HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE April 12, 1999 3:23 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman Representative Jerry Sanders Representative Lisa Murkowski Representative John Harris Representative Tom Brice Representative Sharon Cissna MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 87(L&C) "An Act requiring a license to sell rental car insurance." - MOVED CSSB 87(L&C) HOUSE BILL NO. 136 "An Act relating to tourism and tourism marketing; eliminating the Alaska Tourism Marketing Council; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 136(L&C) * HOUSE BILL NO. 146 "An Act relating to civil liability for commercial recreational activities; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 146(L&C) HOUSE BILL NO. 158 "An Act relating to the annual report of the director of the division of insurance and to notice of cancellation of personal insurance." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 87 SHORT TITLE: RENTAL CAR INSURANCE SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/23/99 341 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/23/99 341 (S) L&C, JUD 3/18/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203 3/18/99 (S) MEETING CANCELLED 3/23/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203 3/23/99 (S) MOVED CS OUT OF COMMITTEE 3/23/99 (S) MINUTE(L&C) 3/24/99 661 (S) L&C RPT CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE 3/24/99 661 (S) DP: MACKIE, LEMAN, TIM KELLY, DONLEY; 3/24/99 661 (S) NR: HOFFMAN 3/24/99 661 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 3/29/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211 3/29/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE 3/29/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 3/30/99 (S) RLS AT 11:50 AM FAHRENKAMP 203 3/30/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 3/30/99 735 (S) JUD RPT 1DP 3NR (L&C) CS 3/30/99 735 (S) DP: TAYLOR; NR: TORGERSON, DONLEY, 3/30/99 735 (S) ELLIS 3/30/99 735 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED) 3/31/99 750 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/31/99 3/31/99 754 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 3/31/99 754 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 3/31/99 755 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN 3/31/99 755 (S) CONSENT 3/31/99 755 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 87(L&C) 3/31/99 755 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2 3/31/99 757 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 4/07/99 667 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 4/07/99 667 (H) L&C 4/12/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 136 SHORT TITLE: ABOLISH TOURISM MARKETING COUNCIL SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) THERRIAULT Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 3/12/99 438 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 3/12/99 438 (H) EDT, L&C, FIN 3/29/99 (H) EDT AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 106 3/29/99 (H) MINUTE(EDT) 3/29/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD SUBCMTE APPOINTED 4/06/99 (H) EDT AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 408 4/06/99 (H) 4/09/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 4/09/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 4/09/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 4/09/99 712 (H) EDT REFERRAL WAIVED 4/09/99 712 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE 4/12/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 146 SHORT TITLE: LIABILITY FOR COMMERCIAL REC ACTIVITIES SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOTT, Dyson Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 3/19/99 515 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 3/19/99 515 (H) L&C, JUD 3/31/99 642 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON 4/12/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 WITNESS REGISTER JOE BALASH, Legislative Secretary to Representative Therriault Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 511 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4797 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding HB 136 fiscal note. GINNY FAY, Legislative Liaison and Acting Director of the Division of Tourism Department of Commerce and Economic Development P.O. Box 110800 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0800 Telephone: (907) 465-2503 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on proposed amendments to Version K committee substitute for HB 136, provided fiscal note information for HB 136. TINA LINDGREN, Executive Director Alaska Visitors Association 2525 "C" Street, Number 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99515 Telephone: (907) 561-5733 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on proposed amendments to Version K committee substitute for HB 136; testified in support of HB 146. REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 430 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4766 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 136. CHARLIE MILLER, Lobbyist for AutoNation, Incorporated P.O. Box 102286 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-2286 Telephone: (907) 563-2686 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented and testified in support of CSSB 87(L&C). HOWARD CONCKLIN, Director of Government Relations AutoNation, Incorporated 110 SE Sixth Street, 20th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (954) 769-3173 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 87(L&C). RICHARD McEVILY, Deputy General Counsel The Hertz Corporation 225 Brae Boulevard Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656 Telephone: (201) 307-2492 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 87(L&C). JOHN FERENCE, Deputy Director Division of Insurance Department of Commerce and Economic Development P.O. Box 110805 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805 Telephone: (907) 465-2560 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 87(L&C). KELLY SULLIVAN, Legislative Secretary to Representative Pete Kott Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 118 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3777 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 146 on behalf of the sponsor. REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 118 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3777 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 146. MIKE WINDRED, Vice President, Marketing and Sales Alaska Travel Adventures 9085 Glacier Highway, Suite 301 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-0052 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 146. STEVE BEHNKE, Executive Director Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association P.O. Box 22827 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 463-3038 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 146. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-37, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:23 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Sanders, Harris, Brice and Cissna. Representatives Halcro and Murkowski arrived at 3:24 p.m. and 4:16 p.m., respectively. HB 136 - ABOLISH TOURISM MARKETING COUNCIL Number 0087 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business is HB 136, "An Act relating to tourism and tourism marketing; eliminating the Alaska Tourism Marketing Council; and providing for an effective date." Reopening the public hearing on HB 136, the chairman questioned whether Dave Carp via teleconference in Anchorage or Steve Behnke in Juneau wished to testify. Both gentlemen indicated they preferred to listen only. There being no one else interested in testifying, the public hearing on HB 136 was closed. Chairman Rokeberg commented some amendments new to the chairman have been circulated, as well as the new fiscal note. Number 0259 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 3:26 p.m. The committee came back to order at 3:27 p.m. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG welcomed Representative Beth Kerttula to the committee and also recognized the presence of Joe Balash, staff to the bill sponsor, Representative Therriault. Number 0287 JOE BALASH, Legislative Secretary to Representative Therriault, Alaska State Legislature, identified himself to the committee. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Representative Cissna would like the chairman to mark the amendments for discussion. The chairman proceeded to mark the amendments as follows: 1-LS0616\K.1, Cook, 4/12/99 as Amendment 1; 1-LS0616\K.2, Cook, 4/12/99 as Amendment 2; 1-LS0616\K.3, Cook, 4/12/99 as Amendment 3. Number 0342 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 1-LS0616\K.1, Cook, 4/12/99, which read as follows: Page 2, line 23, following "Purposes": Insert "; report" Page 3, following line 15: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 5. AS 44.33.119 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (b) The Department of Commerce and Economic Development shall conduct an evaluation of the performance of each contract entered into under AS 44.33.125(a) and determine the extent to which the marketing campaign accomplished the purposes set out in (a) of this section and the extent to which the marketing campaign benefited the economy of the state as a whole. On or before March 1 of each fiscal year, the department shall submit to the legislature and the governor a copy of its evaluation, together with a recommendation regarding the amount of state funding that should be provided for a contract under AS 44.33.125(a) for the next fiscal year." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 7, line 21: Delete "Sections 1 - 7, 9, and 10" Insert "Sections 1 - 8, 10, and 11" Page 7. line 22: Delete "Section 8" Insert "Section 9" [punctuation per provided amendment copy] REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated Amendment 1 would insert a new bill section that would amend AS 44.33.119 by adding a new subsection. She pointed out that the Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED) would be required to evaluate the performance under the issues discussed in Section 8, AS 44.33.125(a), on page 7 of the proposed Version K committee substitute (CS). This addresses a number of issues that need to be covered, including that the campaign may promote distinct segments of tourism and all the various types of tourism the amendment should cover. While discussing Amendment 1, Representative Cissna recognized a problem and asked to amend the amendment. In response to the chairman's request for explanation, Representative Cissna clarified, "What we're talking about here is the -- determining the extent to which the marketing campaign accomplishes the purposes set out in (a) of this section and the extent to which the marketing campaign benefitted the economy of the state as a whole. Thinking in terms of the fact that ... there needs to be a benefit to the entire industry and since it -- as testimony has been brought up, there are many, many factions in the tourism industry and we need to ... arrive at a balance so that the people of the state and the communities of the state are truly served ... in this venture." Representative Cissna identified the word "campaign" as the amendment's problem, referring to Amendment 1's language, "determine the extent to which the marketing campaign accomplished". She indicated "campaign" is a non-word in statutory language and should be replaced with "contract" which does have statutory definitions. In response to the chairman's comment, Representative Cissna made a motion to adopt an amendment to Amendment 1 to replace "campaign" with "contract" in all instances "campaign" appears in subsection (b) of Amendment 1. Number 0620 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected. He pointed out that the legal department had thoroughly gone through this. The House Special Committee on Economic Development and Tourism (EDT) subcommittee had examined this because of the consistency issue. Representative Halcro indicated the language had been discussed with Tamara Cook, Director, Division of Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency. Representative Halcro thought Ms. Cook would have brought forth concerns if there was a problem. He understood that all the inconsistencies had been addressed. Number 0686 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 3:33 p.m. at Representative Cissna's request. The committee came back to order at 3:35 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA withdrew the amendment to Amendment 1. She pointed out that this is the state's money and, as such, it is inappropriate for the money to be allocated without an evaluation mechanism. Amendment 1 spoke to that. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Fay and Ms. Lindgren both speak to this issue. Number 0737 GINNY FAY, Legislative Liaison and Acting Director of the Division of Tourism, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came forward. Ms. Fay thought she understood the intent of Amendment 1, but indicated she felt the department's request for funds through the budget process each year provided some mechanism. She indicated the department would basically only ask for something it thinks is being used well. Ms. Fay pointed out that Amendment 1 would require a report of what has happened in a fiscal year (FY) before that fiscal year is complete. She was unsure as to whether this would be necessary to ensure that evaluation is occurring. Ms. Fay stated, "We get grilled by OMB [Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor] and by you all [the Alaska State Legislature] every single year, and then we'll be grilling them [the qualified trade association?], so ... I think this process will be ongoing without this, and I am just concerned about the time frames - whether or not we could effectively accomplish what you're doing with this additional step." Number 0836 TINA LINDGREN, Executive Director, Alaska Visitors Association (AVA), came forward. While appreciating the intent of the amendment, she believes the issue is already covered under the language on page 3, line 30 [Section 5, subsection (b)(7)], "(b) The Alaska division of tourism shall ... (7) administer and evaluate the tourism marketing contract program under AS 44.33.125;". Ms. Lindgren also agreed with Ms. Fay that this is being done before the fiscal year and through the budget process. In Ms. Lindgren's opinion, more funds could always be used. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to withdraw Amendment 1. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Amendment 1 had been removed. Number 0968 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 1-LS0616\K.2, Cook, 4/12/99, which read as follows: Page 4, line 18, following "department.": Insert "The department may approve the marketing campaign plan only if it determines that the campaign fulfills each of the purposes listed in AS 44.33.119." REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA explained the purpose of Amendment 2 is that the guiding principle of the contract promotes tourism in Alaska. This would avoid ambiguity with regard to the intent of the bill. Number 1039 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated this is a good piece of legislation. Under AS 44.33.119 there are seven clear goals that the QTA [qualified trade association] will have. He questioned what would happen if tourism decreased through no fault of the QTA. Representative Halcro felt Amendment 2 was unnecessary. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Fay and Ms. Lindgren comment on Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated that Amendment 2 might be redundant to the statute in general. If the purposes of the contract are under AS 44.33.119, and with AS 44.33.125(a), which states that before the contract is executed the plan must be approved by the department, it seems that the department may only approve the marketing plan if it determines the campaign fulfills each of AS 44.33.119's listed purposes. Amendment 2 would seem to restate what is already stated. Number 1179 MS. FAY believes that AS 44.33.119 states the purpose of the Division of Tourism. That does not explicitly pertain to purposes of the contract. Ms. Fay indicated that Amendment 2 would assert that the department cannot approve the developed plan unless the plan fulfills the purposes section. Ms. Fay expressed concern with the language, "each of the purposes", on line 2 of Amendment 2 because there could be situations in which the contract could not fulfill all the purposes. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented it was clear to him that Amendment 2 would require each purpose of the specifying purposes clause to be met, therefore obligating the entire contract. The chairman noted, "If it didn't meet all those purposes and if you have restricted money, you couldn't even do it." He asked if Representative Cissna wished to speak to the objections. Number 1282 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA emphasized one of the problems is having bills moved through the committee process in a hurried manner. She believes that it would be an appropriate amendment to Amendment 2 if the language was changed to "fulfills purposes listed in AS 44.33.119". MS. LINDGREN noted that the DCED has a broader goal than the marketing contract. The broader goal of the department will decide, in part, what goals the marketing council will fulfill. Additionally, the department does planning, advocacy, and has other roles. These purposes are for the Division of Tourism; Ms. Lindgren believes it ties the division's hands if the marketing part is required to fulfill the identical goals. Ms. Lindgren thinks the department can better identify which goals should be fulfilled and which will be done by advocacy and planning. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was further discussion of Amendment 2. Number 1370 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated there is concern that a private organization will operate very differently than the state, and does not have the same requirement to serve all the people of the state. She further indicated this duty of the state to serve all Alaskans and the use of state money are the reasons for the department's involvement. As long as state money is being utilized, the department has the special role of ensuring there is uniformity to the degree possible in terms of serving the people - the tourism industries of the state. Representative Cissna agreed that there would be some marketing programs which would want to head towards one market because it is very diverse. She indicated, however, the importance that this is an entirely new program with a group not yet in existence. Representative Cissna noted that this is an effort to clarify the new entity as much as possible. In response to the chairman's comment regarding procedure, Representative Cissna moved that Amendment 2 be amended by deleting "each of the". Amendment 2 as amended would read as follows: Page 4, line 18, following "department.": Insert "The department may approve the marketing campaign plan only if it determines that the campaign fulfills purposes listed in AS 44.33.119." REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected to the amendment to Amendment 2. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rokeberg, Sanders, Harris, Brice and Cissna voted in favor of the amendment to Amendment 2. Representative Halcro voted against it. Representative Murkowski was not present. Therefore, the amendment to Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-1. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified that Amendment 2 as amended was now before the committee. A roll call vote was taken. Representative Cissna voted in favor of Amendment 2 as amended. Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro, Sanders, Harris and Brice voted against it. Representative Murkowski was not present. Therefore, Amendment 2 as amended failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-5. Number 1567 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, 1-LS0616\K.3, Cook, 4/12/99 which read as follows: Page 4, line 6: Delete "campaign" Insert "contract" REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected to the motion to adopt Amendment 3. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated the change is necessary because "campaign" is more ambiguous than "contract" in that sentence. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he wished to hear from Ms. Fay of the department and Ms. Lindgren. MS. FAY responded that the department could not support Amendment 3 since this is a critical component of the DCED's agreement with the AVA. MS. LINDGREN agreed. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO suggested that the language not be changed, indicating it had been a point of contention which was resolved by the acceptance of "campaign". A roll call vote was taken. Representative Cissna voted in favor of adopting Amendment 3. Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro, Sanders, Harris and Brice voted against it. Representative Murkowski was not present. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-5. Number 1684 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 3:53 p.m. The committee came back to order at 3:54 p.m. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Ms. Fay had been speaking about the fiscal note. Number 1689 MS. FAY explained that the fiscal note eliminates the three ATMC [Alaska Tourism Marketing Council] positions and transfers the personal services and travel to the contractual line. What is now program receipts of the ATMC is moved off-budget because they will no longer be collecting the industry match. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG inquired as to how the $20,000 was placed in FY 2000. MS. FAY clarified that the $20,000 is the feasibility study required by the Division of Personnel, Department of Administration. There would be a net loss of six positions: three in the Division of Tourism's Tourism Inquiries Section and three in the ATMC. Ms. Fay indicated this work would be contracted out. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the deletions are in the budget. MS. FAY explained that the deletions would be a result of HB 136. Article 13 of the "GGU Agreement" requires an analysis before a state position can be contracted out. This cost would be covered by the $20,000 and the analysis would be done in the year 2000 prior to the effective date. Number 1755 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there are no other decrements because those have been deleted in the budget document itself and are not part of this fiscal note. The chairman indicated it was his understanding from the bill sponsor, Representative Therriault [Co-Chairman, House Finance Standing Committee], that money was being added back into the fiscal note for this program. MR. BALASH clarified the fiscal note does not reflect that aspect of the budget process. MS. FAY pointed out that a fiscal note is prepared according to the specifications of the bill without accounting for what is occurring in another area. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed the committee had an understanding of this. He indicated he had had communication from the bill sponsor, and referred to Mr. Balash. MR. BALASH stated that both the division and the ATMC would be funded through the fiscal note. Their entire budget would be reflected in a later fiscal note. Number 1812 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, a handwritten amendment, which read as follows: page 3, Line 30 (7) administer and evaluate the tourism marketing contract program under AS 44.33.125, and forward the evaluation to the legislature; REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA explained the amendment would add the language ", and forward the evaluation to the legislature" to subsection (7) on page 3, line 30. The purpose would be to further expand the evaluation process. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked why the legislature would want this evaluation outside of the purview in the budget and this committee. Many items are contracted out in Alaska, and Representative Brice does not think the evaluation of those contracts are sent to the legislature. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the legislature had passed a bill a few years ago which restricted the number of reports issued to the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated the legislature chooses which reports it wants to receive. His question is: Why would the legislature want to justify having this evaluation sent to it? REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated that bringing a private entity into a state program is unusual and it is reasonable to provide as much oversight as possible initially. This will obviously grow away from the state and the state's management. Representative Cissna mentioned the legislative audit process ["budget and audit report"] and indicated she believes it is reasonable to require the evaluation to be forwarded to the legislature, at least temporarily. Number 1944 REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA informed the committee that the EDT subcommittee did not have much of an opportunity to work on HB 136. She emphasized that reporting the evaluation to the legislature is one of the smallest things that could be required. There will be a new contract, without any contract provisions in legislation. She indicated the need to see an evaluation, at least after the first couple of years. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said this seems redundant because if the Division of Tourism is already going to evaluate the program, the legislature has access to that information. He believes that if there is a concern someone would notify the legislature or the legislature would make the effort to find out itself. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he appreciates and understands the intent of the amendment. However, DCED will still be very involved with requesting money from the legislature each year and justifying how that money is spent. Representative Halcro expressed full confidence that Ms. Fay would bring forth any problems with the QTA. He noted this is an agreement that was worked out between the department and the industry. Additionally, if there is a small segment of the tourism market which is not being addressed, Representative Halcro thinks this will be brought to attention of specific legislators, the department or the QTA. He indicated he feels Amendment 4 is unnecessary because there are ample checks and balances, including the yearly request for funding. Number 2038 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated the state is facing serious economic problems and emphasized that tourism is Alaska's second largest employer. She acknowledged Representative Halcro's significant work on the legislation but she noted the legislation never came back to the House Special Committee on Economic Development and Tourism. Representative Cissna commented the current committee had a short amount of time on Friday [April 9, 1999] to review the legislation; the fiscal note has just been received. Representative Cissna recognized that the legislature could review the reports at any time but she indicated problems might be missed. She commented this is a reasonable request with such a large project. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO maintained his objection. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 4. Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro, Sanders, Harris and Brice voted against the adoption of Amendment 4. Representative Murkowski was not present. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 1-5. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no further amendments or discussion on HB 136. Number 2145 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move CSHB 136, Version K, out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note dated 4/12/99. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rokeberg, Brice, Sanders, Harris and Halcro voted in favor of moving CSHB 136. Representative Cissna voted against moving CSHB 136. Representative Murkowski was not present. Therefore, CSHB 136(L&C) moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 5-1. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out he had received no calls over the weekend from anyone regarding HB 136. He noted he had been happy to hold the legislation at Representative Kerttula's request. The chairman indicated he appreciated the work on the legislation. Number 2226 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA thanked the chairman for his comment. She recalled the committee had met until about 6:30 p.m. on Friday, after Legislative Legal Services had left for the weekend. Amendments were in to Legislative Legal Services by 8:00 a.m. this morning. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted she has received contacts in opposition to HB 136 that she will forward to the House Finance Standing Committee. [CSHB 136(L&C) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE] Number 2255 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease 4:07 p.m. The committee came back to order at 4:09 p.m. [MANUAL TAPE CHANGE TO SIDE B DURING AT-EASE] TAPE 99-37, SIDE B CSSB 87(L&C) - RENTAL CAR INSURANCE Number 0001 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business is CSSB 87(L&C), "An Act requiring a license to sell rental car insurance." REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO declared a potential conflict of interest. He stated his company does not have a position on this legislation, nor did it have anything to do with the bill's introduction. He had not even known of the legislation's existence until Mr. Miller informed him it would be introduced. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned whether Representative Halcro wished to be excused. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO answered he would allow the committee to decide. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee would not excuse Representative Halcro but appreciated the conflicts being stated for the record. Number 0044 CHARLIE MILLER, Lobbyist for AutoNation, Incorporated, came forward to testify in support of the legislation. The company he represents, along with The Hertz Corporation, has been negotiating with the Division of Insurance on this language and requested the legislation's introduction by the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. Senate Bill 87 provides for a limited licensure for rental car insurance transactions. The transactions are incidental to the auto rental, the product is not sold on the open market; it is not normal insurance in that sense and fits very well into the limited licensure statute. The industry was prompted by regulatory action and litigation in other markets to approach Alaska's Division of Insurance to discuss a solution for a potential problem. This was done over the past interim, and this language is the result of those discussions. The Division of Insurance opted for this type of fix; some states exempt from licensure, and Mr. Miller believes there are other options as well. He indicated CSSB 87(L&C) adds a new subsection, subsection (7), to AS 21.27.150, limited licenses; subsection (7) provides the restrictions regarding the sale of these rental car insurance products. Mr. Miller understands the Division of Insurance is in favor of the legislation, and he is unaware of anyone in opposition. Number 0149 HOWARD CONCKLIN, Director of Government Relations, AutoNation, Incorporated, testified next off-network via teleconference from Florida. He noted AutoNation, Incorporated owns Alamo Rent A Car [Alamo Rent-A-Car, Incorporated] and National Car Rental [National Car Rental System, Incorporated], and that the company name had recently changed from Republic Industries, Incorporated. Mr. Concklin commented this legislation is typical of their efforts around the country to clarify general insurance laws to either provide an exemption or limited license. Agreeing with Mr. Miller's summarization, Mr. Concklin related that one of these products has been sold for 10 years, the others up to 20 years, throughout the country. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned that AutoNation is involved in the national marketing of used automobiles. MR. CONCKLIN answered in the affirmative. They have AutoNation USA used car megastores and they are the largest operator of new car dealers in the world with approximately 300 dealers nationwide. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if this is insurance offered to a consumer at a rental car counter. MR. CONCKLIN agreed; it is only offered incidental to a car rental, it could not be purchased as a stand-alone product. The insurance is typically bought for the period of the car rental. Mr. Concklin indicated the products are purely optional and some, especially the liability insurance, may be sought by consumers who aren't covered by their own personal policies. Mr. Concklin noted foreign visitors are normally the higher incidence takers of these products. Number 0248 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned that there was nothing inconsistent in the legislation with a person having his/her own coverage, particularly coverage for uninsured or underinsured motorists. MR. CONCKLIN agreed; there is nothing to prevent it, and nothing requiring a person to take the rental car coverage. He possibly indicated a person's own policy might not cover a rental situation. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "There's a number of credit card companies, particularly the premium cards, that indicate that they will cover the differential, and that [it is] therefore not necessary to purchase any insurance coverage from a rental car agency. Is there anything..." MR. CONCKLIN answered that might be related to what the industry terms collision damage waiver or loss damage waiver, which is for property damage to the vehicle alone. Basically, courts around the country have declared that product is not insurance. This legislation would not cover collision or loss damage waiver - damage to the car. Mr. Concklin confirmed credit card companies do offer this coverage. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he is somewhat curious about that because he always refuses it. MR. CONCKLIN stated he knows of no credit card that offers liability insurance to third parties in a rental situation. Number 0333 RICHARD McEVILY, Deputy General Counsel, The Hertz Corporation, testified next off-network via teleconference from New York in support of the legislation. They believe the bill will clarify some situations that have occurred in other states. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned the necessity of this legislation in Alaska. MR. McEVILY indicated each state's insurance department has been asked whether a license is believed to be necessary, and if so, the question of limited licensure or exemption law has been posed. This occurred after a situation arose in Texas. Mr. McEvily understands Alaska's Division of Insurance has opted for the limited license language as opposed to exemption. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the fee the companies might pay. MR. McEVILY confirmed they are assuming it would be a modest fee. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. McEvily to comment on what the credit card companies advise their clients, and, as a result, what Hertz advises its clients. MR. McEVILY echoed Mr. Concklin's comments: he is not aware of credit card companies providing third party liability insurance. What most of the credit card companies do is, as he understands, provide secondary coverage for loss damage waiver, although it might be primary in some situations. In essence, if a person does not have his/her own insurance that applies to physical damage to a rental car, the credit card company will step in. The legislation does not address that; it addresses liability and some other products. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed from Mr. McEvily there is nothing in the legislation affecting that particular claim. MR. McEVILY agreed, reiterating that courts around the country have determined loss damage waiver is not insurance. Number 0474 JOHN FERENCE, Deputy Director, Division of Insurance, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came forward to testify in support of the legislation. The Division of Insurance feels this measure represents a reasonable compromise between the need to protect the public from unqualified or deceptive insurance sales and the operational realities of rental car companies. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to subsection (7)(C)(vi), "(vi) other insurance as may be authorized by regulation by the director;". He questioned the broadness of the language on this limited licensure legislation, although noting he doubted dental coverage would be offered with the collision and liability. MR. FERENCE referred to the types of insurance sales allowed by the bill [(7)(C)(i)-(v)], commenting that comprehensive and collision insurance was not included at the request of Mr. Miller's clients. The Division of Insurance felt it was important to provide a facility for doing so in the future without the need to seek new legislation. In addition, it allows the facility if the state moves toward a no-fault option or similar in the near future. Mr. Ference stated, "It allows us to amend the scope of what the license authorizes without having to seek new legislation." REPRESENTATIVE BRICE surmised rental car agents have been renting vehicles and selling this insurance for a number of years; he questioned the current concern about the inappropriate selling or offering of that insurance. MR. FERENCE answered it is the division's opinion that rental car agents and personnel who have been selling insurance associated with rental cars have always been required to be licensed. However, Mr. Ference indicated it has come to the division's attention its existing standard license process, based on an insurance agent or broker selling a broad range of coverages with a high degree of occupational stability, does not fit the rental car environment. Number 0630 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented on the marketing possibilities of Representative Brice's idea. Representative Halcro asked Mr. Ference about subsection (D), "(D) notifies the director in writing, within 30 days of employment, of the name, date of birth, social security number, location of employment, and home address of an employee authorized by the licensee to transact insurance on the licensee's behalf; and". He assumes this applies to rental agents and managers who are selling the coverage at the counter. MR. FERENCE answered the reporting is intended to respond to employees, and, as the rental car companies put new counter people on staff, the division's standard agency licensing requires that these employees be licensed before engaging in any sales activity. This change would allow the employees to begin selling the products before the reporting is made to the division. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned that a licensing fee would not be required as the reporting occurred, or that individual licenses would not be necessary. MR. FERENCE confirmed individual licenses would not be required; however, the legislation contains provisions that would allow the division to stop them from continuing if it turns out there is something wrong. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned the division's plans to notify the several small operators if this legislation becomes law. MR. FERENCE indicated the division has anticipated this would be necessary. The division would accomplish this through a mailer. Number 0717 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about notification in subsection (D) if an employee leaves employment. The chairman questioned if the division would have a never-ending list. MR. FERENCE answered the division would have an ever-growing list, but, given that the employee "has not failed" when he/she was hired, there is no downside to non-removal. Mr. Ference commented the person would "just fade from the system." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated, then, there would be no electronic file storage problem and this avoids the need for two notifications. MR. FERENCE answered in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what the division's role is under this legislation if an employee is selling car rental insurance inappropriately. MR. FERENCE indicated the division would be able to revoke the employee's authority to sell the products. The division would also be able to take sanctions against the license holder. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the fee schedule and questioned whether the division has the authority in this legislation or this section to write the necessary regulations. Number 0802 MR. FERENCE replied the division's existing regulatory authority allows it to establish a fee schedule for licenses. The division currently anticipates a fee schedule where the fees would be generically similar to those for existing licenses. Mr. Ference indicated this is in the context of one license issued per rental car agency. In response to the chairman's question about the fee amount, Mr. Ference responded he believes the standard new license fee is $125. He confirmed that would be for an ordinary agent's license. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented the division would be checking with other states before it sets the fee schedule. MR. FERENCE noted the division has existing fee schedules for agents and it was not contemplating creating a special fee schedule for rental car agencies. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned that there had been testimony collision insurance would not be available. MR. FERENCE replied the industry testified it views the collision damage waiver as something other than insurance. The industry requested that, in granting the scope of this license, their employees not be permitted to sell collision insurance. Mr. Ference noted the reason is because they are already selling, or intend to sell, collision damage waiver. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG sought clarification. Number 0933 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented the industry is currently selling collision damage waiver or, as it is called now, liability damage waiver. It is not classified as insurance; it is a waiver. For a fee per day, a person is waiving responsibility for any and all damages in the event of a collision or upset. If a person declines the waiver, he/she is responsible for the damages. Representative Halcro emphasized it is just a waiver and has nothing to do with liability. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned, then, if he buys the waiver from Representative Halcro's company and damages the vehicle, he does not have to pay for it. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO confirmed that is correct. He used his company as an example, noting it does not have comprehensive coverage. If the chairman rents a car, accepts the liability damage waiver for $9.95 per day, and totals the vehicle, the company's coverage would pay for the person or object the chairman hit, but not for the vehicle. Representative Halcro said, "If you decline that, then you're liable, not only for mine, but yours." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, "And I would look to my own auto insurance (indisc.) recover that ...." The chairman indicated, then, his credit card coverage would not extend that far. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented many people are under the assumption, when using their credit card for coverage, that their card will pick up the bill if they are in an accident. In fact, the person's insurance would be primary and the credit card's would be secondary. Number 0994 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG closed the public hearing on SB 87 after confirming there were no other witnesses. Number 1028 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move SB 87 to the next committee of referral with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations. There being no objection, CSSB 87(L&C) moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. Number 1046 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 4:33 p.m. The committee came back to order at 4:36 p.m. HB 146 - LIABILITY FOR COMMERCIAL REC ACTIVITIES Number 1050 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business is HB 146, "An Act relating to civil liability for commercial recreational activities; and providing for an effective date." Number 1075 KELLY SULLIVAN, Legislative Secretary to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to present HB 146 on behalf of the sponsor. Ms. Sullivan noted this is pretty straightforward: Alaska has its great outdoor experiences like big game hunting, sportfishing, kayaking and river rafting. There are a lot businesses in Alaska that provide these experiences to the public. Ms. Sullivan mentioned the tourism industry. House Bill 146 would establish the responsibilities of the commercial recreational businesses and the responsibilities of the participants in those activities. The legislation addresses specific guidelines operators and participants would follow in order to minimize the possibility of accidents. Should an accident occur, the legislation provides which party would be held liable. Current legal uncertainties result in high liability insurance costs that hurt a lot of Alaskan businesses, especially smaller ones. The intent of this legislation is the avoidance of unfair and unreasonable claims which make it difficult [for businesses] to provide these recreational activities. The desire is to encourage the continued availability of these recreational businesses. Ms. Sullivan noted there are a few witnesses to provide testimony. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Representative Kott, the bill sponsor, had joined the committee at the table. Number 1188 MIKE WINDRED, Vice President, Marketing and Sales, Alaska Travel Adventures, came forward to testify in support of HB 146. He informed the committee that his company has several operations throughout the state. Mr. Windred thanked the sponsor for bringing the legislation forward, noting the bill has passed the House three times in recent years but has been held up in the Senate for various reasons. Mr. Windred believes one of the basic ideas behind this legislation is that participants in many of these activities assume some inherent risk when purchasing that recreational activity. However, he does not believe the legislation would absolve any of the operators from negligent actions. The bill establishes some basic performance standards the operators must adhere to that are not currently specified by Alaska Statute. The legislation would affect a business like Alaska Travel Adventures by requiring it to provide good training to its employees, maintain its equipment, and provide a good explanation of the inherent risks to participants. This is not currently set out and should increase the level of service within the industry. Number 1262 MR. WINDRED thinks the primary benefit to his business would be a reduction in the costs of what he termed "nuisance suits." Mr. Windred described that these nuisance suits would be lawsuits for damages specifically at the level of a company's insurance deductible - $10,000 for a business like his - so that the insurance company would not be involved, at least for "the first hit." He indicated these suits result in significant costs over the long term because it is less expensive for the business to settle them than risk lengthy litigation. Mr. Windred thinks the legislation gives his business some standing to respond that the participants had some amount of responsibility in undertaking the activity. He commented that at least the legislation would give the businesses a level playing field to begin with and he feels certain it would reduce the money they pay out-of-pocket each year for these nuisance suits. Mr. Windred described the example of a nature hiker stumbling on a rock on the beach, cutting his/her forehead. Mr. Windred's company would provide first aid, take the person to the hospital, make sure everything checked out okay, and six months later might be sued by that person for $10,000 to $20,000 because the person's vacation to Alaska had been ruined or for some other reason. He noted, "At the point that we've done everything in our ability to ... make that right in terms of paying a medical bill or treating them with first aid, et cetera. That would be a lawsuit that I would certainly think ... probably wouldn't be very valid, but at that amount, would be very difficult for us to fight legally." Number 1394 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted Mr. Windred's testimony that this legislation would not preclude lawsuits for negligence on the part of the tour company or operator. She noted the legislation does define some areas of responsibility for operators, but she expressed some doubt it covered, for example, a leaky raft. Someone put into that type of situation by an operator should be able to sue. MR. WINDRED agreed someone in that situation should be able to sue and indicated he thought that would be covered in the legislation by the operator's responsibility to maintain its equipment. He stated, "And in reality, that's probably almost more harmful to the operator the way this bill is written, which is a good thing in the industry, ... it'll ensure that as an operator, I don't send a faulty piece of equipment out on tour." REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to the language, "explain to a participant", on page 2, line 23, under "Responsibilities of operators of commercial recreational activities.". He noted an example of a white water rafting situation where the risks were explained to the participants but someone was hurt and denied that he/she had been informed. Representative Halcro said his concern is with having some kind of a written disclosure. It does not look like the legislation provides for that. Number 1492 MR. WINDRED related participants in his company's river rafting sign a sheet before the activity which basically says the participant understands the safety precautions. These precautions and inherent risks are gone through verbally. If the person chooses not to sign that paper, or does not want to sign off on the risks, at that point he/she has the opportunity to return to town and not participate in the activity. Mr. Windred thinks if there was no documentation, it would be more difficult for the operator to win in that case. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO thinks some kind of written agreement would probably be important in this legislation. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted she did not see anything in the legislation regarding some kind of an assessment the operator might need to perform when, for example a participant is intoxicated and should not be allowed to engage in the activity. She questioned if that is something that should ever be addressed in something like this. MR. WINDRED answered he thinks that would definitely be a gray area and is probably a battle that would occur in court. He indicated it would certainly behoove such an operator to inform a person the operator feels the person is not prepared to take the inherent risk or is a safety problem. Mr. Windred further indicated he thinks there is some responsibility on the part of the participant to evaluate his/her own fitness level for the activity. Number 1677 STEVE BEHNKE, Executive Director, Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association (AWRTA), came forward to testify in support of HB 146. Mr. Behnke noted his organization represents a couple hundred of the types of companies Mr. Windred spoke about. AWRTA members feel this kind of legislation is necessary to protect small businesses in this arena. The organization's members depend on providing experiences that have inherent risks. The kinds of measures proposed by the legislation that help encourage safer operations are major improvements over the current situation. Mr. Behnke said it seems like a balanced approach to protect the interests of AWRTA's members while also protecting the interests of the participants. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out the legislation limits recreational activity to outdoor activity. She asked if there is any specific reason for this, commenting she has done great damage with a bowling ball. She noted the question might be best addressed to the sponsor. MR. BEHNKE responded he is the wrong person to ask because his organization's members are all [outdoor] outfitters and operators providing activities with obvious inherent risks. He said most operators do currently require some of the kinds of steps in the legislation, but it would apply to a broader range of companies and help encourage them to be safer and more responsible operators. Number 1817 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE mentioned that indoor climbing walls are increasing in popularity, noting there are opportunities to perform these kinds of formerly outdoor activities inside. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented the committee seems to have a question about the limitation on outdoor activities vis-a-vis other rather dangerous indoor pursuits. He asked if there is a reason for the limitation. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated there was no intent to distinguish the two, other than the fact that the visitor businesses who primarily need this measure generally offer outdoor activities within the category. He has no problem changing it to include both, noting there are some climbing walls even he wouldn't attempt to go up, given the constraints he has. Referring to bowling, however, he noted, "If you get into establishing various types of recreational activity and requiring each of the operator[s] to provide some kind of documentation to be signed, then you have to get into that whole quandary of whether or not when I go bowling the operator there should have me sign a disclosure or some kind of form understanding the problems and potential dangers." Number 1989 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Representative Kott had considered establishing a new "prudent man rule" for sports activities, noting he is half-joking but really half-serious. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if they simply redefined recreational activity to mean "an activity usually undertaken outdoors for the purpose of exercise", deferring to the lawyers on the committee. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO suggested simply the deletion of "outdoor". REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI answered if "outdoor" is deleted, this would be "an activity for the purpose of exercise or education". She could go to a seminar on throwing pots or grant-writing; she does not think that is the intended direction of this definition. Representative Murkowski thinks where the definition needs to go is "those inherently dangerous activities", indicating there are certain things like being on the water, ice climbing, et cetera, that are inherently more dangerous than bowling. She indicated that perhaps the discussion would occur in the next committee of referral, the House Judiciary Standing Committee (Judiciary). CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG mentioned contributory negligence in the case of fishing and being "hooked" by a fellow fisherman. Number 2136 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO appreciates the intent of the legislation but commented the Surgeon General's warning has been on cigarette packs for almost 30 years and it hasn't stopped people from suing tobacco manufacturers. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if it was Representative Kott's intention to insert contributory negligence as a defense here. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied that it was at least some extent. There is some inherent risk to just about any activity. Certainly, when a person is engaging in outdoor activities in Alaska, the risk is a little more inherent, because of Alaska's terrain, than perhaps in some of the other states. He noted Alaska's good tourist population, small state population, and the medium-sized group of what he would term "mom-and-pop" commercial operators who provide these types of environments for the state's visitors. Representative Kott indicated he thinks these operators need some assurance of protection from expensive lawsuits brought by people who ignored the inherently risky nature of the activity they were participating in. Number 2266 TINA LINDGREN, Executive Director, Alaska Visitors Association (AVA), came forward to testify in support of HB 146. As Mr. Windred had said, this is legislation the AVA has supported and the House has passed at least three times that she is aware of. It has taken different forms because people start identifying other kinds of recreational activities. At one time equine activities were been included, another time skateboarding. Ms. Lindgren indicated the number of bills on the subject is a strong case that the legislation is needed. She emphasized a strong point of HB 146 is that it sort of covers all of the outdoor activities. She thinks the suggestion of including some indoor activities may be good and perhaps this can be examined in Judiciary. Ms. Lindgren noted the legislation is before the committee primarily at the request of small businesses concerned about the cost of insurance and nuisance lawsuits from people "who through their own activity have caused some injury." She commented it is very similar to the skiing reform bill passed several years ago. House Bill 146 has participants agreeing to accept some level of risk and operators agreeing that they have to provide a safe environment. Ms. Lindgren stated AVA wholeheartedly supports the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned if this would really lower insurance rates for the "mom-and-pops." MS. LINDGREN replied she does not know - that is the hope. It would be a tool companies could use. She does know that companies currently are targeted by a lot of frivolous lawsuits from people seeking financial gain. Number 2471 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to subsection (1)(B) on page 2, beginning on line 26, "(B) the skills or equipment required to participate in the commercial recreational activity that are not apparent to an inexperienced participant;". He stated, "'The skills or equipment required' rather than 'the skills...'" [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE] TAPE 99-38, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE continued, "...conjunction word." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Representative Brice wished to make a conceptual amendment. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated he has no objection. Number 0025 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to replace "or" with "and". There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. Subsection (1)(B) on page 2, beginning on line 26, as amended by Conceptual Amendment 1, reads: (B) the skills and equipment required to participate in the commercial recreational activity that are not apparent to an inexperienced participant; Number 0050 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO offered two friendly conceptual amendments. He moved the addition of "and condition of health" on page 2, line 13, after "act within the limits of the person' abilities". Representative Halcro indicated he thinks a negative incident during an activity resulting from a person's health condition would be the responsibility of the participant, because only the participant knows his/her condition of health. He used the example of someone with a bad heart. Representative Halcro noted his conceptual amendment 3 would be on page 2, line 23, after "explain to a participant", inserting "in writing", if that is acceptable to the sponsor. Representative Halcro said he thinks that protects all involved, even if it is just a sign-off sheet. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee would address Amendment 2 first. The chairman expressed his approval, terming it "the fat guy amendment." He indicated if a person is too out-of-shape to be participating in an activity, the person should not be doing it. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted he considers it a friendly amendment and does not object. He thinks it is contained in the bill's original language but it is fine to add that and clarify. Number 0166 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if there were any objections to Conceptual Amendment 2, adding "condition of health" on page 2, line 13. There being none, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. Subsection (2) on page 2, line 13, as amended by Conceptual Amendment 2 reads: (2) act within the limits of the person's abilities and condition of health; REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved Conceptual Amendment 3, adding "in writing" on page 2, line 23. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG objected for purposes of discussion. He asked if the sponsor wished to comment. Number 0201 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT answered he would defer to Ms. Lindgren since she is probably closer to these issues. He indicated he can potentially see some problem in a situation where a previously unforeseen risk is being explained. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted it can be problematic. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed it could be. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he thinks it is warranted in certain circumstances but perhaps not universally; that is his only concern. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO withdrew Conceptual Amendment 3. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that was his only concern there. The chairman expressed that he would actually like to see a two-tier thing here, indicating he was referring to a differentiation between very risky activities and those of a more sedate nature. Number 0287 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI posed a conceptual amendment concerning children and dogs. On page 2, subsection (4), beginning line 16, she recommended the use of "any minors under the participant's control" to replace "the participant's children". She noted whenever she goes out with her children she also always has other people's children. On page 2, subsection (4), Representative Murkowski indicated it is also her intention to include animals under the participant's control, like a dog, not just animals the participant might be using, like a horse. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "Any equipment, devices, or animals the participant is using or under the participant's control." REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI spoke over, "or under the control of the -- or animals under the control of the participant." She noted this would include a person's dog. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to Conceptual Amendment 4, which includes everything on page 2, lines 16 and 17. There being none, Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted. According to the above discussion, subsection (4) on page 2, beginning on line 16, as amended by Conceptual Amendment 4, reads: (4) maintain control of the participant's person, any minors under the participant's control, and any equipment, devices, or animals the participant is using or animals under the control of the participant; Number 0453 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move HB 146, as amended, out of committee with accompanying zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations. There being no objection, CSHB 146(L&C) moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. Number 0478 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would not be hearing HB 158 that day. Work is continuing on the legislation; it will be heard as the first item at the next committee meeting [April 14, 1999]. The chairman indicated a committee substitute would be presented. ADJOURNMENT Number 0536 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting at 5:06 p.m.