Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
04/04/2006 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB461 | |
| HB290 | |
| HB496 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 496 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 461 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 290 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 438 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 4, 2006
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jim Elkins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 461
"An Act relating to disclosure to the Alaska Public Offices
Commission of information about certain income received as
compensation for personal services by legislators, public
members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, and
legislative directors subject to the provisions of law setting
standards of conduct for legislative branch officers and
employees; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 290
"An Act relating to issuance of identification cards and to
issuance of driver's licenses."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 496
"An Act relating to contributions from permanent fund dividends
to certain educational organizations and to certain charitable
organizations that provide a positive youth development program,
workforce development, aid to the arts, or aid and services to
the elderly, low-income individuals, individuals in emergency
situations, disabled individuals, or individuals with mental
illness; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 496(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 438
"An Act relating to initiative, referendum, and recall
petitions; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 461
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARDNER
02/13/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/06 (H) STA, JUD
03/30/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/30/06 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/04/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 290
SHORT TITLE: REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN
04/28/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/28/05 (H) STA, JUD
03/09/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/09/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/16/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/16/06 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/04/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 496
SHORT TITLE: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PERM. FUND DIVIDENDS
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
03/28/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/28/06 (H) STA, FIN
04/04/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 461.
MATTHEW KERR
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to HB 290.
JAMES McCURTY
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testifying on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 290.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
290.
KERRY HENNINGS, Driver Licensing
Director's Office
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
290.
SHARON BARTON, Director
Central Office
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
496.
DIANE KAPLAN, President
Rasmuson Foundation;
Member
Operations Board, Four Acre Group
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 496.
ROSEMARY HAGEVIG, Executive Director
Catholic Community Services (CCS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 496.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07:41 AM. Representatives
Gatto, Lynn, Gardner, and Seaton were present at the call to
order. Representatives Ramras and Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 461-LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES
8:08:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 461, "An Act relating to disclosure to the Alaska
Public Offices Commission of information about certain income
received as compensation for personal services by legislators,
public members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics,
and legislative directors subject to the provisions of law
setting standards of conduct for legislative branch officers and
employees; and providing for an effective date."
8:08:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered a synopsis of HB 461, as sponsor.
She stated that there are disclosure laws in place related to
legislators. She said, however, that there is a loophole:
legislators can report income, but they don't have to report
what they did for that income. She said that is incomplete
information that does not allow the voting public enough
information upon which to make determinations about what kind of
work the legislature is doing. That in turn, she added, affects
the public's judgment about legislators' interests and focus.
The proposed legislation would remove that loophole, requiring
legislators to describe "in broad terms" the work they do and
the approximate amount of time spent on that work.
8:09:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Representative Gardner to illustrate
the meaning of "disclosure in broad terms."
8:10:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said, for example, if a legislator owned
a business and "had a $10,000-a-year support contract with
somebody," he/she would disclose that amount, as well as saying,
"I provide text support [and] problem solving, and I expect it
to take me five hours a month."
8:10:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if it would be enough to say, "I work
for an oil company," or if the person would have to say, "I'm a
cook for the oil company," or be even more specific and say what
meal he/she cooks.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that if a person is an employee,
then that would be reported differently. If the person in
question was doing contract work for the oil company, he/she
could disclose how many meals are provided and over what period
of time.
8:11:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the bill does not address all
employment or businesses, but solely personal services. He
offered an example.
8:12:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO directed attention to the phrase "income in
excess of $5,000", shown on page 2, [line 3], of the bill, and
he said he interprets that to mean "in your lifetime."
8:13:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded:
This is current law; ... this is what we already have
to report to [the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC)]. All my bill does is simply say [that] to say
I earn $5,000 for consulting work is not enough. You
have to give a brief description of what kind of
consulting work you're doing.
CHAIR SEATON stated his understanding that the $5,000 refers to
an annual amount, because it pertains to the APOC report.
8:13:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that an amendment would be made on page 2,
line 4, [after "personal services"], adding: "and as to a
dividend received from a limited liability corporation as
compensation for personal services". He said he mentioned this
well ahead of offering the amendment so that the public would
know about the concept.
8:15:10 AM
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), reviewed that APOC administers and enforces
the disclosure sections of the Legislative Ethics Law.
Regarding, "as to income in excess of $5,000 received as
compensation for personal services", she said the language does
apply to "employment as well as to self-employment." She stated
her greatest concern regarding the proposed requirement of
describing in detail the nature of services performed is that it
is very broad. She said without a bright line showing "where we
must request this additional information," APOC could be
vulnerable to accusations of favoritism. She offered an
example.
8:17:34 AM
MS. MILES also expressed concerned with the language on [page 2,
beginning on line 5], which read: "and the approximate number
or hours that have been or will be spent performing the
services". She continued:
The words "or will be" are superfluous. This
requirement specifically states that each filing - for
example the filing that each of you made on March 15 -
represents your financial activities for the former
calendar year. In other words, on March 15, you file
a ... 2006 legislative financial disclosure, and it
encapsulates your financial picture for calendar year
2005. Thus, you're not required to be prospective
with the disclosure.
8:18:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one else to
testify, closed public testimony.
8:19:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered her understanding that under
current law, legislators are required to report the nature of
the services performed. She asked if it meets current law when
people write down contract or consulting work.
8:19:50 AM
MS. MILES answered that those who have disclosed, for example,
that they were a consultant have met the requirements of current
law.
8:20:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Ms. Miles if she could suggest the
bright line she is looking for that would require legislators to
give more information about what kind of consulting work they
do.
8:20:16 AM
MS. MILES responded that there may be a direct way to ask
consultants, business managers, management services, and
analysts, for example, for more detailed information without
having to ask, for example, for more specific information from
lawyers and fishermen. She said she does not currently have a
suggestion for how to do that, but she expressed her willingness
to work with legislative staff on the issue.
8:21:29 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that he thinks the existing language of the
proposed bill is more encompassing than the committee would like
to adopt, but he said he understands the issue at hand.
8:22:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER reemphasized that she welcomes
suggestions. Regarding "will be spent performing the services",
she said she thinks there are contracts and agreements for which
the contractor is paid up front for work to be performed over a
period of time, thus she said it seems reasonable to require the
legislator involved to specify that the contract covers "X"
number of hours.
8:23:44 AM
MS. MILES, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, said she
thinks it would be okay for an individual to report a payment
that was received in calendar year 2005, for services that,
after January 1, 2006, were not completed; however, it would not
be "within the purview of this chapter" to include "an agreement
to do something in the next calendar year for payment that will
be received in the next calendar year."
8:24:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he thinks the first example is "what the
language is trying to get at." He opined, "I think it's
important that the uncompleted work estimate be there as well,
so that we don't give the public the misimpression of a payment
received in one calendar year." He asked Ms. Miles to work with
the sponsor on the language.
8:24:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 4, following "services,":
Insert "and, as to a dividend received from a
limited liability corporation, as compensation for
personal services,"
8:25:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
8:25:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that limited liability corporations
(LLCs) are businesses - often conducted as partnerships - that
report income as dividends. He said:
And, of course, ... dividends and interest over $5,000
has to be reported, although the amounts of dividend
or interest over $5,000 from a source are not ...
reported. But amounts over $5,000 from business that
you do [are] reported as the actual amount. And so,
this just clears up a little glitch in the system that
could get a legislator in trouble, because you have a
form that says you received this as a dividend, and
yet later it could be said, "Well, you were actually
doing this as a partner in a business." And
therefore, it could draw an ethical question.
Whereas, if we clean it up here, it eliminates the
problem of ethical questions, because everybody's
fully aware of what a dividend from an LLC would --
how it would have to be reported.
8:26:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned the need for the word
"personal" in Amendment 1.
8:27:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON responded that he checked with Legislative Legal
and Research Services and was told that "to be within the title
of the bill, this was the way to write it." Notwithstanding
that, he indicated his willingness for other suggestions.
8:27:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that if Representative
Gardner wants to delete the word "personal", she could do so,
and then an amendment could be made to the title of the bill.
8:27:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, to
delete "personal" from Amendment 1, and also to delete
"personal" from the title of the bill on page 1, line 2.
8:28:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected to Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. He noted
that Section 2 addresses personal services. He asked, "So, if
we remove the 'personal services' there, are we expanding
Section 2 beyond ... the intent of ... Section 2?"
8:29:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested making the amendment
conceptual and allowing the drafter to decide what to do.
8:29:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Ms. Miles if there is a compelling
reason to keep the term, "personal services", as opposed to
"business services" or any other kind of service.
8:29:36 AM
MS. MILES stated her understanding that the term "personal
services" has always been used to mean self-employment. She
said she is not certain if dropping the word "personal" would
expand the meaning, or not.
8:30:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Miles if, perhaps, "personal services"
refers to self-employed work, whereas "services" might include
all employees.
8:30:31 AM
MS. MILES replied:
This is the section where regular employees also
report. So, "personal services" are for people who
are regularly employed when they're not serving in the
legislature, as well. "Services", I think, could be
broader than that, but certainly would not include
services for which no payment was received or payment
[was] $5,000, or less. But it just seems that
"services" perhaps could be broader than that. I'd
need to ... talk it over with [the] Department of Law,
who advises us.
8:31:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would like to withdraw Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1, then withdraw Amendment 1, and hold the bill for
the sponsor to work on the language before the committee hears
the bill again.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has in mind a technical
amendment for Amendment 1.
8:32:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER withdrew her motion to adopt Amendment 1
to Amendment 1.
8:32:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2 to Amendment
1, as follows:
Between "and" and "as"
Insert ","
Between "corporation" and "as"
Insert ","
8:33:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to [Amendment 2 to
Amendment 1]. There being none, it was so ordered.
8:33:35 AM
CHAIR SEATON withdrew [Amendment 1, as amended].
8:34:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that at the next hearing of the bill he would
reopen public testimony to accommodate someone he had missed who
had wanted to testify.
[HB 461 was heard and held.]
HB 290-REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D.
8:34:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 290, "An Act relating to issuance of identification
cards and to issuance of driver's licenses."
8:36:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, as sponsor, reviewed that the bill would
require a person to have a legal presence in the U.S. in order
to be issued an Alaska driver's license. He stated that he
would hate to see the bill complicated with several amendments.
8:36:58 AM
MATTHEW KERR testified on behalf of himself in opposition to HB
290. He paraphrased from his written testimony [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Good morning once again, Mr. Chairman and Committee
Members!
Thank you for having me here. This process has all
been very educational. I've been thinking that maybe I
should quit my day job!
I'm sure all of you are aware of my opposition to this
bill. I've done a lot of research in the past few
weeks, and so I'm not here just to repeat my previous
testimony. I hope it will be as interesting to you as
it was for me to write it.
Before I start, I want to give a fuller disclosure
about why I've chosen to oppose this bill. I am not
for illegal immigration, and I do in fact support
criminally charging employers who hire illegal labor,
and removing illegal immigrants in most situations
when they are discovered. I am friends with some
legally-present foreign students, but that has given
me far more insight than bias. The reasons I oppose
this bill are actually much more selfish.
8:39:47 AM
This bill does not discourage illegal immigration or
terrorism. It targets the wrong people, and it is not
enforceable. In reality, passing this bill would
actually decrease our public safety. I will explain
these reasons to you.
This bill does not discourage illegal immigration. I
cannot imagine that people intending to stay here
illegally would present themselves to the DMV for a
license in the first place. Even if they did, early
expiration of their driver's license would not
realistically cause them to leave. California's
current illegal population is prima facie proof of
this. They are not starved for identification, as
passports and foreign licenses are completely valid
documents used for driving, flying, buying a beer, and
opening a bank account.
This bill does not discourage terrorism. Fifteen of
the nineteen hijackers were legally present on Sept
11. If those last four hadn't had their driver's
licenses, they would have used their passports to
board their flights. Also, more acts of terrorism have
been committed in this country by American citizens
than by foreigners. Remember Ted Kaczynski (the
Unabomber), David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh, some
members of PETA, the Animal Liberation Front, the
Earth Liberation Front, etc.
In the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Huggins
recalled the recent sad events involving Mohammed Reza
Taheri-Azar, the UNC graduate who drove his rental car
into a group of students "to avenge Muslims," as an
example of terrorism that this bill could have
prevented. This man immigrated to the US in 1985 as
was either a permanent resident or a U.S. citizen. He
was kicked out of his fraternity due to excessive drug
and alcohol use. His problems are related to mental
illness; not his nationality or immigration status. He
would not have been affected by this legislation in
any way.
This brings us to my next point. This bill targets the
wrong people. By far, our largest group of long-term
non-immigrant visitors is foreign students. They are
the ones that will be subject to repeated, annual
license renewals. Foreign students are a major
presence in the US at the graduate level in the fields
of math, engineering, and science. They are typically
the cream of the crop from their home countries, and
it gets even better. They're paying full price -
subsidizing tuition rates for our students! - because
they are not usually eligible for scholarships,
financial aid, or resident tuition pricing. Foreign
students generate $13 billion in yearly revenue in the
US. They are the model of the kind of person we want
immigrating to our country (legally, of course).
Unfortunately, the extra paperwork and processing at
the national level has already caused these students
to study elsewhere. Berkeley had 950 international
graduate students in 1999, and 425 - less than half! -
by 2005. Last April, Bill Gates announced during a
Library of Congress forum that Microsoft is shifting
more work overseas as a direct result of fewer
foreigners studying and staying in the US. I agree
with valid security measures to keep out terrorists
during the visa process, but this bill doesn't prevent
terrorism. There is already a federal computer system
named "SEVIS" to monitor the status of foreign
students in the US. It would certainly turn me off of
a new country if I got to spend the night in jail
because I overlooked my annual license renewal during
finals week. Forcing foreign students to renew their
driver's license annually does not make me any safer,
but it does add another bureaucratic hoop that might
make a student decide to go somewhere more tolerant.
This bill is not enforceable. I am holding a passport
of a legally-present foreign student. Inside, there is
no US visa. This country, like many others, only
issues passports for five years, so it had to be
renewed while the student was already here. The US
does not issue visas domestically. This piece of paper
is the form that makes the student legally present in
the US. It is hardly a tamper-proof document. It's no
surprise that our immigration law is very complex, and
many, many different types of documents and
combinations thereof can prove legal status. When this
student recently re-entered the US, the federal
immigration officer had to scratch her head for a few
minutes to recall the rules before approving the
entry. I don't believe that the DMV will be as well
equipped to make that determination. Imagine that
scenario at the DMV in your mind.
So far, I've told you about what this bill won't do.
What this bill will do is reduce public safety on our
roads. This reasoning applies to all long-term
foreigners and not just students. How many people in
the US have been killed or injured by illegal
immigrants or acts of terrorism? How many people are
killed or injured on our roads each day due to unsafe
driving and uninsured drivers? The primary fallacy of
this bill is that it assumes that people can only
drive here legally with a domestic driver's license.
The standard operating procedure to get licensed in
Moscow involves handing a nice, crisp $50 bill to the
test examiner. You can see this in their traffic
fatality rates. We would all love for illegal
immigration to disappear overnight. But realistically
speaking, would you rather be driving on the road next
to an illegal immigrant with an Alaska driver's
license and driving record, or an illegal immigrant
without either?
8:42:59 AM
I have one last piece of research on that topic. The
DMV official who testified in this committee last time
said that it was possible for foreign-licensed or
unlicensed drivers to obtain liability insurance. I
called Geico, State Farm, Allstate, and AIG. I had one
"No," two "I don't think so; call later," and one
"Only for 30 days." For all intents and purposes, that
effectively means that an illegal immigrant with an
expired license would not be able to obtain liability
insurance. For those reasons, this bill would decrease
public safety.
Currently, our DMV checks for legal entry to the US
when a foreigner applies for a license, and they are
treated the same way as everyone else thereafter. This
system works fine. It's a good balance and it doesn't
need to be changed.
This legislation adds some bureaucracy at the DMV with
the laudable goal of preventing illegal immigration
and/or terrorism. Unfortunately, it effectively trades
away a small piece of our safety without preventing
either. It is not enforceable. It makes it more
difficult for people that are legitimately here,
without adding any actual deterrent to someone who
isn't. I won't even bring up again the data security
issues indirectly caused by this bill.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and committee members,
for your consideration of my testimony. I provided
some of your offices with supporting documentation for
my earlier testimony, and I have some spare copies
with me today if any of you are interested.
8:44:03 AM
One last item: The New Hampshire bill against the Real
ID Act has passed their House with a vote of 270-84
and is now going through their Senate committees.
I ask all of you again to vote against this bill. I
would be happy to answer any questions.
8:44:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Mr. Kerr if, through his research, he
has been able to ascertain if any one could immigrate illegally
to Canada or Mexico and be able to get a driver's license there.
8:45:00 AM
MR. KERR responded that it would not be difficult to live
illegally in Canada or Mexico, because a person could use
his/her domestic licenses and passports and would not be subject
to many immigration checks. As for other countries, Mr. Kerr
said he does not know the licensing requirements, but he said he
is aware anecdotally of an American citizen spending an extended
time in Russia who obtained a license there.
8:45:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN specified, "If I illegally immigrated to
Mexico, would I be able to get a Mexican driver's license?"
8:45:54 AM
MR. KERR answered that corruption is a major issue in Mexico,
and he speculated that if someone were to present him/herself at
the Mexican department of motor vehicles, he/she would probably
not have any trouble obtaining a driver's license, regardless of
immigration status.
8:46:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he thinks the witness is being asked to
speculate beyond the scope of his research.
8:47:24 AM
MR. KERR, in response to a question from Representative Gatto,
said the passport he brought with him is a current passport for
a foreign student legally present in the U.S., and it was issued
within the U.S. by the foreign embassy of the student's country.
8:47:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Kerr if he knows the reasons that
New Hampshire voted down a similar bill.
8:48:23 AM
MR. KERR replied that New Hampshire was voting against a broader
bill that encapsulated other parts of the federal Real ID Act,
including the gathering of licensing information into nationally
accessible databases.
8:49:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled that Mr. Bannock, the director of the
Division of Motor Vehicles, had testified during the last
hearing of HB 290 that the division is planning to scan, verify,
and archive information from the documents that people present
for identification when applying for a license.
8:49:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he remembers the same.
8:49:35 AM
MR. KERR indicated that he had just received a document that
addresses the "nonidentification [driving] certificate." He
said, "It seems to me like it could be a reasonable way of
solving the problem, although I haven't looked into it in
depth."
8:49:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO related that he knows a foreign exchange
student from Norway who got a driver's license in the U.S.,
because it was so much less expensive than getting one in her
country, and it would be valid in her country. He asked, "Does
that compromise the Real ID [Act], the fact that ... it was so
easy for her to get a driver's license in this country?"
8:51:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON told Mr. Kerr that he does not want him to feel he
has to testify beyond the area of his research or expertise.
8:51:21 AM
MR. KERR responded by saying he believes it typically is
standard that driver's licenses are based on "usual residence,"
irrespective of citizenship. He stated, "Because a foreign
license is ... valid in most other countries up to some
specified time, ... this effectively means that if someone
wanted to drive legally in the U.S., ... they could ... easily
use their home license effectively, indefinitely, because it's
not marked on your license exactly when you enter the country."
He added, "Also, it would be possible for someone to obtain a
license in any number of third countries that have less
stringent procedures than ours."
8:52:53 AM
JAMES McCURTY, testifying on behalf of himself, addressed the
bill's proposed language related to identification that would be
required to obtain a commercial license. He indicated that
there would be much time involved and inconvenience for a person
to prove that he/she is a U.S. citizen. He mentioned the
original Patriot Act. Mr. McCurty stated, "The federal
government has not done their job. It's been pushed onto the
state, and then you're just trying to dump it into my lap, to
reaffirm that I'm an American, and a loyal American."
8:58:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one else to
testify, closed public testimony.
9:00:10 AM
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, confirmed that the current fiscal note is accurate.
9:00:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to an article in The New York
Times, dated July 19, 2005, from the National Governors'
Conference [included in the committee packet]. He said the
article shows that various governors are concerned that the Real
ID Act will have significant negative economical impact on state
governments, will take considerable time to implement, and was
"poorly thought through." He asked Mr. Bannock if he is aware
of those concerns and, if so, why he has not addressed them in
his fiscal note.
9:02:10 AM
MR. BANNOCK explained that the concerns that Representative
Gruenberg highlighted have to do with the Real ID Act, whereas
his fiscal note relates solely to HB 290. He directed attention
to the last line in the analysis section of the fiscal note,
which read: "Other costs may be associated with the Real ID Act
that will not be noted until later." He said his own opinion
mirrors that of 49 other DMV directors, and that is that
regulations are not sufficient "in order to be compliant in this
section with this Real ID Act"; statutes are necessary. He said
what is being made law is already current DMV practice. He said
the bill would also allow the DMV to affix an expiration on a
license for a legal alien to match the end of that person's
legal stay in the U.S. Currently, all driver's licenses and
identification cards issued by the DMV expire "on the fifth
following birthday after issuance."
9:05:50 AM
MR. BANNOCK, in response to Representative Gruenberg and Chair
Seaton, said the regulations to which he previously alluded are:
13 AAC 08.330. He said the regulations have been around for a
while. He stated, "If a person is in America legally, they will
have documents as required by that regulation today."
9:07:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he is concerned about requiring DMV staff to
determine the validity of documents without sufficient training.
He asked if Mr. Bannock is saying that the DMV staff is already
conducting those checks.
MR. BANNOCK answered yes.
9:08:11 AM
MR. BANNOCK, in response to questions from Representative
Gruenberg, said the DMV, by regulation, is already denying
licenses to illegal aliens, and the statutory authority for that
regulation is, he guessed, AS 28.15.221.
9:09:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is not aware of any such
statute and, thus, is wondering if either the DMV's policy or
regulation exceeds its statutory authority.
9:09:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Mr. Bannock to tell her, under
current policy and practice, what the function and purpose of a
driver's license is.
9:09:45 AM
MR. BANNOCK said having a driver's license proves that a person
has both the knowledge and the skill to operate an automobile.
9:10:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated his understanding that having a
driver's license is a privilege, not a right.
MR. BANNOCK said [the DMV] subscribes to the same concept.
9:11:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he had looked up AS 28.15.221, and
it addresses the point system.
MR. BANNOCK corrected his previous estimation to say that the
statute is actually [AS 28.15.061].
9:11:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Bannock to specify where in
the statute it gives authority to the DMV to deny licenses to
illegal aliens.
9:11:34 AM
MR. BANNOCK answered (b)(5), which read as follows:
(5) contain other information that the department
may reasonably require to determine the applicant's
identity, competency, and eligibility.
9:11:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that none of the terms in
paragraph (5) give the DMV the aforementioned legal authority.
9:12:32 AM
MR. BANNOCK said that by regulation, if an illegal alien showed
up at the DMV, he/she would not have the document that the DMV
has the authority to use by regulation in order to establish
his/her identity.
CHAIR SEATON said the committee will ask for a legal opinion
from the Department of Law.
9:13:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there is anything beyond taking a
written test and a driving test that a person must do to qualify
to receive a driver's license.
9:13:36 AM
MR. BANNOCK answered that it is also necessary to verify both
the person's age and identity. Some states use high school
yearbook photos, for example, a practice that Mr. Bannock said
the Alaska DMV has no intention of adopting. An application for
a driver's license must contain the licensee's name, date and
place of birth, and both mailing and residence addresses. He
said, "So, before we issue the license based on that
information, is it reasonable to suggest that we have some sort
of verification of that before we issue the license? I suggest
that, yes, we do."
9:14:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO related that his son had applied for a
license using his student identification to support his
identity. He indicated that he was with his son at the school
at the time and merely verified verbally his son's identity and
date of birth. He questioned the DMV using something that seems
so "flimsy" for its verification.
9:16:04 AM
MR. BANNOCK deferred the question to Kerry Hennings, the manager
of DMV's Driver Licensing.
9:16:18 AM
KERRY HENNINGS, Driver Licensing, Director's Office, Division of
Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration, told
Representative Gatto that in lieu of a birth certificate, DMV
accepts a parent's affidavit and identification, which she
surmised is what Representative Gatto offered during his son's
application for his school ID. In response to a remark by
Representative Gatto, she indicated that this manner of issuing
an ID is not common, but is an exception for people who do not
have their birth certificate but are accompanied by their
parents.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered more details regarding that visit
with his son. He explained that he wants to ferret out ways to
cheat the system, because if there is a way, someone will.
9:18:37 AM
MS. HENNINGS, not having been present during Representative
Gatto's experience with his son, surmised that all the
information that Representative Gatto brought with him would
have been considered.
9:19:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to a handout in the committee packet
showing "13 AAC 08.330 Requirements of applicant." One of the
methods currently accepted as proof of date of birth is an out-
of-state driver's license. He asked Ms. Hennings if that would
change.
MS. HENNINGS said the DMV has written new regulations it expects
to be adopted during summer of 2006, at which point the out-of-
state driver's license will not be used as a form of
identification, but only will be used to show proof of the
knowledge and skills to operate an automobile.
9:20:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted other items listed under 13 AAC 08.330(b)(4)
that he thought may no longer be accepted should the bill be
adopted: a credit card, a life insurance policy, or "other
evidence of comparable validity." He said he presumes a
parent's affidavit would also be excluded.
MS. HENNINGS said Chair Seaton is correct.
CHAIR SEATON asked, "If this bill becomes law, what are the
single pieces of documentation that you can use to prove U.S.
citizenship before you can get an Alaska driver's license?"
9:20:58 AM
MS. HENNINGS said she doesn't currently have a draft of the new
regulations before her; however, she said she would get a list
to the committee. That list includes: a birth certificate, a
passport, and proof of birth abroad.
9:21:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Bannock if he can point to
any authority for the DMV to eliminate the ability of an illegal
alien to get a driver's license.
9:22:34 AM
MR. BANNOCK responded that he does not have an answer for
Representative Gruenberg without researching the issue.
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Bannock to do that research and get back
to the committee with it.
9:23:20 AM
MR. BANNOCK, in response to follow-up questions from
Representative Gruenberg, said he has not changed policy since
taking on the position of director of the DMV, and there was
written policy in effect when he became director, which
established [denying driver's licenses to illegal aliens].
9:23:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Bannock to send that information to the
committee, as well.
9:25:20 AM
MR. BANNOCK, in response to questions from Representative
Gardner, said a person from Canada who did not have a Canadian
driver's license could, with a passport and one other secondary
piece of identification take both the written and skills test
and be issued an Alaska driver's license. He said this method
is particular to Canada only. Someone from any other country
outside the U.S. who did not have a visa and was in the U.S. for
a short visit probably would not be able to qualify for an
Alaska driver's license.
9:26:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that there are people who have
social security cards that are stamped valid for employment with
INS authorization only. She asked Mr. Bannock, "Is that a
document that you would accept for purposes of identification in
issuing a driver's license?"
9:26:23 AM
MR. BANNOCK said, "We have defined our list into primary and
secondary. You will be forwarded a copy of that list. Social
security ... cards are considered a secondary item, and [yes],
it would be accepted."
9:26:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked the committee is considering the
merits and possible demerits of HB 290; the DMV is not on trial.
Second, he stated that the issue is simple and a matter of
common sense: "Either we comply with the ... Real ID Act, or we
do not, whether we like that Act or not. ... In addition, we're
either present legally in the U.S. and, by extension, Alaska, or
not. And if we're not here legally, we don't have a right to
... any privilege - driver's license or anything else."
9:27:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested that a committee member offer Amendment 1
so that it is available for the public's perusal.
9:27:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 24-
LS0981\Y.2, Luckhaupt/Cook, 4/3/06, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "not"
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "not"
Page 1, line 10:
Delete all material.
Insert "(i) The department may issue an"
Page 2, following line 8:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(j) The department may issue an identification
card under (a) of this section to a person who does
not present documentary evidence under (h) or (i) of
this section. The identification card must be
different in color from those issued under (h) or (i)
of this section and must bear on its face the
following notice: "This identification card may not be
accepted by any federal agency for federal
identification or any other official purpose.""
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "(7) [OR (8)]"
Insert "or
(7) [(8)]"
Page 3, line 1:
Delete "; or"
Insert "."
Page 3, line 2, through page 4, line 1:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 3. AS 28.15 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 28.15.033. Form of drivers' licenses. (a)
The department shall issue, renew, or reinstate to an
otherwise qualified person a driver's license that may
be used as identification by a federal agency if the
person presents to the department valid documentary
evidence that the person is a citizen of the United
States, a national of the United States, a legal
permanent resident of the United States, or a
conditional resident alien of the United States. A
person who is seeking a renewal of, duplicate of, or
change of legal name on a license is presumed to meet
the requirements of this subsection if the license has
not expired or been cancelled, suspended, or revoked
and the person has not been disqualified from
obtaining a license. If the department has been
notified by a local, state, or federal government
agency that the person seeking a renewal of, duplicate
of, or change of legal name on a license is not a
citizen of the United States or is not legally in the
United States, then the presumption available in this
subsection does not apply. The department may by
regulation specify what is valid, documentary evidence
under this subsection, except that the department may
not specify that a matricula consular card is valid,
documentary evidence.
(b) The department shall issue, renew, or
reinstate to an otherwise qualified person a driver's
license that may be used as identification by a
federal agency if the person presents to the
department in person valid, documentary evidence of
the person's legal status and presence in the United
States. A license issued under this subsection may be
renewed only on presentation of valid, documentary
evidence that the status by which the person qualified
for the license has been extended by the proper United
States government authority. A change of name for a
license issued under this subsection may be made only
on presentation of valid, documentary evidence that
the person's name has been changed with regard to the
status by which the person qualified for the license.
A duplicate license for a license issued under this
subsection may be issued only on presentation of
valid, documentary evidence that the person's status
by which the person qualified for the license remains
valid and in effect. The department may by regulation
specify what is valid, documentary evidence under this
subsection, except that the department may not specify
that a matricula consular card is valid, documentary
evidence.
(c) The department shall issue, renew, or
reinstate a driver's license to an otherwise qualified
person who does not present documentary evidence under
(a) or (b) of this section. The license must be
different in color from those issued under (a) or (b)
of this section and must clearly bear on its face the
following notice: "This driver's license may not be
accepted by any federal agency for federal
identification or any other official purpose.""
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 9:
Delete "AS 28.15.031(b)(8)(B)"
Insert "AS 28.15.033(b)"
9:28:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN AND CHAIR SEATON objected.
9:28:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 290 was heard and held.
DRAFT
HB 496-CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PERM. FUND DIVIDENDS
9:28:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 496, "An Act relating to contributions from permanent
fund dividends to certain educational organizations and to
certain charitable organizations that provide a positive youth
development program, workforce development, aid to the arts, or
aid and services to the elderly, low-income individuals,
individuals in emergency situations, disabled individuals, or
individuals with mental illness; and providing for an effective
date."
CHAIR SEATON highlighted the purpose of the bill, [as described
in the first paragraph of the sponsor statement, which read in
part as follows]:
This bill establishes a check-off on the electronic
Permanent Fund Dividend application form that would
allow an applicant to donate a portion of their PFD
check to an eligible charitable organization, a
community foundation, each campus of the University of
Alaska, and postsecondary education and vocational
training organizations.
CHAIR SEATON noted that HB 496 is a House version of a similar
Senate bill. He pointed out that there are letters of support
included in the committee packet, including letters from the
Rasmuson Foundation and from Samantha Castle Kirstein, the
executive director of the Fairbanks Community Food Bank.
9:31:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON said there are differences between the House and
Senate versions of the bill. First, the title of HB 496
includes community foundations, and the following related
language has been added to page 3, line 9: "for a community
foundation, benefits to a defined geographic area". The other
change is on page 3, line 18, which read: "this paragraph does
not apply to a community foundation". He indicated that the
latter reference would be subject to "a couple of amendments."
He directed attention to page 4, line 7, which includes a
definition of community foundation as follows:
(i) For purposes of this section, "community
foundation" means a nonprofit, autonomous,
philanthropic institution that is organized and
operated primarily as a permanent collection of
endowed funds for the long-term benefit of a defined
geographic area within one or more municipalities,
that has a long-term goal of increasing its permanent
unrestricted charitable endowment to benefit the area
served, that primarily provides benefits by making
grants and may also provide other forms of charitable
services, that makes grants that are not limited to
providing one type of benefit or to serving one
population segment, and that makes grants to multiple
grantees.
9:32:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 24-LS1793\Y, Cook, 4/3/06, as a work
draft.
9:33:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
9:33:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said the bill makes the act of donating to
charity convenient and he sees no particular problem with the
bill.
9:33:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON said there are some restrictions; it only applies
to those people who file their PFD electronically, and there are
certain terms the nonprofit agencies must meet [as listed in the
bill].
9:34:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG revealed that his wife is involved in a
nonprofit organization called, "Anchorage Unleashed," and
because of that he declared a conflict of interest and asked to
be excused from "everything with this bill."
9:34:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected.
9:35:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his previous objection; therefore, Version
Y was before committee.
9:35:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON disclosed that his family has a fund within the
homeless community foundation, which, he said, is why he knows
that community foundations are worthwhile.
9:35:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected.
9:35:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked how a person's donation through the
PFD application would be treated by the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS).
9:36:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would call forwarded a representative of
the Permanent Fund Division to answer that question. Not
withstanding that, he offered his understanding that relating to
taxes, there is no difference between checking off a box on the
PFD and donating the money directly to a charity.
9:36:45 AM
SHARON BARTON, Director, Central Office, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, Department of Revenue, directed attention to page 2,
[beginning on line 23, through line 26], which read as follows:
In addition, the educational organization, community
foundation, or charitable organization
(1) must apply for inclusion on the
contribution list for the current dividend year on the
form required by the department before August 1 of the
qualifying year;
MS. BARTON said the August 1 deadline needs to be moved back to
June 15, particularly in the first year, in order for the
division to make computer changes and other adjustments, and to
allow time for foundations to evaluate whether certain groups
meet the set criteria. Then, she said, she will need time to go
through the applications and the information provided by "the
agent" to make an independent decision on each application. In
response to a question from Chair Seaton regarding the June 15
date, she said that date would allow the United Way and Rasmuson
Foundation 45 days for consideration, but she recalled that
originally they had wanted more time; therefore, she recommended
the committee check with those organizations.
9:40:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there would be anything that would limit
the [educational organization, community foundation, or
charitable organization] from making their applications before
June 15.
9:41:19 AM
MS. BARTON responded that she views the June 15 date as a
deadline, not a window of opportunity; therefore, she said those
entities would certainly be allowed to apply before the deadline
of June 15.
9:42:09 AM
MS. BARTON recommended that the committee look at the random
order requirement on page 2, [beginning on line 9], which read
as follows:
(b) The department shall list each campus of the
University of Alaska and shall list each educational
organization, community foundation, or charitable
organization eligible under (c) or this section on the
contribution list in random order, and the order shall
be changed each year.
MS. BARTON suggested that the random order will make it
difficult for members of the public to find their charity among
a list that possibly includes 500-700 charities. She talked
about making the system user-friendly for the public.
9:43:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the information regarding the
identity of the PFD applicants who check off a particular
charity, for example, would be shared with that charity.
9:44:07 AM
MS. BARTON replied that that is a question that the division has
not yet worked through. She said the division will provide to
the agent a list of those who have contributed, the amount they
have contributed, and the organization to which they have
contributed. She stated her assumption that the agent would
inform the organization who those contributors are, but she said
she has not yet confirmed that.
MS. BARTON, in response to a remark made by Representative
Gatto, explained that the division issues 1099 forms to everyone
"for their dividend itself," and she indicated that the
charitable gift will be reflected on that 1099 form.
9:46:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred back to the August 1 deadline
and asked if the division will require the organizations and
foundations to prove that they ... "already have their 501(c)(3)
approved by the IRS before you'll put them on the list."
9:46:55 AM
MS. BARTON answered yes.
9:46:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 2, [paragraph] (3),
which would require the organization or foundation to have
qualified for tax exempt status "during the two calendar years
that immediately precede the year the application is filed".
Chair Seaton pointed out, "So, this is not something that
somebody can just go out and say, 'I'm going to form and
organization today and get somebody to check off those things
tomorrow.'"
9:47:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said in a previous year, the committee
dealt with the issue of a rolling ballot, and there was
testimony that in an election there may be some advantage to
being first on the list. He said he is wondering if that
positional bias applies to a check-off list of charities. If
not, he said he suggests the committee amend the bill to put the
list in alphabetical order.
9:48:30 AM
MS. BARTON suggested that the Rasmuson Foundation or United Way
would be better able to answer that concern.
9:50:48 AM
DIANE KAPLAN, President, Rasmuson Foundation of Alaska; Member,
Operations Board, Four Acre Group, in response to a question
from Chair Seaton regarding the previously suggested date change
from August 1 to June 15, stated:
The United Way in Anchorage is really the most adept
organization in terms of handling these kinds of
transactions. They currently administer the ...
"SHARE" campaign for Alaska. And my sense from
Michelle Brown, the president of United Way, is they
would try and work within whatever timelines.
Originally we were looking at August 1. I think June
15 would be a little tight, but not impossible,
according to Michelle. And what we would try and do
is ... maybe get together and start working on some of
the documents right now, so that they could be ready
to roll out as soon as the bill was signed.
9:52:28 AM
MS. KAPLAN, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, said
although she did not receive a copy of Version Y, she thinks she
grasps the general thrust of the bill. In response to a follow-
up question from Chair Seaton, she emphasized that the Rasmuson
Foundation is a strong supporter of community foundations and
has created a fund itself at the Alaska statewide community
foundation to encourage private donations for parks and trails
around the Anchorage area, as well as for a Rotary civic
project. She listed other areas of the state in which the
Rasmuson Foundation has given support. She talked about funds
that are bequeathed to children who later leave Alaska, and she
stressed the importance of community foundations as an important
part of community development.
9:53:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Kaplan if she sees any problem in the
bill language [on page 3, lines 17-19], which read as follows:
(9) may not make grants or contributions to
an organization that is exempt from taxation under 26
U.S.C. 501(c)(4) or (6); this paragraph does not apply
to a community foundation.
CHAIR SEATON indicated that there is an amendment yet to be
offered related to this language.
9:54:46 AM
MS. KAPLAN stated, "I think we're all in agreement that the
objective here is to get donations to [create a bona fide] ...
charitable organization. ... There are some groups like
Chambers who do a lot of charitable activities in certain
communities. ... Personally, I can't imagine that we would have
a problem with those, but I think it's something you'd have to
look at carefully."
9:55:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON said, "This was just relating to community
foundations, because they do offer some grants through those
kind of organizations." He asked Ms. Kaplan to explain for the
committee the Rasmuson Foundation's aide in implementing the
bill.
9:55:50 AM
MS. KAPLAN responded as follows:
The foundation ... has become aware over time that
Alaskans that are lower income and middle income tend
to give very generously to charitable organizations in
the state - at least around the median for other
states - but the wealthier Alaskans actually do not
give as much as they could. ... In fact, Alaska has
ranked 49th or 50th in the country, in terms of
charitable donations from people who earn $100,000 or
greater.
So, we've been looking at a lot of strategies on how
to encourage people who have done well in Alaska to do
well for Alaska, and community foundations are one
strategy. We often do a lot of challenge grants to
organizations, where if they can raise so many
dollars, we'll match them .... And the idea of a
permanent fund check-off, of course, was successfully
utilized by one of our former board members ... years
ago for the Olympics bid. There have been several
other attempts to do a permanent fund check-off, but
they've all seemed to have fallen down because of the
fiscal note and the idea that the cost of
administration to the state would be too great.
So, the idea was if you could find an independent
source of nonstate funds to support the administrative
expenses so there wouldn't be any costs to the state
for the initial term, and 100 percent of those monies
people donated would go directly to the charities, ...
that would give something like that a better chance of
succeeding. So, our board committed - if the state
legislature ... and the governor [was interested] in
having something like this - to provide the initial
expenses for the first three years, hoping that that
would provide some comfort to give it some time to get
going.
9:57:58 AM
ROSEMARY HAGEVIG, Executive Director, Catholic Community
Services (CCS), told the committee that CCS is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization that provides a wide array of social
services, including services for senior citizens, families and
children, and hospice and home health care. She stated her
support of HB 496, as well as for its companion bill in the
Senate. She complimented the Rasmuson Foundation and the
Foraker Group for moving forward and making the recommendation
to the legislature. She reported that the statistics she has
had the opportunity to view indicate that if only 5 percent of
the recipients of the permanent fund in Alaska were to give $100
a year, within five years there would be $50 million in this
fund.
MS. HAGEVIG stated that she thinks the means for donations that
the bill proposes is something that the nonprofit sector in
Alaska needs. She said that sector has become dependent upon
grants for contracts, and it is a challenge to be continually
having to raise funds while simultaneously providing services to
people. She continued:
I also never miss the opportunity to share with policy
makers the fact that because of the unique local
government structure in Alaska, what the nonprofit
sector provides in the way of services in our state
represents the work that is traditionally done by
county governments in other states. And the huge
difference between that, of course, is that county
governments have taxation authority, and, of course,
nonprofit organizations do not. ... It is what it is,
but it does present those of us who are in the
business of providing the services with a number of
really significant challenges.
MS. HAGEVIG concluded by saying she applauds the committee's
interest in the bill, and she offered CCS's support in moving
the bill forward.
10:01:09 AM
MS. HAGEVIG, in response to a question from Chair Seaton
regarding the issue of random versus alphabetical listing of the
organizations and foundations, speculated that the kind of
people who would take advantage of the opportunity to donate
probably have a good idea of where they would like to see their
funds go, thus, she said alphabetical order would probably be
the most effective and practical approach.
10:02:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she is stunned by the statistic that
Alaska ranks 49th or 50th in the country [as related previously
by Ms. Kaplan]. She said she thinks perhaps many people intend
to donate money but don't get around to it. She asked if there
would be advertising to let people know about [the opportunity
to donate through the check-off box on the PFD application]. If
so, she added, she said she thinks sharing that statistic would
be valuable.
10:02:56 AM
MS. HAGEVIG said she has not had an opportunity to consider the
idea. Notwithstanding that, with the involvement of United Way
and the affiliation that most of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organizations have with organizations such as the Foraker Group
and the Rasmuson Foundation, she said she thinks [CCS] would
participate in some sort of collaborative effort. She
continued:
Each of the organizations that I'm aware of already
[do] a flurry of advertising and independent
fundraising, and in fact, I would imagine that you've
noticed that one of the target times, in addition to
the holiday season, is the flurry of requests that you
get in the mail just prior to the PFD checks coming
out. So, the nonprofit sector is already acutely
aware of the influx into the economy of additional
money at this time, and it is close enough to the end
of the year that ... we encourage people to think
about their IRS situation, and that this is a good
opportunity to share this piece of public wealth in
the state of Alaska with those ... who are less
fortunate.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated, "It seems to me that if this is a
new way of doing it that would happen when you apply for the
PFD, it actually would give nonprofits a second bite of the
apple, and it's easier for people to say yes when it's something
in the future. We know that for commitments of time, as well as
money."
10:04:38 AM
MS. HAGEVIG responded:
I can't speak for my colleagues in the nonprofit
sector, but I know that our board of directors works
very hard and tries never to miss an opportunity ...
to raise friends and funds. And much of our
fundraising efforts are to get our mission out there,
to make people aware of the work that we're doing and,
in fact, to encourage volunteer participation, which
we value just as much, if not more, than the financial
contribution that people make.
10:06:31 AM
MS. KAPLAN, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, agreed that many people write their charity donation
checks at year's end. She said there will continue to be
marketing toward the end of the year, but providing a box to
check on the PFD will just provide another opportunity to
donate.
10:07:29 AM
MS. HAGEVIG said people have to turn in their PFD applications
by the last day of March, which is close to [the April 15] IRS
tax filing deadline. She suggested that people's financial
situation is at the forefront of their minds when they write a
check to the IRS, and she added that "we, of course, would like
to share in the IRS's wealth."
10:08:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one else to
testify, closed public testimony.
10:08:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that currently there is a check-
off box on the PFD application for the college savings program.
He asked why the donation can only be made up to 50 percent.
MS. BARTON said she would research an answer for Representative
Gruenberg.
10:10:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, line 10
Delete "one or more municipalities,"
Insert "municipality,"
10:10:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes. He
moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, so that the word
"one" is not deleted and the phrase would be "one municipality".
He described that as a technical amendment.
CHAIR SEATON objected and recommended using "a municipality"
instead of "one municipality".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his agreement, and therefore,
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 read as follows:
Page 4, line 10
Delete "one or more municipalities,"
Insert "a municipality,"
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection. There being
none, Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was adopted.
10:11:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG talked about the development of Cook
Inlet in the Anchorage area, and he stated, "I would hate to
have this limited to only one municipality. It would seem you
very well might have a community foundation that would cover
more than one."
10:12:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to Representative Gruenberg's remarks,
withdrew Amendment 1, as amended.
10:12:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said in trying to imagine a type of
foundation that would expand municipalities, suggested a highway
safety group that works on the entire Kenai Peninsula.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that a city within a borough does not
count as more than one municipality under the definition.
10:13:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, line 19, following "foundation."
Delete "."
Insert "unless a majority of its funds over the past
two calendar years that immediately precede the year
the application is filed went to an organization
exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C.501(c)(4) or (6)."
10:14:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for discussion purposes.
10:14:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 2, to delete "a
majority" and replace it with "more than 10 percent".
10:14:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew his objection [to Amendment 1, as
amended].
10:14:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected to Amendment 2, as amended, for
discussion purposes. She asked for further clarification.
10:14:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained, "What this would be is that if an
organization had more than 10 percent of its grants in the
previous two years to an organization that did 501(c)(4) or
(c)(6) items, then they wouldn't qualify to be on this list."
10:16:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER removed her objection.
10:16:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [objected for discussion purposes]. He
questioned the phrase, "an organization". He explained that
there could be a 501(c)(3) organization "that is basically a
funnel that gives to a number of organizations that are (c)(4)
or (c)(6), and that's all that it does." He added, "And they
would escape under this."
10:16:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would accept Representative Gruenberg's
suggestion as [Amendment 2 to Amendment 2], which would strike
"an organization" and insert "organizations" in its place. He
asked if there was any objection to [Amendment 2 to Amendment 2
was adopted]. There being none, it was so ordered.
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2 [as
amended]. [Representative Gruenberg's objection to Amendment 2,
as amended, was treated as removed.] There being no further
objection, Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.
10:18:12 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment [3], as follows:
On page 2, line 25:
Delete "August 1"
Insert "June 15"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes. He
said he would like the opinions of both Ms. Barton and Ms.
Kaplan.
10:19:25 AM
MS. BARTON said both the Rasmuson Foundation and the division
need to have enough time to review documents, because they can
expect appeals. Until the division knows the number of
organizations, it will need to "plug those organizations right
in to the computer programs." She said she thinks June 15 would
work for the division.
10:21:03 AM
MS. KAPLAN said June 15 would be a tight timeline, because the
Rasmuson Foundation does not have any control regarding when the
bill is signed. She expressed a preference for July 15.
CHAIR SEATON explained that based on what he has heard from the
division, without an early enough date, "we're going to miss the
entire year."
10:22:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 3.
There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
10:22:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved Amendment 4, which read as follows:
On page 2, line 11:
Delete "random"
Insert "alphabetical"
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection. There being
none, Amendment 4 was adopted.
10:23:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report CSHB 496, Version 24-
LS1793\Y, Cook, 4/3/06, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 496(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:23:47 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|