Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/01/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB158 | |
| HB353 | |
| SB119 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 353 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 353
An Act relating to the blocking of certain Internet
sites at public libraries and to library assistance
grants.
JIM POUND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, described the
bill as requiring public libraries to protect children from
indecent material, which is defined in existing statute.
The bill is consistent with the Child Internet Protection
Act, enforced by the Federal Communications Act, and is
tied into the E-rate discount on access to broadband
internet for libraries that conform to the Child Protection
Act.
Mr. Pound said 40% of libraries in Alaska, or 89, have no
filters on their internets. He said the filters are
inexpensive, effective, and readily available. Libraries do
not carry pornographic magazines or books. The legislation
would allow a librarian to disable the filter for an adult,
if requested for legitimate sites, and to take care of the
problems caused by filtering programs over-reacting to
certain words.
2:04:36 PM
Representative Gara queried the cost of installment and up-
keep of the equipment needed. Mr. Pound answered that it is
primarily software that can be downloaded.
Representative Joule referenced the fiscal note, which says
individual libraries would incur costs ranging from $100
for small libraries to $20,000 for the larger ones. He
asked for an explanation for the difference between those
numbers and what Mr. Pound was saying. Mr. Pound listed
programs, including NetNanny, which cost $60-100 per year
for internet security, and WebWatcher. Norton AntiVirus is
a free add-on.
Representative Gara recollected hearing about the issue of
pornography on public computers before, and wondered about
other state or municipal laws connected with the issue.
Representative Gara referred to stack of correspondence he
had received from people concerned about the bill. One is
connected to federal E-rate funding. Another is from the
director of Juneau Public Libraries, which says that the
costs for installing institutional software is much higher.
Juneau Libraries, which has a network system, would have to
pay at least $1600 the first year and $1800 after the first
year. Higher cost systems are up to $10,000.
Mr. Pound understood that E-rate would save libraries about
$6,000 per year on broadband internet access, but they are
not eligible without blocking software.
2:09:22 PM
Representative Gara asked if NetNanny could be installed on
a network system. Mr. Pound thought it could be installed
on a network or on individual computers.
Representative Joule wondered how large the problem is. Mr.
Pound replied that young people are using library computers
more often.
Co-Chair Meyer thought the school districts already had the
filtering system. Mr. Pound replied that they did. He added
that the University has an exemption.
Co-Chair Meyer OPENED PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
2:11:34 PM
KIM ROTH, LIBRARIAN, TOK COMMUNITY LIBRARY (testified via
teleconference), testified in opposition to HB 353. Tok has
about 1350 people and only two public access computers, one
of them at the Tok Public Library, an all-volunteer library
since 1955. She pointed out that the bill has serious
implications for very small libraries. The first
implication is cost. Tok Public Library operates on $7500
per year. It would cost them around $1000 to get their
computer in compliance and around $1000 per year after, not
including maintenance and upkeep. That would be a serious
financial hardship. At present there is not enough money to
pay for the heating bill.
Ms. Roth questioned the need for the program. She worried
about the many volunteers being put into the position of
being felons or legally liable because of inadvertent
access on the computer. She said there has never been a
problem. She described an incident of her daughter being
unable to access information about the Civil War on her
school computer because the filters listed the information
as too graphic.
Ms. Roth did not think the Legislation was appropriate for
small libraries.
2:20:57 PM
JAMES HUESMANN, DEAN OF LIBRARIES, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA,
FAIRBANKS (testified via teleconference), testified in
opposition of HB 353. He pointed out there had been no
analysis of public libraries that do no have internet
filters in conjunction with their overall budgets. He
thought very small libraries would be most negatively
affected by the bill. He said filters are moderately
affective against written text but still very bad at photos
and video, which are more the problem with pornography.
Mr. Huesmann explained that institutional costs for
filtering software are dramatically higher than individual
costs. More and more of the library's resources are on-
line. More government services, such as filing for the
Permanent Fund Dividend, are on the internet. Closing that
down could be a significant problem. As a parent, he
worries more about what his children do at home on the
internet than what they do at the public library where
there is supervision.
2:22:09 PM
Representative Gara asked for more information about
installation costs. Mr. Huesmann responded that part of the
problem is that most of the computers in Alaska libraries
have been purchased by the Bill Gates Foundation. Many of
those have security software already built into them that
make it far more difficult to install new software. Even on
individual systems, the cost is higher. On network systems,
a network technician is needed to put in the software, and
there are more complex concerns. He told a story of an
entire library system being shut down for days because the
name of the library happened to include a word that
prompted the filtering system to prevent access to even
their own home page.
2:24:00 PM
HELEN HILL, DIRECTOR, HOMER PUBLIC LIBRARY (testified via
teleconference), spoke in opposition to HB 353. Homer
Public library does not use filtering software for public
access computers, but they have an internet safety policy
and internet use agreement to which all patrons must agree
in order to log on. The decision to not filter was a
community decision. All computers are in view of library
staff. She thought library personnel are more effective
than software; Homer chose to spend limited funds on people
rather than equipment to keep the library safe. The library
does not have the resource to enable and disable computers
many times each day. The library is in compliance with
Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) because they only
request a telecommunications discount through the E-rate
program and not an internet discount. She described the use
of grants and municipal funds.
2:27:22 PM
Representative Gara asked about the library's ability to
use free software. Ms. Hill said the costs would be higher,
and it becomes a lot more complicated on a network system
to disable and enable. Representative Gara wondered why
filters would have to be turned on and off. Ms. Hill
explained that the law requires that the library disable
the filter for anyone age 17 or over who asks. After that
person is finished with the computer, staff has to turn the
filter back on.
2:29:35 PM AT EASE
2:30:07 PM RECONVENE
JENNIE GRIMWOOD, CORDOVA (testified via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. The local library is highly
used without adequate supervision. She related a story of a
pornographic photograph placed on the desktop of a library
computer.
2:32:39 PM
KATHY COTTON, DELTA JUNCTION (testified via
teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation.
People are constantly rotating on and off the very popular
computers, making them hard to monitor. She thought the
block would prevent the necessity of someone looking over
her shoulder while on the internet.
2:34:15 PM
DEBBIE JOSLIN, PRESIDENT, EAGLE FORUM ALASKA (testified via
teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation with
an Amendment to restore the original language of the bill.
She has concerns about pornography. She does not want
librarians looking over her shoulder. She does not trust
librarians to monitor the computers, as the American
Library Association is on record saying pornography filters
are an infringement of First Amendment rights. She thought
the cost was worth protecting children.
2:38:44 PM
JIM MINNERY, ALASKA FAMILY COUNCIL (testified via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He reported
that sixty percent of the libraries in the state, including
the tiny ones, are currently using internet filters. The
federal law did not put the libraries out of business and
he did not think a state law would either. The remaining
40% of Alaskan libraries that choose not to use filters are
forfeiting significant federal funds that they could use
through E-rate. He spoke of a Fairbanks library that was
saving $6,000 per year by using filters.
Mr. Minnery spoke to whether there was a problem. Supreme
Court said that it was discovered that minors regularly
searched the internet for pornography and exposed others by
leaving pornography displayed on monitors. He did not think
it was accurate for librarians to say that it is not an
issue. He referred to web marketing strategies that target
children by misspelling of domain names to lure children to
sites.
2:45:30 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze related a story.
Mr. Minnery asserted that internet filters are not the same
as librarians monitoring the computers. He thought the
amendment seriously weakened the bill. He spoke to the
American Librarian Association not using age to
discriminate what materials can be used in a library.
2:47:47 PM
PATRICIA LINVILLE, LIBRARIAN, SEWARD COMMUNITY LIBRARY
(testified via teleconference), spoke in opposition to the
legislation. She thought the law would be redundant because
of federal law, and that filtering should be a community
issue. The bill would deny money to libraries that dot
filter, which could mean the entire budget of small
libraries. In Seward the youth computers are close to the
front desk and separate from the adult computers.
2:49:44 PM
DOLORIS STURTZ, ANCHORAGE (testified via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. She would like the original
language of the bill restored. Pornography is a big issue.
She wanted to protect children from the mental harm of
viewing pornography.
2:52:41 PM
GREG SCHMIDT, BOARD, ALASKA FAMILY COUNCIL (testified via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill in its
original wording. He reminded the Legislature of the
Constitution, which supports what is good for the people as
a whole. He did not want the government to support exposing
children to harm.
Ms. Roth reported that most libraries have a use policy.
The Tok Community Library requires young children to have a
parent present to use a computer. She described the extra
work libraries have to do to use E-rate. The community
decided to monitor the children in order to get internet
access.
2:56:15 PM
SHAWN TELL-NICKOLSON (testified via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. She worried about what her child
would view in a public library.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED.
AT EASE: 2:58:48 PM
RECONVENE: 3:00:43 PM
Representative Joule referenced the zero fiscal note and
disagreed that there would be no fiscal impact. Co-Chair
Meyer stated that with the amended version, there would be
no expense. The original bill would require libraries to
buy the filters, but the amended bill requires monitoring.
3:02:09 PM
Representative Gara pointed out that if the University was
included in the bill, there would be fiscal costs.
Representative Kelly MOVED Amendment #1, to return the bill
to the original version, 25-LS1356\E. Co-Chair Chenault
OBJECTED to hear discussion.
Representative Kelly believed that the changes made to the
bill took the bill in the wrong direction. He felt that the
root bill attempts to protect children from exposure to
pornography, which can damage them. It should not be easy
to view pornography in public libraries. He did not know
about exempting the University.
Representative Kelly WITHDREW the Amendment. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Kelly MOVED to return to the original
version of HB 353. Co-Chair Chenault OBJECTED for
discussion.
Representative Gara thought there could be changes that are
not clear.
3:06:32 PM
Mr. Pound pointed out that the changes made in the State
Affairs Committee, version K, primarily added "or
monitoring," in the title and on page 1, line 11 and page
2, line 2, monitoring systems; the longer definition was to
exempt the University. Representative Gara did not think
that the definition would exempt the University. Mr. Pound
explained that the attorneys said it would exempt the
University from the bill.
3:08:25 PM
Representative Gara did not understand how the definition
would exempt the University. Mr. Pound did not know.
Co-Chair Chenault asked if the libraries at the University
system were open to the public. Mr. Pound answered that
some of them are. He reiterated that Legal had said the
University was exempted by the language.
Representative Kelly suggested that the original version be
adopted and then the bill be held to determine if the
language should be amended.
3:11:12 PM
Co-Chair Chenault WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Representative
Gara OBJECTED.
Representative Gara was surprised to hear that the language
dealt with the University. The part removed is regarding
the library's decision to monitor instead of using the
software. He did not know if it was expensive to install.
He just did not know enough. He thought that the extra
sentence allowed the smaller libraries to keep their
computers going.
Co-Chair Meyer understood that the intent was to get the
original bill before the Committee. Representative Gara
thought that the dispute was only the sentence. It
addresses the cost issues of the small libraries.
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the University is under a
different subsection of the law.
3:14:39 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to return to the
original version of HB 353.
IN FAVOR: Hawker, Kelly, Stoltze, Thomas, Crawford, Meyer,
Chenault
OPPOSED: Gara
Absent from the vote: Joule, Nelson, Harris
The MOTION PASSED (7-1).
3:15:41 PM
Co-Chair Chenault noted the bill would restrict state
grants to libraries that refused to implement. The Sponsor
statement also referred to local grant money to libraries.
He wondered if there had been a change.
HB 353 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|