Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120

03/08/2010 01:30 PM 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 238 LANDLORD REJECTION OF OCCUPANT/SUBLEASE TELECONFERENCED
Moved Out of Committee
+ HB 334 MILITARY DEPLOYMENT AND CHILD CUSTODY TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 334(JUD) Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 71 ADVANCE HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVES REGISTRY TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 71(JUD) Out of Committee
        HB 71 - ADVANCE HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVES REGISTRY                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:31:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 71, "An  Act relating  to a registry  for advance                                                               
health  care  directives."    [Before   the  committee  was  CSHB
71(HSS);  adopted as  a work  draft on  2/24/10 was  the proposed                                                               
committee  substitute  (CS)  for   HB  71,  Version  26-LS0289\T,                                                               
Kurtz/Bannister, 1/21/10.]                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  stated that public  testimony on HB 71  was closed,                                                               
and  indicated  that he  had  concerns  about the  bill's  fiscal                                                               
impact.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, speaking as one  of the bill's joint prime                                                               
sponsors,  explained  that under  Version  T,  the Department  of                                                               
Health  and Social  Services (DHSS)  would be  allowed to  charge                                                               
people for filing  their advance health care  directives with the                                                               
proposed registry.  She indicated  that the DHSS's fiscal note in                                                               
members' packets doesn't reflect that authorization.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:32:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JAMES WALDO,  Staff, Representative Lindsey Holmes,  Alaska State                                                               
Legislature,  on  behalf of  Representative  Holmes,  one of  the                                                               
bill's  joint   prime  sponsors,  added  that   that  authorizing                                                               
language can be  found in proposed AS  13.52.310(h), which begins                                                               
on page 3, line 3, and which  in part reads:  "(h) The department                                                               
may charge a  fee to file a directive in  the registry or provide                                                               
a  copy  of  a  directive   filed  in  the  registry  under  this                                                               
section ...".                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:33:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS made  a motion to adopt Amendment 1,  to replace the                                                               
word "may", on page 3, line 3, with the word "shall".                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS, observing  that the fiscal note  reflects an annual                                                               
cost of $111,400 to fund  a Public Health Specialist II position,                                                               
expressed  disfavor with  that cost,  and  indicated that  merely                                                               
giving  the  DHSS  the  flexibility  to  charge  a  fee  but  not                                                               
mandating that it do so was not acceptable to him.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES expressed  a  preference  for leaving  the                                                               
language as  is, adding  that she  would prefer  for the  DHSS to                                                               
retain the  discretion to charge  a fee, particularly  given that                                                               
the proposed registry's costs are going to be reduced over time.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  offered  his   understanding,  however,  that  the                                                               
personal services costs wouldn't ever  be eliminated.  He offered                                                               
his belief that although the  proposed registry could be helpful,                                                               
the  information  that  would  be included  in  the  registry  is                                                               
already available elsewhere.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  pointed  out  that  testimony  at  the                                                               
bill's last hearing indicated that  a number of people would have                                                               
trouble affording a  registry fee, and surmised  that adoption of                                                               
Amendment  1 could  "chill"  the  ability of  people  to use  the                                                               
proposed registry, and  that that could prove more  costly in the                                                               
end.   He expressed a  preference for instead  simply encouraging                                                               
as many people as possible to make use of the proposed registry.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  pointed out that  adoption of Amendment  1 wouldn't                                                               
preclude  anyone from  using the  proposed registry,  and likened                                                               
having to  pay a fee  for using the registry  to having to  pay a                                                               
licensing fee in order to go fishing, for example.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG argued,  however,  that  people over  a                                                               
certain age  don't have to pay  a fee for a  fishing license, and                                                               
asked  Chair Ramras  whether  he would  be  amenable to  amending                                                               
Amendment 1 [such  that persons over a certain  age wouldn't have                                                               
to pay a fee for using the proposed registry].                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  indicated that he would  not be amenable to  such a                                                               
change.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.   Representatives Dahlstrom, Herron,                                                               
and  Ramras  voted in  favor  of  Amendment 1.    Representatives                                                               
Holmes,  Lynn,  and  Gruenberg  voted  against  it.    Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-3.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:37:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  moved to report the  proposed committee                                                               
substitute (CS) for HB  71, Version 26-LS0289\T, Kurtz/Bannister,                                                               
1/21/10,  out of  committee with  individual recommendations  and                                                               
the  accompanying  fiscal  notes.    There  being  no  objection,                                                               
CSHB 71(JUD)  was  reported  from the  House  Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee.                                                                                                                      

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
01 HB 334 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 3/8/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 334
02 HB334 CS(MVA) v. S.pdf HJUD 3/8/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 334
03 HB334 Sectional.pdf HJUD 3/8/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 334
04 HB334-1-1-022410-CRT-N.pdf HJUD 3/8/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 334
05 HB334CS(MLV)-LAW-CIV-03-05-10.pdf HJUD 3/8/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 334
06 HB334 Support.pdf HJUD 3/8/2010 1:30:00 PM
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM
HB 334
07 HB334 Bill v. R.pdf HJUD 3/8/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 334
01 HB238 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 3/8/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 238
02 HB238 ver R.pdf HJUD 3/8/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 238
03 HB238 Fiscal Note-CED-COM-2-11-10.pdf HJUD 3/8/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 238
04 HB238 HUD Letter 7-18-07.pdf HJUD 3/8/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 238
05 HB238 AHFC Comments.pdf HJUD 3/8/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 238