HOUSE BILL NO. 61 An Act relating to licensing for a Calcutta pool as a game of chance. Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, #24- LS0281\F.1, Luckhaupt, 3/17/05. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion. Vice-Chair Stoltze explained that the amendment would narrow the scope of the bill. SHALON SZYMANSKI, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LESIL MCGUIRE, agreed that was a fair calculation of the amendment. 2:33:12 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if there was a prohibition on participants engaging in wagering. Ms. Szymanski pointed out that Section 8, Page 3, mentions that the competitors must be 18 years or older. She thought language could be added to address that the person placing the wagers also be 18 years of age or older. Vice-Chair Stoltze reiterated his question regarding whether the participants should be prohibited from wagering. Ms. Szymanski replied that in many Calcutta pools, the competitors also have the ability to place wagers. Vice- Chair Stoltze suggested that should be a regulatory issue. REPRESENTATIVE LESIL MCGUIRE, SPONSOR, explained that there must be written regulations in that area. She provided a brief history of the bill, advising that the overall intent is to make law-abiding citizens of those people that have been putting together these type activities for the charities. Over the years, there has been a sort of "chilling effect" on them. 2:37:26 PM Co-Chair Meyer asked if a title change could be made. Representative McGuire replied it could. Representative Foster OBJECTED to Amendment #2. He did not know of any golf course in Southwest Alaska. He asked why only urban Alaska would benefit from the bill. Representative McGuire intended that today's meeting be a "work session". Originally, the language was broader to reflect the reality existing in Alaska. Things like this exist on in rural and urban areas. The problem is that the Department of Revenue has testified that the bill would be the largest change in gaming regulations since pull-tabs. She indicated her frustration. She pointed out that an Alaskan Native Corporation that provides pools to benefit scholarships brought the original bill forward. Representative McGuire stated that she did not want to get into a situation in which she was at odds with the Department of Revenue. 2:40:47 PM Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that that the Legislature does not want to visit the gaming statute each time a new game of chance comes forward. Representative Hawker shared Representative Foster's concerns. He thought that the bill could legitimize activities in the State. He thought that the legislation could legitimize various contests of chance statewide. He did not arrive at the same implications as the Department of Revenue. Representative Hawker questioned likening the legislation to pull-tabs. He reiterated that he did not see the Calcutta pools in the same light as pull-tabs. He endorsed the sentiment of Representative Foster and asked to continue dialogue. Representative McGuire asked to get testimony on the record to that effect. She added that there is an incredible amount of latitude that the Department of Revenue could have establishing regulations regarding charitable bowls. 2:44:37 PM Representative Hawker noted that in the context of the law as a whole, the legislation would not allow just anyone to execute a Calcutta pool. Representative McGuire agreed and said that any type of gaming done for charity would continue that spirit. Regarding who would put together a Calcutta pool, a list of those people would be made. She stressed that for the regulations, it would not be a commercial enterprise but would instead be for charitable reasons. Page 2, Line 9, notes that the Department "may" issue a permit to the municipality, etc. That portion of Statute defines the only boundaries and the Department of Revenue has established some "wild scenarios". 2:47:12 PM Representative Croft asked if a qualified organization would have to be a non-profit. He referenced the definition in Section 9; currently, it would be a sporting event in the State. Representative McGuire replied that it would have to be in the State and the idea considered was that the person organizing it would have to be a participant. On Page 3, Section 8, elementary, secondary, or post secondary school sporting events would be excluded. 2:48:48 PM Representative Croft wanted it to be clear each time what was authorized, making sure that there was a cost benefit. Representative McGuire replied that the original request was from the Seri Native Corporation golf classic and they offer for scholarships. Representative McGuire pointed out that Page 2, Line 14, does reference dog-mushing contests. As long as the goals are charitable and the activities are in State, it would be okay. She pointed out Section 8 exclusion of the elementary, secondary and postsecondary events. 2:51:02 PM Representative Croft questioned why it was considered a game of chance rather than a game of skill. LARRY MEYERS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ANCHORAGE, explained that the term "game of chance" is a term of art that is used to describe almost every event. The term "game of skill" is defined in Statute. 2:52:17 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze commented that in the 1980's, the pull- tab issue was a very small enterprise in the State. It has become over a $300 million dollar industry. He thought it would be important to keep a handle on the activities; there are scopes of gaming that people are comfortable with. As public policy, he did not know what Calcutta pools would encompass and thought that the legislation would be a "policy" start to begin the discussion. 2:55:04 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed out the Attorney General's report, which disallows these activities. Representative McGuire offered follow up on that information. 2:55:40 PM Representative Hawker added that if the law was passed and there were abuses found, and then the State could pass another law to address the concerns. He recommended erring on the side of supporting the non-profit organizations. Representative McGuire stated that a wager or bid would have to occur in an auction. Co-Chair Meyer requested that discussion be addressed toward Amendment #2. Co-Chair Meyer MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to the amendment. Representative McGuire recommended that the discretion of the Committee play out and added that it was okay either way. It must remain in State, while being a contest of skill and additionally, it must be a non-profit organization doing it. Representative Kelly noted that he favored a title change and did not think it should be limited. 3:00:18 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW Amendment #2. Representative McGuire recommended a conceptual amendment to tighten the title, being more reflective of the charitable goals. 3:01:13 PM Representative Kelly MOVED a conceptual amendment to tighten the title, stating to "authorize golf events as the Calcutta pools as a charitable game of chance". Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for discussion purposes. Representative Hawker asked if Representative Kelly intended to include golfing. Representative Kelly replied that he did not. He restated the intended conceptual amendment: "Authorizing Calcutta pools as a charitable game of chance". Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Representative Croft pointed out that the title would be changed. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, the conceptual amendment was adopted. 3:03:14 PM   Co-Chair Chenault voiced support for the legislation. He pointed out that most of the situations are for a good cause and that the intent is to help children.   Vice-Chair Stoltze commented that he wanted a product that serves the State while helping the charitable events. Representative McGuire advised that she would not be "hostile" to anything that would help to tighten HB 61. Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #24- LS0281\G.1, Luckhaupt, 3/16/05. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for discussion purposes. Vice-Chair Stoltze stated that the amendment would change the title of the bill and that it would benefit a public radio station in Talkeetna. Co-Chair Chenault asked if the animal classics would cover concerns in Amendment #1 and if it should be a Department decision. Mr. Meyer responded that the history of each classic has been added by specific name and would need to be added in that format. 3:09:03 PM Representative Croft pointed out that the only definition of animal classics was defined in AS 05.15.692. Representative McGuire suggested on Page 2, Line 13, deleting "bird classics" and inserting "goose classics", broadening the category. Vice-Chair Stoltze cautioned the way in which that language is being handled. He thought that cock fighting could result. Co-Chair Meyer noted that he did not want to spend a lot more time on the amendment. SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, addressed AS 05.15.180, limitations on authorized activity. With the exception of raffles, lotteries, pull tabs and numerous other items, activities may not be licensed under st that chapter unless it was licensed before January 1, 1959. She referenced a bill presented by Vice Chair Stoltze, which rd passed the 23 Legislature, and added a sentence replacing st the timeline to November 1, 2002. Ms. Cunningham advised that she had spoken with Legal Services about incorporating all the bird classics under animal classics but because of the time perimeters, it cannot be done. The Kenai Goose Classic is already listed. Representative Kelly referenced Page 2, Section 4©, and asked about the Calcutta pool. Co-Chair Meyer recommended that questions now only be directed to the amendment. Representative Holm recommended language of migratory bird classics. 3:14:21 PM Co-Chair Meyer indicated concern with the way the bill was moving. Co-Chair Meyer MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to Amendment #1. 3:15:41 PM A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Croft, Foster, Kelly, Moses, Stoltze OPPOSED: Hawker, Holm, Meyer Representative Weyrauch, Representative Joule and Co-Chair Chenault were not present for the vote. The MOTION PASSED (5-3). RECESS: 3:16:49 PM RECONVENE: 3:17:46 PM 3:17:51 PM Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that passage of Amendment #1 would change the title. He gave his permission to the legal drafters to make the necessary changes. Representative Croft advised that the intent was to make the title as tight as possible.   Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 61 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS HB 61 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no recommendation" and with indeterminate note #1 by the Department of Revenue. 3:19:00 PM