SB 106 - NOTARY PUBLIC BOND CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the first order of business was Senate Bill No. 106, "An Act relating to the bond required of a notary public." DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, came forward to present the bill, saying the court system had requested its introduction. Right now, when a person submits an application to be a notary public, the application must first receive a signature from the clerk of the superior court; the clerk then forwards it to the office of the lieutenant governor, which oversees notaries. The clerks only ensure that applications are filled out before signing and forwarding them; it is not something they are uniquely qualified to do. This bill deletes the requirement for the clerk's signature, allowing someone to send the application directly to the lieutenant governor, which eliminates an extra step. Number 1515 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES asked whether Mr. Wooliver knew why that signature had been required. MR. WOOLIVER said he had checked; it had been a requirement since statehood. At that time, the court performed other duties, including work related to passports. However, Mr. Wooliver had been unable to find any reason why this specifically went through a court clerk. He noted that other types of bonds must be submitted to various agencies that oversee the activities, none of which go through the court system. He said the reason this came up was that the clerk of court in Anchorage was signing these one day and wondering why it was done, as it slows the process and seems to serve no purpose. Number 1571 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised that she had been a notary previously. She said there were two ways to execute an official bond. One was to buy a bond from an insurance company and the other was for a person to put up his or her own bond that guaranteed possession of the personal means to back it up. She asked whether the ability to put up one's own bond might relate to approval by the clerk of the court. MR. WOOLIVER explained that the clerk does not actually check any of those bonds. He referred to the handbook and said it specifies that currently, a person cannot be his or her own surety. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES acknowledged that it may have changed. MR. WOOLIVER concurred and said he was not sure. He did know that when clerks looked at the applications, they did not look to see whether or not an applicant actually had the bond. He explained, "Somebody else can act as a surety for you. They just put their name down; they say they have assets worth $1,000 and they're willing to put them up. We don't check that. All we do is make sure the form is filled out - all the blanks are filled in - and we put a signature on it." Number 1685 CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered whether there was some tie with statehood that had long since disappeared. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that this is the kind of bill she likes, as it repeals a duty that is no longer necessary. She said the legislature should applaud the court for bringing it forward. REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to move SB 106 from committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. There being no objection, SB 106 was moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.