Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120

02/20/2015 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
-- Public Testimony --
         HB  83-JUDICIAL COUNCIL: CIVIL LITIGATION INFO                                                                     
1:06:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  83 "An  Act relating  to collecting  information                                                               
about civil litigation by the  Alaska Judicial Council; repealing                                                               
Rule 41(a)(3), Alaska Rules of  Civil Procedure, and Rules 511(c)                                                               
and (e), Alaska  Rules of Appellate Procedure;  and providing for                                                               
an effective date."                                                                                                             
1:06:28 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took a brief at ease.                                                                                             
CHAIR  LEDOUX passed  the  gavel  to Vice  Chair  Keller for  the                                                               
hearing on HB 83.                                                                                                               
1:06:50 PM                                                                                                                    
CLARK  BICKFORD, Staff,  Representative Gabrielle  LeDoux, Alaska                                                               
State  Legislature, offered  that  the bill  repeals  a 1997  law                                                               
relating  to  the  collection   of  information  regarding  civil                                                               
litigation  by the  Alaska Judicial  Council, which  is a  widely                                                               
forgotten and ignored practice amongst  the legal community.  For                                                               
instance,  he  explained,  from  2001-2010  only  13  percent  of                                                               
litigation  reports  have  been  filed.    He  offered  that  the                                                               
majority of the  legal community and the  Alaska Judicial Council                                                               
(AHC) is in favor of this repeal and urged support for the bill.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked  whether there was a  time of greater                                                               
MR. BICKFORD, in response to  Representative Claman, stated there                                                               
was  more compliance  from the  legal  community at  the time  of                                                               
passage, and gradually that compliance  dropped dramatically.  He                                                               
pointed  out  that during  the  above-mentioned  nine years  only                                                               
20,000 of the 177,000 open civil cases were reported.                                                                           
1:09:23 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR  KELLER assumed there  was legislative intent  for the                                                               
original bill and asked for the legislative history.                                                                            
1:09:50 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. BICKFORD said  the difficulty of lawyers  not was unforeseen,                                                               
and the AJC  does not have resources to  [encourage attorneys] to                                                               
report every 177,000 cases.                                                                                                     
1:10:50 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR KELLER questioned why  years have passed without data,                                                               
as it is a law.                                                                                                                 
1:11:11 PM                                                                                                                    
SUZANNE  DIPIETRO, Executive  Director,  Alaska Judicial  System,                                                               
Alaska Court System,  advised that the law was passed  as part of                                                               
tort reform  legislation in 1997.   The items in  the legislation                                                               
were recommended by  the Governor's Advisory Task  Force on Civil                                                               
Justice Reform and,  she noted, this task force  was formed after                                                               
Governor  Tony Knowles  vetoed tort  reform legislation  that had                                                               
passed  in 1995-1996.   The  task force  made recommendations  to                                                               
improve the  efficiency and  fairness of  civil litigation.   She                                                               
remarked that during  the course of deliberation  it became clear                                                               
to  the task  force  there was  no data  regarding  the size  and                                                               
amount of  an average  jury verdict,  average settlement,  or the                                                               
percentage of  times a  plaintiff won versus  a defendant.   When                                                               
the legislation  passed, the provision  intended that  the Alaska                                                               
Judicial  Council (AJC)  would  collect  information and  provide                                                               
reports to  the legislature  so it could  monitor the  effects of                                                               
what it had done in the tort reform legislation, she explained.                                                                 
The AJC  issued three  reports, a  preliminary report  soon after                                                               
the  statute   was  passed  with   some  information,   and  when                                                               
information was rolling it issued  the 2001 report which included                                                               
the amount of  the average settlement, and  civil litigation data                                                               
information.   Unfortunately, she related, due  to the difficulty                                                               
in obtaining data,  the AJC reviewed court case  files and pulled                                                               
the numbers of the cases it should have received reports.                                                                       
1:13:39 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. DIPIETRO stated that AJC  realized only a fraction of reports                                                               
had  been filed  and  sent letters  to all  of  the parties  that                                                               
should have  filed information.   Through that  laborious process                                                               
the AJC was  able to achieve approximately a  50 percent response                                                               
rate.   She  described it  as the  highest response  rate it  had                                                               
received and, she opined, it was  enough information to put out a                                                               
report that was not misleading.   In subsequent years, she noted,                                                               
the reporting  rate fell  and for example,  in FY13  court system                                                               
data showed  6,113 cases that  should have received  a settlement                                                               
report and received  1,086 reports, only 18 percent.   She opined                                                               
that it  would not have been  responsible to publish a  report at                                                               
18 percent data.                                                                                                                
1:16:10 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR KELLER remarked that  he just received the 2001 Alaska                                                               
Judicial  Council  report  and  has not  had  an  opportunity  to                                                               
evaluate  the data.    He  questioned whether  there  is a  valid                                                               
reason to "get rid of" a law wherein compliance is difficult.                                                                   
MS.  DIPIETRO   offered  that  the   AJC  has   a  constitutional                                                               
responsibility to  conduct studies to improve  the administration                                                               
of justice  for the  legislature.   She advised  she is  ready to                                                               
conduct any study  the legislature would like  conducted, such as                                                               
the civil case data information.                                                                                                
1:17:51 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR  KELLER pointed  to the implication  that the  data is                                                               
not  valuable  as the  AJC  is  bringing  this bill  forward  and                                                               
supporting  it.   He  opined  that his  first  impression is  the                                                               
information is  very valuable and  offered concern that  the lack                                                               
of information to the legislature is due to non-compliance.                                                                     
MS. DIPIETRO responded in the  affirmative, that the AJC has only                                                               
received 18 percent  with a lot of information  outstanding.  "As                                                               
a representative  of the  AJC, I'm not  really taking  a position                                                               
one way  or the other," she  said, and that she  is testifying to                                                               
advise of the  difficulties, and for the committee  to direct the                                                               
1:19:00 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX clarified  that this bill was not  put forth through                                                               
the Alaska Judicial Council but was  suggested to her by a number                                                               
of individuals from  the private bar.  She  questioned the amount                                                               
of money would  be necessary to put teeth into  the law requiring                                                               
parties to report.                                                                                                              
1:19:48 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  DIPIETRO responded  that she  could work  something up,  and                                                               
reiterated that the 2001 report required  quite a bit of time and                                                               
effort in collecting the data.                                                                                                  
1:20:17 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised  that the AJC went through  the records [in                                                               
order  to prepare  the 2001  report] because  attorneys were  not                                                               
submitting the  data.  She questioned  what it would take  in the                                                               
way  of law,  or a  budget, to  enforce the  attorneys to  submit                                                               
data.     She  also  questioned   who  would  be  in   charge  of                                                               
1:20:42 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. DIPIETRO,  in response  to Chair LeDoux,  stated an  issue is                                                               
that  there  is  no  enforcement  mechanism  in  the  law.    She                                                               
indicated she  did not know  what an enforcement  mechanism could                                                               
be, and reiterated  that when the AJC sent  letters and reminders                                                               
it only achieved a 50 percent compliance rate.                                                                                  
1:21:11 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR  KELLER questioned  whether the AJC  would be  able to                                                               
devise some  incentive ideas and  actually make money  instead of                                                               
cost  money and  indicated there  was no  enforcement suggestion,                                                               
but rather a suggestion to change the law.                                                                                      
1:21:44 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN  questioned  what   the  data  would  show                                                               
regarding the impact of the tort reform legislation.                                                                            
MS. DIPIETRO  responded that  the AJC performed  a study  of tort                                                               
jury verdicts (appendix  to the [2001] report)  and subsequent to                                                               
realizing  there  were not  many  large  tort jury  verdicts,  it                                                               
shifted its focus to the idea  of settlement.  She explained that                                                               
the  hypothesis being  that because  there are  large settlements                                                               
paid  out  by  insurance  companies, this  impacts  the  cost  of                                                               
insurance  and causes  the cost  of insurance  to go  up and  the                                                               
availability  of  insurance  to  go  down.    The  Department  of                                                               
Commerce,  Community,  and   Economic  Development,  Division  of                                                               
Insurance, and the  AJC attempted to answer what  effect, if any,                                                               
the settlement of  civil cases is having on  the availability and                                                               
cost of insurance.                                                                                                              
1:23:41 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked what the studies revealed.                                                                          
MS.  DIPIETRO offered  that the  Division of  Insurance issued  a                                                               
couple of reports  in its effort to comply with  that request and                                                               
was unable to conclude one way or the other.                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN surmised  that the  theory of  tort reform                                                               
was  that there  were jury  verdicts in  the millions  of dollars                                                               
driving up insurance  costs, but the studies of  jury verdicts in                                                               
Alaska actually showed there were not huge jury verdicts.                                                                       
MS.  DIPIETRO answered  "that is  correct,  in the  memo and  the                                                               
report, yes."                                                                                                                   
1:24:26 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN  further   questioned  what  the  research                                                               
performed in  the years following tort  reform revealed regarding                                                               
MS. DIPIETRO  explained that  the 2001  report contains  the most                                                               
complete information on settlements  which revealed "not all that                                                               
many large settlements."                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  asked whether  settlements were  higher or                                                               
lower than jury verdicts.                                                                                                       
MS. DIPIETRO responded that she  could not recall, and reiterated                                                               
that the data was only 50 percent of the cases.                                                                                 
1:25:33 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR  KELLER noted that  the description of  the settlement                                                               
or  judgment  is  only  one  aspect  of  the  information  to  be                                                               
reported.   He related that  the other things erased,  should the                                                               
law  be  repealed,  is  information  regarding  the  court  civil                                                               
justice    processes,    case   processing    information,    and                                                               
characteristics of the  litigation and parties.   For example, he                                                               
said  he  would  be  interested  in how  many  civil  cases  were                                                               
frivolous, how much  court time is taken up  in civil litigation,                                                               
what percentage, and  what the information is  based upon without                                                               
the [other 50 percent] data.                                                                                                    
1:26:31 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  moved   to  adopt  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute (CS) for HB 83,  Version 29-LS0414\H, Wallace, 2/5/15,                                                               
as the  working document.   There being  no objection,  Version H                                                               
was before the committee for discussion.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised  that the enforcement mechanism                                                               
could be grounds  for discipline such as  an individual violating                                                               
a civil rule in statute.                                                                                                        
MS.  DIPIETRO  clarified that  it  would  be discipline  for  the                                                               
attorneys through the  Alaska Bar Association, but  this law also                                                               
applies to unrepresented litigants.                                                                                             
1:28:14 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG,  in  reference   to  the  Mr.  Jacobus                                                               
supporting letter  in each  member's packet,  said it  reads that                                                               
this  law costs  attorney time  and that  most plaintiff  lawyers                                                               
work on a contingency basis.   The defense bar is generally on an                                                               
hourly  basis,  so  the  clock  would  run  for  the  clients  in                                                               
preparation of these reports, he remarked.                                                                                      
MS. DIPIETRO replied "correct."                                                                                                 
1:28:43 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  requested an estimate of  the amount of                                                               
time spent filling out a report with the hourly rate.                                                                           
MS. DIPIETRO replied that the form  was streamlined to make it as                                                               
easy  as possible  in order  to  evaluate the  minimum amount  of                                                               
information in  the best manner  possible.  She offered  that she                                                               
had  received an  email  from  a law  firm  suggesting  it was  a                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  pointed  out  that  the  bill  repeals                                                               
certain rules  of court.   He opined  the protocol in  matters of                                                               
comity ...  when dealing with a  change of a court  rule would be                                                               
to request the court system to repeal its rule.                                                                                 
MS. DIPIETRO advised  she could not respond to  the protocol, but                                                               
the  rules require  an  attorney to  certify  they submitted  the                                                               
information to the AJC, or promulgated  as a way to implement the                                                               
statute.  She deferred the response to Ms. Nancy Meade.                                                                         
1:31:08 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  LEDOUX  asked  whether the  law  requiring  reporting  was                                                               
enacted after tort reform legislation.                                                                                          
MS. DIPIETRO responded "that is correct."                                                                                       
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned  how a study would be  performed when the                                                               
information is available after [the law was enacted].                                                                           
1:31:50 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. DIPIETRO  articulated that  the AJC does  not have  base line                                                               
data  so it  could not  determine  whether prior  to tort  reform                                                               
settlements  were   a  certain   amount  or  after   tort  reform                                                               
settlements  were a  certain amount.   She  said the  thought was                                                               
that  the AJC  could report  that immediately  after tort  reform                                                               
things were a certain way, and  five years later had changed, and                                                               
ten years later had changed again.   She remarked it would not be                                                               
the type of analysis  to prove a causation as it  would just be a                                                               
1:32:30 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR KELLER  said that part of the  AJC's responsibility is                                                               
offering recommendations to  judges, and he asked  whether any of                                                               
the non-compliant attorneys became  judges and asked Ms. DiPietro                                                               
to report back.                                                                                                                 
MS. DIPIETRO replied  "I actually do not know the  answer to that                                                               
1:33:03 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  noted that part  of the rule  was amending                                                               
either the  court rules  or attorney  rules relating  to attorney                                                               
client privilege  and whether or not  disclosing this information                                                               
violated the attorney client  privilege, particularly relating to                                                               
settlements.   He asked  whether anyone  tested that  question in                                                               
court,  whether lawyers  were unwilling  to  report because  they                                                               
believe it is an attorney-client violation.                                                                                     
MS.  DIPIETRO  responded  that  her knowledge  no  one  has  ever                                                               
challenged that  issue in  court.   She said  she has  heard that                                                               
some attorneys object  to the idea of  disclosing the information                                                               
on that ground, but described her statement as hearsay.                                                                         
1:34:25 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   CLAMAN  referred   to  Representative   Keller's                                                               
question of  sitting judges who,  when in practice,  had complied                                                               
every time, sometimes, or never.                                                                                                
MS. DIPIETRO advised  the AJC would have to go  back to the court                                                               
and obtain the  list of cases that had been  dismissed or settled                                                               
and determine  who the  attorneys were and  whether a  report was                                                               
submitted.  "That would be quite the tricky research project."                                                                  
VICE  CHAIR KELLER  advised Representative  Claman that  he could                                                               
work it out  whether he wanted the information,  but his question                                                               
was "rhetorical" because he believes it was ignored.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  called the committee's attention  to AS                                                               
09.68.130(b), which  is the statute  that will be  repealed under                                                               
the bill, which read:                                                                                                           
     (b) The  information received by the  council under (a)                                                                    
     of this section is  confidential. This restriction does                                                                    
     not prevent the disclosure  of summaries and statistics                                                                    
     in a manner  that does not allow  the identification of                                                                    
     particular cases or parties.                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  offered that  many settled  civil cases                                                               
are confidential, but are not confidential as to statistics.                                                                    
1:36:50 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY  MEADE,  General Counsel,  Central  Office,  Office of  the                                                               
Administrative  Director,  Alaska   Court  System,  responded  to                                                               
Representative  Gruenberg  that  the legislature  does  have  the                                                               
right   to  change   court  rules   of  practice   and  procedure                                                               
constitutionally,  and  that it  takes  place  several times  per                                                               
session.    She opined  it  is  an  appropriate exercise  of  the                                                               
legislature's authority,  and in  this instance, those  rules are                                                               
in the  Alaska Rules of  Court solely due  to the passage  of the                                                               
statute.  In  the event the statute and court  rules are repealed                                                               
it would  not be problematic  from the  court's point of  view to                                                               
also repeal the court rules, she explained.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  opined that if the  legislature changed                                                               
it to  a request  of court,  it would  not be  a rule  change and                                                               
would not require two-thirds vote.                                                                                              
MS.  MEADE   responded  that   Legislative  Legal   and  Research                                                               
Services,  who deals  with statutory  changes,  always checks  to                                                               
determine  whether  there would  at  least  be an  indirect  rule                                                               
amendment, if not a  direct one.  She stated it  is their call as                                                               
to whether statutory changes do impact rules.                                                                                   
VICE CHAIR KELLER opened public testimony.                                                                                      
1:39:24 PM                                                                                                                    
BREWSTER JAMIESON,  Attorney, Lane Powell  LLC, said he  has been                                                               
practicing  civil litigation  for 31  years in  Alaska and  noted                                                               
that  the law  does  not accomplish  much in  the  way of  useful                                                               
information, but  it does  place a burden  on practitioners.   In                                                               
terms  of settlement  information, the  data is  of cases  in the                                                               
court  system, not  cases  that  are settled  before  they go  to                                                               
court.  He  opined that tort reform accomplished much  of what it                                                               
set out  to accomplish and  has had  a significant impact  on his                                                               
practice in terms of the certainty  it brought in areas that were                                                               
uncertain  before passage.   He  said  that tort  reform made  it                                                               
easier  to resolve  and settle  cases and  predict outcomes.   He                                                               
highlighted that there are factors  determining the dollar amount                                                               
cases settle for,  and what juries award in the  way of verdicts.                                                               
It is expensive  and difficult to collect data  that doesn't tell                                                               
much  about the  cases, or  whether tort  reform was  or was  not                                                               
good, should  or should not  continue, or  is fair or  unfair, he                                                               
explained.   He  remarked he  fully supports  the repeal  of this                                                               
provision and the bill.                                                                                                         
1:45:20 PM                                                                                                                    
KEN  JACOBUS,  Attorney,  Law  Offices  of  Kenneth  P.  Jacobus,                                                               
paraphrased   the  following   statement  [original   punctuation                                                               
     As Chairman  of the Judiciary Committee,  you should be                                                                    
     able  to  do  something  about  this  abomination  that                                                                    
     continues  to  exist in  the  Alaska  Statutes. I  have                                                                    
     enclosed the  most recent  Resolution of  the Anchorage                                                                    
     Bar  Association directed  at this  matter. Every  year                                                                    
     since  2003  through  2010,  similar  resolutions  were                                                                    
     adopted  by  the  Anchorage  Bar  Association  and  the                                                                    
     Alaska Bar  Association. The Legislature  has continued                                                                    
     to ignore this request, so we finally gave up.                                                                             
     The  enclosed resolution  lists  a lot  of the  reasons                                                                    
     that the  statute is  bad. At  the present  time, these                                                                    
     reports  must be  made. Many  of the  attorneys do  not                                                                    
     follow this law. I think that  a lot of them don't even                                                                    
     know  about it.  Those that  do bill  their clients  or                                                                    
     absorb the  cost as an administrative  cost. Nothing is                                                                    
     done with  the reports by  the State because it  has no                                                                    
     need of the information.                                                                                                   
     I have  enclosed some additional information.  In 2001,                                                                    
     the   Judicial    Council   itself    recommended   the                                                                    
     elimination of the  automatic reporting requirement. It                                                                    
     desired to  retain the right to  collect information if                                                                    
     it needed to  do so in the future. It  prepared a draft                                                                    
     of a bill that would  accomplish this result. Copies of                                                                    
     the relevant information is enclosed.                                                                                      
     My personal preference would be  to repeal AS 09.68.130                                                                    
     completely. However,  if the Judicial Council  wants to                                                                    
     retain  the right  to collect  information,  I have  no                                                                    
     real problem.   While it has  collected information for                                                                    
     15 years since  it published its only report,  I do not                                                                    
     assume that  it will collect information  in the future                                                                    
     unless there is a real purpose in doing so.                                                                                
     Repealing  this  statute  would lessen  a  useless  and                                                                    
     major burden  on Alaskan attorneys  and clients  If the                                                                    
     State wants  to collect  information in the  future, it                                                                    
     is free to do so.                                                                                                          
MR.  JACOBUS advised  that  prior  to tort  reform  there was  an                                                               
assumption that verdicts  were too high, and  attorneys were paid                                                               
too much.  The  AJC study showed there are not  a number of large                                                               
jury verdicts in Alaska, or  large settlements, and attorneys are                                                               
not being  paid huge amounts  of money.   He referred to  page 1,                                                               
lines 6-9, AS 09.68.130(a), which read:                                                                                         
     (a)  Except as  provided in  (c) of  this section,  the                                                                    
     Alaska Judicial Council  shall periodically collect and                                                                    
     evaluate  information  relating  to the  resolution  of                                                                    
     civil litigation ...                                                                                                       
MR.  JACOBUS  suggested the  word  "shall"  mandatory, should  be                                                               
changed to "may" discretionary.                                                                                                 
VICE CHAIR  KELLER referred to  Version H, and explained  that it                                                               
deletes  that  entire  section  as the  language  now  reads  "AS                                                               
09.68.130 is repealed."                                                                                                         
1:50:12 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  noted the  committee substitute  (CS) does                                                               
away with  the authority  to collect any  information at  all and                                                               
asked whether Mr. Jacobus was in favor of the CS.                                                                               
MR.  JACOBUS advised  he is  in support  of the  CS and  does not                                                               
believe the Alaska Bar Association  would be very happy being the                                                               
enforcement  mechanism.    "It   can't  deal  with  thousands  of                                                               
disciplinary  complaints  because  attorneys do  not  file  their                                                               
required reports," he expressed.                                                                                                
1:51:26 PM                                                                                                                    
SARAH   BADTEN,  Attorney,   Groh,   Eggers,   LLC,  stated   she                                                               
wholeheartedly supports repealing the  statute as her practice is                                                               
in  contract law  and contract  principle where  she sues  over a                                                               
lien  foreclosure  or payment  of  money.   She  emphasized  that                                                               
individuals pay the money that is  owed and the case is dismissed                                                               
so it is  not reflective of any useful information  to the AJC or                                                               
the legislature.   She  remarked that she  deals with  costs that                                                               
are transferred back  to the borrower or owner.   She attempts to                                                               
keep costs down, but  it is part of her time  and she charges her                                                               
clients who then  pass that cost through to the  owner.  She said                                                               
she would like  to see the statute repealed as  it is archaic and                                                               
costs unnecessary time and money.                                                                                               
VICE CHAIR  KELLER closed public testimony  after ascertaining no                                                               
one further wished to testify.                                                                                                  
1:54:28 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took a brief at ease.                                                                                             
VICE CHAIR KELLER  passed the gavel to Chair LeDoux  and the bill                                                               
was held in committee.                                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB15 Electronic Monitoring Presentation 2-11-2015.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB15 Fiscal Note - DOA.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB15 Fiscal Note - DOA_Public Def..pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB15 Fiscal Note - DOC.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB15 Fiscal Note - DOL.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB15 Sponsor Statement 2-11-2015.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB15 Supporting Document 1 - BITAD Alcohol monitoring technology utilized by Alaska DOC.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB15 Supporting Document 2 - US Dept. of Justice Electronic monitoring and recidivism.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB15 Supporting Document 3 - Electronic Monitoring Requirements.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB15 Supporting Document 4 - Electronic Monitoring Terms and Conditions.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB15 Supporting Document 5 - DOC House arrest and EM program indigent form.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB15 Supporting Document 6 - Use of electronic monitoring in the Alaska.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB15 Ver. W.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB79 Draft Proposed CS ver G.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
HB83 Fiscal Note-JUD.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 83
HB83 Fiscal Note-LAW.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 83
HB83.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 83
HB83 Supporting Documents - AS 09.68.130.PDF HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 83
HB83 Supporting Documents - Civil Case data.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 83
HB 83 Draft Proposed CS ver H.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 83
HB 83 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 83
HB83 Summary of Changes.PDF HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 83
HB83 Supporting Documents - AJC.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 83
HB83 Supporting Documents - Civil Case Form.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 83
HB15 Supporting Documents - Legal Memorandum 2-19-2015.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB15 Draft Proposed CS ver E.PDF HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB15 Draft Proposed CS ver N.PDF HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 15
HB83 Summary of Changes-Corrected.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 83
HB83 Supporting Documents - Civil case report 2001.PDF HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 83
HB79 Written Testimony - Marcy.pdf HJUD 2/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79