HB 152 - 2009 REVISOR'S BILL 8:08:02 AM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 152, "An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes; providing for an effective date by repealing the effective date of sec. 33, ch. 122, SLA 1977; and providing for an effective date." The committee took an at-ease from 8:08 a.m. to 8:09 a.m. 8:09:44 AM KATHRYN KURTZ, Assistant Revisor, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Division, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), explained that the revisor's bill, HB 152, is designed to address conflicts, obsolete provisions, and deficiencies in current statute, and that none of its provisions are intended to effect substantive changes in statute. She noted that members' have a sectional analysis in their packets. MS. KURTZ, in response to a question, indicated that the provisions that address statutory references to federal laws which have been altered are all intended to make the statutes more useful to the reader; for example, it is not helpful to the reader when he/she finds a statutory reference to a provision of federal law that no longer exists, and so the bill aims to point the reader to useful information as opposed to obsolete information. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed concern that some of the changes in federal law were substantive. MS. KURTZ, in response to questions regarding Section 1 and Section 53, assured the committee that the revisor's bill is not proposing to restructure the placement of the statutes pertaining to the division of agriculture. In response to a comment, she concurred that the revisor's bill is not intended to make policy changes or substantive changes to law. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that AS 01.05.006 references a publishing company that no longer publishes the statutes, questioned whether that statute ought to be updated. MS. KURTZ explained that it's not necessary to do so because that statute is simply referencing the company that published the bulk formal revisions of the statutes at around the time of statehood. In response to a question, she said she would be hesitant to use the revisor's bill to clarify AS 01.05.006 because of the scope of change such a clarification would require; she suggested that such a clarification ought to instead come in the form of a substantive bill. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that such a clarification is not worthy of a separate bill but should instead be undertaken via the revisor's bill. He asked Ms. Kurtz to reconsider the issue. 8:22:35 AM MS. KURTZ, in response to a question regarding Section 25, explained that its proposed change would merely conform the language in AS 15.45.160 to that of AS 15.45.140, and is necessary in order for the statutes to conform to Article XI, Section 3, of the Alaska State Constitution. In response to a question regarding Section 50, she explained that the change proposed therein is intended to make the second sentence in AS 29.60.860(b) conform to its first sentence. In response to a question regarding Section 75, she explained that its proposed change would conform the language in AS 47.10.396 to recently- changed language in AS 47.10.392, AS 47.10.398, and AS 47.10.399, all of which now refer to corporations in general rather than just nonprofit corporations. In response to a question regarding Section 76, she explained that its proposed change - along with the bill's proposal to delete AS 47.14.295(1) - would move the definition of the term "adult family member" to the correct location where it would actually be used; currently that definition is in the wrong location due to a drafting error in Chapter 64, SLA 2005. MS. KURTZ, in response to a question regarding Section 86, explained that the only change it is proposing is the addition of the phrase, "in the second degree" to Section 14, Chapter 137, SLA 2002 - a delayed amendment to the statutes that will become effective December 30, 2013; all other seeming language changes are just a reflection of the delayed amendment that Section 14, Chapter 137, SLA 2002, will be making to AS 16.43.970(b). Adding the phrase, "in the second degree" is a conforming change that should have been included in an intervening amendment made via Section 16, Chapter 42, SLA 2006. Without the change proposed in the revisor's bill, the intervening amendment will unintentionally be nullified in 2013, when the delayed amendment takes effect. CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 152. 8:30:21 AM CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26- LS0158\E.1, Kurtz, 3/4/09, which read: Page 6, lines 10 - 12: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 48, line 22: Delete "Section 89" Insert "Section 88" Page 48, line 27: Delete "sec. 89" Insert "sec. 88" Page 48, line 28: Delete "sec. 90" Insert "sec. 89" Page 48, line 29: Delete "sec. 59" Insert "sec. 58" Page 48, line 30: Delete "secs. 92 and 93" Insert "secs. 91 and 92" REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion. MS. KURTZ explained that the Department of Education and Early Development (EED) has indicated that it would prefer to have Section 17 of the bill deleted, because it would codify a piece of uncodified law - specifically Section 40(b), Chapter 83, SLA 1998 - and the EED would prefer to have that law repealed instead of codified. However, repeal of this law would be a substantive change and thus beyond the scope of the revisor's bill, whereas adoption of Amendment 1 would result in this law simply remaining part of uncodified law. In response to a question, she maintained that repealing this uncodified law would be beyond the scope of the revisor's authority under AS 01.05.036, which is meant to address deficiencies, conflicts, or obsolete provisions in statute; Section 40(b), Chapter 83, SLA 1998, is not obsolete, and there is nothing about it that won't work - it is simply directing the EED to define something via regulation - and so the question of whether it should remain part of uncodified law is a policy call for the legislature to make. 8:32:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection. CHAIR RAMRAS, after noting that there were no further objections, stated that Amendment 1 was adopted. CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that HB 152, as amended, would be held over.