 8
Senator Fred Dyson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 55
Mr. Ed Sniffen, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 161
Ms. Gail Voigtlander, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 171
Commissioner Bill Tandeske
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 171
Mr. Jeff Jahnke, State Forester
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 171
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-30, SIDE A
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Senators Ogan, French
and Chair Seekins were present. Senator Therriault arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
SB 98-LIABILITY: PLANE AND BOAT PASSENGERS
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 98 to be up for consideration.
He noted that Section 2 deals with the definition of commercial
purposes and asked if that means not for hire.
MS. KAREN MCCARTHY, staff to Senator Bunde, sponsor, replied
yes, given federal strictures with regard to the cost of flights
and non-commercial boat owners.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if there is a definition in statute anywhere
of commercial purposes or are they relying on the FAA.
MS. MCCARTHY replied that she didn't know if there is any other
definition in statute.
SENATOR OGAN said page 2, line 30 of the bill says,
The owner of the watercraft is liable for injury or
damage caused by negligent operation of the owner's
watercraft where the negligence consists of violation
of state statute or neglecting to observe ordinary
care.
He was concerned that someone could argue that bootlegging was a
commercial purpose and, therefore, is not illegal.
SENATOR FRENCH responded that that would be either gross
negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct under section
9.65.112(b)(1)(a).
CHAIR SEEKINS said he didn't think it was the intent of the
sponsor to allow wrong doers to be covered by limitations of
liability.
1:15 - 1:16 p.m. - at ease
SENATOR OGAN moved CSSB 98(TRA), version \H, from committee with
individual recommendations. There was no objection and it was so
ordered.
SB 8-TAMPERING WITH PUBLIC RECORDS
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 8 to be up for consideration.
MR. RICHARD BENAVIDAS, staff to Senator Davis, sponsor, said
that tampering with records involving a child under the age of
18 in the care of the state can be very grave. Accurate record
keeping is important in light of the case of a five-year-old
Miami girl who disappeared while in the care of the State of
Florida. SB 8 is designed as a disincentive for those who would
falsify those kinds of records.
SENATOR OGAN asked whom they are targeting with this bill.
SENATOR DAVIS replied that the case in Florida raised the
awareness of this issue, but tampering with records has always
been around. She worked in the Department of Health and Social
Services as a social worker and a nurse for 17 years and has
seen times recordings were not being made because of heavy case
loads. After a long time, you forget some things that need to go
in the records. It's not always intentional when people tamper
with records. In Alaska, there is no recourse and this bill
makes it a felony to do that.
SENATOR OGAN said he doesn't want to snare people who weren't
culpable.
SENATOR FRENCH said that AS 56.820 says you have to knowingly
make a false entry or alter a public record. This bill adds,
"who are in the care of the state" to children under 18 - foster
children, etc.
SENATOR DAVIS explained that she was targeting all children that
fall under Title 47.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he thought the first section means that there
had to be an intent to benefit from the alteration or for a
child under the age of 18, etc.
SENATOR THERRIAULT arrived at 1:22 p.m.
MR. BENAVIDAS responded why should someone get the same
treatment for falsifying a child's record and possibly causing
harm, as someone that put down that he graduated from a
university when he didn't.
SENATOR OGAN said he didn't know how a child could be harmed by
tampering with records and wondered if there should be a felony
charge if a kid doesn't get hurt.
SENATOR DAVIS responded that a child does not have to be
physically harmed in order to be hurt. If a caseworker says they
have visited a home and that the child is fine and they actually
never went to the home, things might not be going well. "A kid
could very well come up dead.... We have from time to time
[heard] where children have died in foster care or in other
treatment homes...."
She informed them that the Office of Children's Services is
under scrutiny because they haven't been able to pass the
federal audit. "I think sometimes other things need to happen
other than just a reprimand or saying you can't do that."
SENATOR OGAN agreed with her that some situations are very
dangerous and that there is a high burnout rate for workers.
However, if you're not a very good record keeper, and something
bad happens to the kid and you're accused of something, "It's
just additional pressure on that group of professionals... to
all of a sudden be a felon."
He asked if that might be a deterrent to getting and keeping
good people, because they don't want to be liable for criminal
activity if they make a mistake.
SENATOR DAVIS replied that she didn't think it would be and
filing of information is not the problem. "We're talking about
falsifying records, not poor filing."
SENATOR ELLIS arrived at 1:26 p.m.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if a child at school is considered to be in
the care and custody of the state.
SENATOR DAVIS replied no, it doesn't have anything to do with
keeping school records.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if this could be applied to a foster parent
who is not the person who is charged by law to gather
information.
SENATOR DAVIS replied that there are already laws on the books
that would cover foster parents who were falsifying pay vouchers
or whatever.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he feels there was a better ways to
draft AS 8.15(a)(1) and (2).
SENATOR DAVIS responded that she asked the drafter if there was
some other way to do it, but he felt it was the best way. She
offered to let the Department of Law look at it.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if she heard any rumors to the effect that
this is currently a problem here in the state.
SENATOR DAVIS replied she has heard some horror stories and
emphasized, "There are cases where this is needed."
1:39 - 1:40 p.m. - at ease
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that both SB 8 and SB 55 amend the same
section of statute and said that they would take up Senator
Dyson's bill. He said they would hold SB 8.
SB 55-TAMPERING WITH PUBLIC RECORDS
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 55 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR DYSON, sponsor of SB 55, said that he and Senator Davis
often think along the same lines. His bill doesn't limit the
same issues to just children. He thought deliberately falsifying
records of adults could be a real problem, as well. Instances of
rape are of particular concern to him. He reported that 35
percent to 40 percent of the rapes that go on in North America
happen in prisons and are same sex. However, Alaska's Department
of Corrections has had very little of that. "If that's true,
it's something we can be really proud of. I can tell you in
other jurisdictions it's a horrendous problem..."
He wants to make sure that if we have a less enlightened
Department of Corrections, the message is clear that falsifying
records and protecting the administration and bureaucracy from
having to deal with being irresponsible is a problem.
He also has received calls from adult children of parents who
are in a care facility for one reason or another and are really
concerned about how their parents are being treated. "Some of
it's ugly. I want it clear with those vulnerable adults that
somebody that's covering up the abuse of those adults is also
subject to the penalties."
The difference between his bill and Senator Davis' is that SB 55
allows for the state to go after people who knowingly and
deliberately change the records to cover up or protect abusing
adults. Language on line 9 makes it clear that it's with the
intent to conceal a fact material to an investigation or the
provision of services.
CHAIR SEEKINS said that SB 55 deals with children's proceedings,
delinquent minors, child protection or protection of vulnerable
adults.
SENATOR ELLIS asked him to elaborate on how organized crime
could be involved and if there is some suspicion that it is
involved in the Alaska Child Protection System.
SENATOR DYSON replied that he doesn't know of anyone who is
allowing organized crime to go on involving vulnerable adults or
children, but he said his first foster son was prostituted to
Asian flight crews at the Captain Cook and the Westwood where a
significant ring of that was going on. A small town in Southeast
also had a large ring of pedophiles that were providing young
children to tour ship people. He said that was organized crime
and it was with the permission of the parents and there was a
distinct monetary advantage to the parents. He has no knowledge
that any state officials knew of it or were covering it up.
1:50 - 1:54 p.m. - at ease
CHAIR SEEKINS said he wanted to roll SB 55 into SB 8 and to have
Senator French, who was concerned that a child wouldn't be
committing a felony if they falsified their age on their
driver's license, work together with the sponsors on a single
vehicle.
CHAIR SEEKINS held SB 55 in committee.
SB 161-MONOPOLY AND RESTRAINT OF TRADE ACTIONS
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 161 to be up for consideration.
MR. ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General, said that SB 161
amends the existing anti-trust laws that give the attorney
general the right to recover indirect damages on behalf of
consumers who otherwise do not have such a remedy.
Under current federal and state anti-trust law, if there is a
conspiracy between two suppliers of a product, that results in
that product's price being overly inflated and that price is
passed on to an importer, and maybe a distributor and finally to
us as the consumer. The consumer right now has no right of
action to sue the upstream violator. That rule of law was laid
out in a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court case called Illinois Brick
Company v. State of Illinois. The court thought it would be very
difficult to determine how much profit was actually passed on
and it would be cumbersome to litigate. Only the importer could
sue, because they were the ones that purchased the product
directly from the anti-trust violators.
In that same case, the Supreme Court said states were free to
enact their own anti-trust laws to provide for this remedy and
30 states have already done that. Alaska hasn't and that's what
SB 161 does.
He said that these are not just theoretical things that are
happening; they are happening within the state and have cost us
a lot of money.
We are involved in multi-state litigation all the time
along with other states to sue large manufacturers of
products, pharmaceutical products, contact lenses, and
a variety of different consumer products.
In one case two years ago called the Vitamins Case,
there were two vitamin manufacturers who conspired
with each other to keep the price of vitamins high. We
joined in with 30 other states in that suit and we
reached a settlement with the vitamin companies along
with the other states. States who had these Illinois
Brick repealer statutes got $1 million a piece in the
settlement. States who did not have the statute got
zero. We argued with the settlement committee in that
case that we had other laws that would entitle us to
recovery and we in fact were able to get $100,000 that
we distributed to relevant organizations. But, had we
had a law like this in place, we would have seen a
much larger recovery. We're involved in several cases
now that involve these same kinds of claims.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for examples of other cases.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that two others come to him immediately.
One involves a conspiracy among a bunch of contact lens
manufacturers to artificially keep the price high. Another one
is the Nine West case that involved the sales of women's shoes
that resulted in a lot of money going to the states with
Illinois Brick repealer statutes and less money going to the
states without it. He just resolved a case recently involving
compact music discs where a lot of distributors and
manufacturers of music set minimum prices on CDs. They did not
present claims on behalf of injured consumers in that case,
because they didn't have this kind of statute. Currently, there
are three other pharmaceutical cases involving conspiracies up a
chain to artificially inflate the price of certain prescription
drugs. Another case they decided not to get involved in because
they didn't have this law involves sorbates, which are
preservatives that are used in all kinds of foods. "As a whole,
we could make big claims on behalf of consumers to recover those
types of damages."
TAPE 03-30, SIDE B
2:01 p.m.
SENATOR OGAN wanted to know how our state laws would reach
across oceans to reach suppliers like OPEC that conspires to set
oil prices.
MR. SNIFFEN replied that is a good question, but in most cases,
the issues don't involve foreign suppliers. Under state law,
ordinary consumers don't have the right to challenge the price
of gas, for example, if the conspiracy to keep the price of gas
high occurred upstream. However, it's not unheard of for some
states to get together and bring causative action against
foreign suppliers of materials.
SENATOR OGAN asked how they reach foreign countries.
MR. SNIFFEN replied:
There is a way states can reach international
boundaries through a lot of mechanisms.... We can
extend our jurisdiction to companies who have a
presence in Alaska and are doing business here. There
are international rules that allow us to do that.
He said it probably wouldn't happen very often in Alaska unless
we join with other states that are considering doing the same
thing, but it can be done.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if having subsidiaries in the U.S. makes
that possible.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that is correct.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he doesn't think it would work with OPEC
because they conspire to manipulate supply to influence price;
they don't set the price.
CHAIR SEEKINS wanted to clarify that the retailer bears no
responsibility in this law, just the persons who are involved in
the conspiracy.
MR. SNIFFEN replied that is correct. The retailer is just
passing prices on.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked why language on page 2 would be
deleted.
MR. SNIFFEN replied that is a good question and there is a
second portion to the bill that removes from the current anti-
trust that you have to find conduct on behalf of an anti-trust
violator is willful before you can recover treble damages. Right
now, a federal law does not have that requirement and you can
recover three times your damages; state law has a much higher
standard.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked how they would go about proving a
conspiracy that is not willful.
MR. SNIFFEN replied conspiracy is almost always willful, but
there are also times when you can violate the anti-trust law
negligently and recklessly, like in the current Bristol Bay
case.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that the bill would not drop the
finding down to knowingly, it would just drop the willingly.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that would bring this law in line with how
federal anti-trust laws are structured.
SENATOR OGAN asked how this law would change the way the Bristol
Bay case is litigated.
MR. SNIFFEN said if this law had been in place, it probably
wouldn't have changed a thing. In that case, all the fishermen
had direct damages; they purchased or sold fish directly to the
processors and there wasn't an intermediary that prevented them
from bringing their claims.
SENATOR OGAN asked if this would allow the attorney general to
bring a case against a retailer.
MR. SNIFFEN replied the retailer that is passing on the inflated
price from upstream anti-trust behavior would not be affected.
In this instance, the attorney general might represent the
thousands of consumers who might have bought that product at $10
when it should have been $5.
SENATOR THERRIAULT commented the fiscal note doesn't indicate
how much this will cost the state.
MR. SNIFFEN explained that the fiscal note is indeterminate,
because the department doesn't know how much revenue the bill
will generate. "It's unlikely to cost the state any money; it's
more likely to increase revenue, because we're involved in these
cases anyway..."
SENATOR THERRIAULT motioned to pass SB 161 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached indeterminate fiscal
note. There was no objection and it was so ordered.
SB 171-SUITS & CLAIMS: MILITARY/FIRE/DEFENSE
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 171 to be up for consideration.
MS. GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Assistant Attorney General, said this bill
covers four areas of governmental emergency operations. The
first area is search and rescue. The Alaska State Troopers
conduct about 400 of them each year and they decide when and how
to initiate a search or rescue and often call on the National
Guard and community resources to assist. This bill would provide
immunity from tort lawsuits for state and local government and
their employees when they participate in the rescue activities
(Section 2).
The next topic is about intra-military court claims in response
to an Alaska Supreme Court case, Himsel v. State 2001. In that
case the court departed from the generally held intra-military
tort immunity known as the "Feres Doctrine" that provides that
if you are a member of a military service, you cannot sue other
members of the military service for torts if you are injured. As
an employee, your remedies are: if you are acting under federal
orders, getting federal workers' compensation and other benefits
and, if you are under state orders, getting the state's workers'
compensation benefits.
Most military operations in Alaska are with people carrying out
federal orders. This says you cannot sue in addition to workers'
compensation remedies; it does not change your entitlement to
those benefits nor does it change the amount of benefits
(Sections 4 -6).
Section 3 provides that tort claims are barred against the state
for acts of the organized militia (the Alaska National Guard and
the state militia) unless the governor calls them out under
Title 26.050.70.
The third topic of the bill is civil defense and homeland
security. Civil defense is already provided for in Title 26.
Since the events of 9-11, the civil defense roll has expanded
into homeland security issues, as well. The federal government
has expanded and thrown back to the state governments more
activity in this area than they used to have. This portion of
the bill seeks to continue an immunity that is already in
statute for civil defense activities and extend it to the
homeland security area. It bars tort claims against government
employees and authorizes volunteers if a homeland security
worker sustains damages. It does not affect entitlement to the
extent of homeland security benefits.
The second portion of that area is that it bars third party tort
claims against government employees and authorized volunteers
for damages unless the person who is injured can demonstrate
malice or reckless indifference by clear and convincing
evidence. In existing Title 26 there is an exception that has to
do with one area where immunity is not extended. This bill
tracks that in terms of incorporating exclusion where third
party claims can be asserted in the area of civil defense and
homeland security (sections 7-11).
Finally, the fourth topic is that of fire management and
firefighting activities. Two statutory sections are amended to
bar tort claims by third parties against state, local government
or other firefighting groups and their employees. This is in
response to two Alaska Supreme Court cases that were decided in
2001, Angaboognuk and Bartek cases, which arose out of the
Miller's Reach Fire. The court diverged from ninth circuit
precedent for other western states that provide immunity for
firefighting activities either through common law or through
specific statutes. This portion of the bill would have Alaska in
keeping with the other western states that have wild land fire
exposure. After-the-fact litigation is costly to the state to
defend and costly to the state's resources to have people review
every step that is taken and decision that is made during an
emergency operation. This bill would immunize the state and
local government employees that participate in emergency
activities (sections 12-13).
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if Section 9 relates to giving
vaccinations.
MS. VOIGTLANDER said yes, adding there are a number of federal
benefits that would provide remedies to people if they receive
vaccinations because of homeland security concerns.
SENATOR OGAN asked if there is a case law record of precedents
that the court deviated from.
MS. VOIGTLANDER replied there are ninth circuit cases that
affected fires out of Oregon, California and Wyoming that
immunized those activities. There are state statutes or case law
in the jurisdictions of California, Kansas, Oklahoma, Montana,
Idaho, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, New York and Kentucky.
SENATOR OGAN asked if the Alaska Supreme Court is supposed to
interpret based on Alaska's constitution and statutes. He asked
if there are any cases in Alaska that have been ruled as having
sovereign immunity and that precedence was departed from.
MS. VOIGTLANDER replied there simply has not been that type of
litigation in the state until the Miller's Reach fire. It's
possible that people were under the impression that there could
not be such a claim made against the state for fire fighting
activity. In the Agnaboognuk case the Alaska Supreme Court
addressed that and simply looked at the existing statute, AS
9.50.250, on waiver of immunity and said they didn't see it in
that statute.
This bill would put into statute that the state had
not waived its immunity for those types of claims and
so the case law would then be overruled by the statute
as an annunciation of a public policy in the state of
Alaska.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if the TSA employees who work at the
airport are considered state homeland security workers.
MS. VOIGTLANDER said she understands that all TSA employees are
employed through the Federal Homeland Security Office.
COMMISSIONER BILL TANDESKE, Department of Public Safety, said he
thinks it is appropriate that his department is responsible for
search and rescue, but there are a lot of variables involved in
an effort in a state this size. They have an obligation to those
folks for their safety.
I think it's important that we make search and rescue
decisions based on sound search principles and doing
the right thing for the right reasons.... One of the
guiding principles of any law enforcement operation is
don't let a bad situation get worse. If you're missing
one, don't end up missing three.
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE said there are a lot of notices of snow
mobilers over due and volunteers find the vast majority of them.
He questioned the validity of the families that lost loved ones
using litigation as a way to find answers about why the system
didn't work.
SENATOR OGAN asked how many planes are listed as missing in
Alaska.
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE replied that he didn't know for sure.
SENATOR OGAN said he had heard around 40 to 50. He asked if they
are in any litigation now over search and rescue issues.
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE replied that he didn't know, since he had
been with the department just three months.
MS. VOIGTLANDER informed members that the Denali Highway case is
on appeal to the supreme court.
SENATOR OGAN asked if there had been some disciplinary action
associated with that case. He asked what assurances Alaskans
have that these things will be taken care of if they are held
harmless in such situations.
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE clarified that he was aware of the appeal
on the Denali case; he thought the question pertained to new
litigation. Without getting into specifics, he said that there
was disciplinary action in that case and he would hold his
employees accountable just as they are in any situation.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked how this bill would have affected the Olrum
case specifically.
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE replied there is a fair amount of
misinformation about that case and he isn't sure how to answer
since he is not an attorney.
CHAIR SEEKINS recalled that temperatures were around -50 degrees
when that happened.
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE replied that is correct.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if the troopers would normally send out the
snow machines to find someone at -50 temperatures.
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE said not necessarily on a snow machine,
but they would take all circumstances into account before making
a decision.
2:45 p.m.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if this bill would hold him harmless when he
makes a judgment call about a search or rescue.
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE replied he would have to refer to a legal
mind to answer that question, but this bill does not change the
statutory responsibility for search and rescue within his
department.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if it would insulate the department somewhat
from acts or omissions.
MS. VOIGTLANDER responded that this would immunize the actions
arising out of the search and rescue. "It would mean that there
could not be a civil law suit for damages, a tort liability
claim."
She explained that the proposed amendment cleans up language in
the civil and homeland defense sections.
SENATOR FRENCH said he reads the bill as being an absolute bar
to any claim that arises out of the troopers handling a search
and rescue.
TAPE 03-31, SIDE A
2:48 p.m.
SENATOR FRENCH said it's possible to imagine a situation where
there is just outright negligence.
COMMISSIONER TANDESKE said he would have to defer to legal
minds.
SENATOR OGAN asked how many cases there are for fire fighting.
MS. VOIGTLANDER replied the Miller's Reach fire was consolidated
into one class action case and there is one other claim and one
other lawsuit. She didn't know of a dollar value for either one
of them. She is hesitant to comment on Miller's Reach because it
is in trial right now.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if this statute would act as a bar to
protect the state from these types of actions in the fire
fighting area.
MS. VOIGTLANDER replied yes, but she noted that this legislation
is not retroactive.
MR. JEFF JAHNKE, State Forester, said that there are about 150
million acres to protect and they get between 500 and 600 forest
fires per year. Their success depends on a safe and effective
initial attack to prevent small fires from becoming big fires.
SB 171 would provide immunity for firefighters fighting wild
land fires. This is important for two major reasons. One, it
would allow the firefighters to focus on safe and effective
firefighting rather than having to weigh the potential for a
lawsuit in every decision they make during their initial attack.
Second, it would reassure the state firefighters that they have
the same protection and immunity that their local and federal
counterparts, who are often fighting with them, have. It would
reduce reluctance to becoming a leader.
SENATOR THERRIAULT motioned to adopt amendment #1, sponsored by
the attorney general's office.
MS. VOIGTLANDER explained that the recitations referring to the
federal agencies are not germane to immunizing state and local
employees. The proposed amendment makes clear that the bill
pertains to officers who are members of the state's organized
militia on state active duty.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced there is no objection to the amendment
and it is adopted. He said he would hold the bill because a
number of other people indicated intent to testify. There being
no further business to come before the committee, he adjourned
the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|