Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120

03/16/2009 08:00 AM JUDICIARY


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Please Note Time Change --
*+ HB 2 BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR STILLBIRTH TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 2(HSS) Out of Committee
*+ HB 152 2009 REVISOR'S BILL TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= HB 101 EXEMPTIONS: LIFE INSURANCE; ANNUITIES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
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.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
01 HB101 BILL ver R.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 101
02 HB101 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 101
HB152 Amendment E.1.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 152
HB152 Bill version E.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 152
HB152 DOL Ltr of Support.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 152
HB152-LAW-CIV-3-11-09.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 152
HB2 Bill version A.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 2
HB2 Demo Birth Cert.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 2
03 HB101 Sectional Analysis.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 101
04 HB 101 Fiscal Note - HLC 2-18-09.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 101
05 HB101 Ltrs of SupportOpposition.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 101
HB152 Sectional.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 152
HB2 HSS CS version P.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 2
HB2 HSS Fiscal Note.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 2
HB2 ltrs of SupportOpposition.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 2
HB2 Sectional.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 2
HB2 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM
HB 2