Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/06/1998 01:07 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 452 - NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS DISCLOSURES Number 0040 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first item of business would be HB 452, "An Act relating to registration, disclosures, and reports by certain nonprofit corporations," sponsored by Representative Green. Number 0052 JEFFREY LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to explain HB 452. He told members, "In the body of American law, there is somewhat of a peculiarity known as the private nonprofit corporation. It finds its roots in liberal laissez faire economics, a branch of economics that posits that private associations can do things better than the government, and evolves from activities in the late 19th century, when private groups and associations began forming to meet public needs. Interestingly enough, this is a trend noted by De Tocqueville in his book, after his visit to the United States, when he noted that in America average people just organize themselves and take care of public needs, whereas in Europe we appoint kings and other accomplished men to accomplish the same tasks. So it is somewhat of an American thing." MR. LOGAN said in the 1920s and 1930s, a series of Supreme Court decisions defined "corporate giving" as a management prerogative. This was significant because corporations were beginning to amass great wealth, and the court decisions allowed for a wedding of philanthropy and corporate wealth. The offspring of this marriage has evolved into what we know today as the private nonprofit philanthropic foundation. Number 0192 MR. LOGAN stated, "Sometime later, a deal was struck, wherein the body politic, us, afforded these foundations certain advantages, namely, tax advantages, in exchange for certain behavior, namely, that they would give us part of the money they earned. So private nonprofits developed into a source of money for various groups, causes and activities, and they gave money based on a few rules. One rule, maybe the main rule, was that there was a prohibition on political activities. This agreement worked pretty well up until about ten years ago. For a number of reasons, on which I could expound later if asked, there began a transformation. First, the amount of money in private nonprofit foundations exploded. ... Some economists believe that today 10 percent of the total U.S. economy is the nonprofit economy. Secondly, the number of private nonprofit organizations exploded." MR. LOGAN said today there are about a million nonprofit organizations in the country. There are about 600,000 are 501(c)(3) corporations, which is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classification we commonly understand to be nonprofit, including churches, universities, think tanks, local service clubs, homeless shelters, and so forth. In addition, there are about 40,000 private nonprofit foundations, and that number is growing steadily. Mr. Logan said the third element of the transformation is that these foundations became political. The transformation resulted in an altered relationship. Whereas in the past local groups would apply to a foundation for money, today there is evidence that foundations target the groups, causes and activities that they want to support. Number 0374 MR. LOGAN referred to bill packets, first pointing out an article quoted from The Washington Post, with a headline of "Foundations, Growth May Mean More Grants." He noted that along with the Alaska permanent fund, private nonprofit foundations have enjoyed the boom in the stock market. In the third paragraph of the article, it says these increases drive the total endowments of the top foundations to more than $126 billion dollars, or more than 12 times as much as the U.S. government spent last year on welfare aid to the poor. "This is big business," Mr. Logan commented. MR. LOGAN referred to the following in committee packets: A series of articles from Boston Globe Online, titled "The Greening of a Movement", with a subtitle of "Big Money is Bankrolling Select Environmental Causes"; a piece titled, "Recent Foundation Grants for Green Groups Active in Alaska"; and a list titled, "Alaska Conservation Foundation," from a book by Jonathan Adler, which shows some financial information about one group operating in Alaska that receives foundation funding and is active in the environmental movement. Number 0494 MR. LOGAN pointed out that environmental groups are not the only groups to receive money from foundations, and that foundations which give money to environmental groups are not the only foundations that donate to what could be considered political activities. He said these examples appear in the packet because they were the easiest to get a hold of in the time he had to put the packet together. He expressed the hope that if the committee addresses the bill again, he will be able to provide additional information to show that there are foundation activities in all phases of the political spectrum. Number 0541 MR. LOGAN noted that packets contain a proposed committee substitute, Version E [0-LS1324\E, Bannister, 3/4/98]. He said the changes from the original bill are mostly superficial. However, Version E changes the time within which donations may be given from a from a fiscal year to a calendar year, deletes the requirement for some information by the corporation, and on page 2 requires information about where the money ends up. MR. LOGAN concluded, "Overall, the bill simply says that if you are a private nonprofit corporation, and you give more than $5,000 in a calendar year to an organization in Alaska, you have to tell the public where the money goes. And if you don't, the commissioner can revoke your certificate of authority to do business. It's a right-to-know bill. The information we are requesting pales ... in comparison to what the federal government asks for." Number 0639 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT said he had just received the materials, except for the original version of the bill. He asked whether it was heard at another time. CHAIRMAN GREEN said this is the original hearing. [It had been brought up briefly on March 4, 1998.] Number 0698 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked how much of a burden the biennial report would be. MR. LOGAN replied that he had not seen the form of the biennial report, but someone from the Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations was present. Number 0745 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for confirmation that this isn't nearly as much information as is required by the federal government, including delineation of contributors on the IRS form. MR. LOGAN said that is true, adding that he could provide copies of the IRS form and the rules for filling that out. Number 0765 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked whether a for-profit corporation that is in aggregate and does more than $5,000 worth of business in Alaska has filing requirements with the state. He said it seems that certain equal protection considerations might arise. MR. LOGAN said he doesn't know, but the drafter had brought that issue and a potential commerce clause issue to his attention, "both of which she agreed could be issues but that we meet the tests for those." Number 0874 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES commented that certainly if a foreign corporation comes into the state to do any business, it must first file with the Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations as a foreign corporation, and get a permit. Number 0908 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether there is a reporting requirement if a foreign corporation purchases $5,000 worth of goods from an Alaska corporation, for example. CHAIRMAN GREEN said he doesn't know. Number 0927 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested that goes to the definition of doing business. He provided an example, "If Corrections Corporation of America, a for-profit company who is not yet doing business in the state of Alaska, wanted to give donations to various groups, as I read it, ... it just covers nonprofits. So for-profit corporations sending in money to influence or for whatever purpose - not doing business but simply sending in the ... type of donations we're talking about here - wouldn't be covered, would they?" MR. LOGAN replied, "That's not the intent, and as I read it, it is not covered in this language." Number 0979 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested putting the reporting requirement on the current in-state nonprofits, and making them report where they got all of their money. She noted that those could include health providers, treatment centers or special interest groups. Number 1029 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he doesn't understand why for-profits giving money wouldn't have the same reporting requirements. He asked whether the federal reporting mentioned by Mr. Logan is public information. Number 1077 MR. LOGAN replied that the form he had mentioned, the 990, is available in some form but is stale by the time it is available to the public. It takes several months after it is reported to get from the IRS to the public. The Council on Foundations, the voluntary trade organization of big nonprofit foundations, has a membership service and a library in Washington, D.C., with a few branches around the country; they acquire these 990 forms and have them available on microfiche. However, Mr. Logan had asked that very day, and the most recent forms they have are two years old. For people in Alaska to get this information, even if they know about it, would be difficult, and by the time the information was available, the effect of the money could long have passed. Mr. Logan said the intent here is to make the information available to Alaskans, in Alaska. Number 1164 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG commented that given the giving power of the Alaska Conservation Foundation, according to the exhibit in the file, they would presumably have had to file a 990 form. He asked whether Mr. Logan had requested information from the IRS about them, to see how the system works. MR. LOGAN said he had tried. He restated that this information is in the packet because it was obtainable, adding that he had tried for other groups as well, but unsuccessfully. He noted that some of this information is published by foundations on the Internet. Number 1256 MR. LOGAN advised members that the IRS requires a public inspection period, but does not require the notice to be in a newspaper where the file is to be inspected. Therefore, a Washington-based foundation could put a notice in a newspaper in Macon, Georgia, wait for the 180-day period to elapse, and then say they had met all the legal requirements. He told Representative Rokeberg that is one of the problems, noting that there is legislation now in Congress relating to some of these loopholes. CHAIRMAN GREEN added, "But the fact is the information is public. It's just difficult to find, and this makes it easier to find." Number 1317 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how Mr. Logan had obtained the information that is listed. MR. LOGAN answered that some is available on the Internet, some is available in part in other publications, and some was due to luck. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether those were government publications. MR. LOGAN said no. He added that some of the information in Mr. Adler's book is no longer current, as it is a few years old. Number 1378 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed concern about unintended consequences, noting that the focus appears to be solely on environmental groups. He asked whether there were any other groups that might have contributed that Mr. Logan knows about. MR. LOGAN said he believes there are, and has been told that, but he cannot show that there are. For example, certain employment organizations in the transportation industry have foundations, and there is some evidence of this in the education field. Furthermore, someone in Pennsylvania had told him there was a problem there with the Robert Wood Johnson (ph) Foundation, which had issued a grant to the health and social services department to train people in the department in how to apply for grants from the state government; he noted that a legislator there is trying to close that loophole. Mr. Logan restated that it is not only in the environmental area. Number 1434 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it would seem that groups like the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] or the Anti-Defamation League would somehow get involved in this reporting requirement. AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER mentioned the NRA. Number 1443 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to a book titled, "Trashing the Economy." She noted that oil companies also have foundations. She told members that several years before, when there had been controversy over some geothermal energy where she was living, including lobbying against that project, it turned out that oil companies were behind it. She suggested that it is important that whoever hears something knows from whom they are hearing it. Number 1489 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that major American oil companies operate in Alaska, suggesting that if they didn't, however, and if their sole operation was to influence that geothermal project through donations, it wouldn't be covered here, as he sees it. That would be a for-profit company trying to influence public opinion, not generally doing business here but trying to influence it by giving in the aggregate over $5,000. CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that if it gave to a nonprofit, that would be disclosed. Number 1525 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that it says a foreign nonprofit corporation is considered to be transacting business if it gives over $5,000 to a nonprofit. He said he still doesn't understand that distinction on the giving end, although he may understand it somewhat on the receiving end. REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER said he believes the example was that these companies have foundations. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied, "That was that example: If they wanted to directly influence it, they wouldn't have to report; if they wanted to do it through a foundation, they would. I don't understand that." Number 1559 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that point is well-taken. She said it seems the purpose of the reporting is to know who is funding the nonprofit corporations in the state, in order to determine whether the behavior follows the donations. She again suggested requiring local nonprofit corporations to report where they get their money, as opposed to making those that give money do the reporting. Number 1601 MR. LOGAN agreed Representative Croft's point is well-taken. He added that the point of the bill is to compel foundations, which were originally organized to have certain tax advantages and which are becoming more political, to disclose what they are doing in Alaska. He noted that a representative from the Department of Commerce and Economic Development had information about the nonprofit corporations code and what is going on in that area. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were questions before hearing testimony. He announced that those waiting on teleconference could testify first. Number 1652 MANO FREY, Co-Chair, Arctic Power, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, specifying that he is one of two co-chairs of Arctic Power, a nonprofit group with the single goal of "seeing the safe and efficient development, exploration and use of a small little piece of land in Alaska, the coastal plain on the Arctic coast." Noting that he is also involved in several other nonprofit groups, he expressed great interest in hearing the answers to some of the questions being brought up. MR. FREY stated his understanding that this only applies to 501(c)(3)s, which have limited purposes, and for which it is pretty well defined under law what they can or cannot do. He told members his initial reaction to the bill is that he doesn't have a problem with it, as he understands its purpose. However, he also understands from the discussion that it may be a little more focused in another draft; he expressed interest in seeing any future changes. Number 1753 JOHN CONLEY, Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. He told members this bill kind of excites him, because if he makes a large contribution to a political candidate, he and the candidate are required to disclose that to the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and it becomes public information immediately, available on the Internet. He said he likes this because in Ketchikan he has discovered that a lot of East Coast foundations have sought to change the public image, or to affect the public process, by giving to organizations within Alaska. He stated, "You know, when we were fighting for the timber industry here, we kept bumping into these so-called community-based groups claiming to represent a section of their community. And it's always been my belief that they were actually funded by an East Coast corporation, through grants, and ... their sole purpose was to affect public policy, basically, to abort the legislative process and to act as a lobbying group." He said he didn't want to name names, then cited specific examples. Number 1894 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ agreed there needs to be a level playing field, but said if he recalls correctly, there were also organizations in the Lower 48, including land use groups, that were supportive of the timber industry. He asked Mr. Conley if that would affect his decision on this bill in any way. MR. CONLEY replied, "No, sir, it wouldn't. In fact, I'm president of a local grassroots organization called CARE. And we have nothing to hide. I mean, our membership is made up of local Ketchikan folks and folks from around the nation with similar interests. I believe what this legislation would do is it would show the amount of money being funneled into Alaska to affect public policy in Alaska. I think there's a big difference there. The people on my side have no fear. I mean, what more can we lose? But we can only pick up a paper daily and see that public policy is being established on the East Coast for Alaskans. It is my belief that these East Coast foundations, through these limited environmental groups, are specifically trying to affect public policy." Number 1979 DICK COOSE, Executive Director, Concerned Alaskans for Resources and Environment (CARE), testified next via teleconference from Ketchikan, expressing support for the concept of this bill and agreeing the playing field needs to be leveled out. He suggested the committee consider not only (c)(3) organizations but (c)(4) and (c)(6) organizations as well. "And we are a (c)(4), and we do not have anything to hide," he added. Mr. Coose spoke about people on the East Coast telling Alaskans how to live their lives, manage their companies and manage their lands. MR. COOSE said the Alaska Rainforest Campaign, along with other groups, spent $70,000 the previous month to put a full-page ad in the New York Times saying how bad the Tongass is. He stated, "And each and every one of you sitting in that room, I know, understand the Tongass is a well-managed forest, and it's being caused to have economic output that's [considerably] below its sustainable level. And I'd just encourage you to go ahead and pass something similar to what you have. We really need it, so that the public realizes that these groups, be they environmental or others, are not really funded locally, as they would have you perceive they are." Number 2045 STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association, Incorporated (Anchorage), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks on behalf of the association, stating support for the bill, and saying he believes the concepts that are changes in the proposed committee substitute are appropriate. Mr. Borell told members that for years or possibly decades, outside money has been coming into Alaska to influence public policy, development of regulations, and who knows what else. He agreed with testimony about the difficulty of getting information except through the Internet. He said it was not until these web sites were developed that they began to understand the incredible magnitude of the money and the "widespread tentacles" of what is being done. MR. BORELL said they feel that these donors translate into opposition for projects not due to real environmental issues but using the environment to block projects, lock up more land into conservation system units, block access, and so forth. He stated, "These outside dollars have been disastrous for the communities, especially the Southeast, and not so much in the mining but in the logging, and in the opposition of ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]." Mr. Borell concluded by encouraging passage of HB 452, saying he believes it is a necessary step that will not hamper foundations' contributing but will put state residents, and the legislature, on notice as to what monies are being brought in to affect public policy. Number 2163 MICHAEL MONAGLE, Records and Licensing Supervisor, Corporations Section, Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came forward to testify. He first commented on the bill itself, mentioning its fiscal impact. Mr. Monagle advised members that right now there are 23,000 active corporations, of which 4,600 are nonprofit. Using Mr. Logan's statistics, with 600,000 501(c)(3) corporations and 40,000 private nonprofit foundations, if they saw an increase of 400 filings the next year, they could probably handle that. However, 4,000 more would require additional staff, and 40,000 would require them to double their staff. "And if we saw 600,000, Juneau would get its new state office building," he added. Number 2204 MR. MONAGLE said the point is that nobody knows how much money is coming in, the number of filings, or the impact on his agency, but there would be an impact. Each filing would have to be handled and processed. If the state captured this information that is not available elsewhere easily, then newspapers, magazines and people from all over the country would seek that information from his office, where it would be easy to obtain as a public record. Therefore, the numbers of requests for copies of reports would rise. The bottom line is that it could potentially have a dramatic impact on the agency. MR. MONAGLE pointed out that right now the bill doesn't specify the nature of the $5,000 being given to a nonprofit corporation. He stated, "So, if I have a mission in a village in Alaska, and I have a church outside the state that gives $5,000 to that mission, I have to register, which I would not have had to have done before. That prompts two questions. One, is that $5,000 gift from that foundation worth the hassle to that foundation of having to register? And would that take away that gift from taking place? And that $5,000 gift to that mission might be very important to that particular mission. So, what impact would it have ... on the receivers of these funds and monies who are churches? If I have a church, and I want to build a new church, and I have an extension society, again, under the current statute I'm not registered. But if I make a loan to that church so they can put up a building, am I then required to register? So, there's a scope of how broad this bill is." Number 2283 MR. MONAGLE referred to enforceability and noted that if the corporation fails to turn in this report, the corporation's authority to do business in this state will be revoked. He asked what prompts them to have to comply in the first place, or causes them to be aware of the requirement. MR. MONAGLE mentioned a point raised by Representative James. He said in 1991, the Alaska Code Review Commission submitted a bill for consideration, although it never went anywhere. There was a revision of the Nonprofit Mofrl Corporation Act by the American Bar Association. Quite a few states have adopted this revision, although Mr. Monagle said he didn't have statistics on it. He said Alaska's existing statute is virtually unchanged since statehood, and all kinds of organizations are included such as sewing clubs, booster groups for athletic events, churches and environmental groups. The revised model Act would break out nonprofits into essentially religious corporations; mutual benefit corporations, which would be homeowner associations, booster clubs, and so forth; and public benefit corporations. MR. MONAGLE said it seems if they want disclosure on funding sources, passage of a revision of the revised model Act, creating a public benefit type of nonprofit corporation, could put a requirement in the statute that says, "Tell us who your funding sources are." Administratively, for the department, it would not increase the number of corporations coming into the state. It would simply separate out and identify the public benefit nonprofits, and make some filing requirements necessary for them. Number 2383 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether each donor would be charged a filing fee under this bill. MR. MONAGLE replied that right now under the regulations, each registration would be charged $50; therefore, each corporation would pay $50. He explained, "Once registered, they would also fall under the other provisions as a foreign corporation doing business here, which would mean any amendments that they have in their domicile they'd have to file here, mergers would have to be filed here, notification changes of their officers and directors would have to file here. So it goes beyond just the initial registration as well. Once you're registered, you're subject to other requirements that you have to file changes with the state." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "We would keep on file their board of directors and their current articles?" MR. MONAGLE affirmed that. Number 2419 CHAIRMAN GREEN said the increase in workload appears to be offset by the filing fee. He asked what is so onerous about filing this. MR. MONAGLE explained that each corporation would have to submit an application for registration, which needs to be reviewed to make sure they have complied with what is in statute; typically, that is handled by a person who would then issue some type of certificate of registration. That paper would have to be retained, currently either by converting those records to microfiche or microfilm, although they have a small pilot project for imaging; those become permanent archival records. Each application that comes in would have to be processed, and would have a $50 check with it, so there would be fiscal aspects of processing that. Once the information is stored, whether on microfilm, microfiche or electronically, people then request information that the department must provide. TAPE 98-31, SIDE B Number 0006 MR. MONAGLE continued, saying that if additional staffing is required, there would be additional equipment needs, as well as increased contractual costs for microfiche from the central microfilm lab and increased postage and telephone costs. He said it all is part of the filing process. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked how the $50 was established. MR. MONAGLE said it is set out in regulation as a filing fee, to cover the cost of filing and processing. Number 0029 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she didn't recall the bill Mr. Monagle had mentioned that would rewrite the nonprofit corporation designations. She asked, "So, you're saying that if that was done and then we required this from the receiver - not the payer but from the receiver - there would be no cost then, it would just be absorbed in what you are already doing?" MR. MONAGLE said that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked for a brief explanation of the differences between a (c)(3), a (c)(4) and a (c)(6) corporation. MR. MONAGLE said he didn't know, as they don't get involved in the tax issues. He explained, "They file with us, saying they are a nonprofit; we make no determination on whether they are tax-exempt. That is strictly an IRS requirement. Right now, in checking with Department of Revenue, they receive 1,100 filings a year, 990 forms from nonprofit corporations. Under their statute, that information is confidential; so you couldn't get a copy if you wanted to. If you filed these types of reports with the Department of Commerce, they're public record; anybody would have access." Number 0081 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to questions he had asked Mr. Logan about filing requirements of for-profit corporations. He asked Mr. Monagle if he knows the answer to those questions. MR. MONAGLE replied, "I don't recall your specific questions. Generally, the nexus that we use for registration is fairly similar to what Department of Revenue uses, in that you have to have some type of presence in the state to be required to register. So, a nonprofit formed in Florida, before they register with us, generally open a chapter of their organization in Alaska, or they have an office in Alaska, or they have some type of, quote, 'presence' here. If they don't have a presence, right now they would not be required to register. The similar thing with for- profit corporations -- there's a section under the bill that revises, or it says excluding 10.24.60, Now, that's a section of the nonprofit act that says these activities do not constitute transacting business. And they're similar to the for-profit corporations. Things like holding title to real and personal property, by itself, does not mean you're transacting business in Alaska. Making loans or acquiring indebtedness in the state is exempt from the definition of doing business. So right now ... those activities would be exempt from registration. But under this bill, they would require registration anyway." CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that it would be if they met the $5,000 threshold. MR. MONAGLE concurred. Number 0149 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to AS 10.20.645, relating to a failure or refusal to file reports. He asked about the $5 fine. MR. MONAGLE explained that for a domestic corporation that has failed to file, currently the state has authority to involuntarily dissolve the corporation's charter. For an out-of-state corporation, the authority already resides with the commissioner to revoke its certificate of authority. He said he is not familiar with that $5 fine. Number 0182 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether there are other provisions within that title, which the department enforces, and which provide for penalties for failure to file. MR. MONAGLE answered that the "stick" that the department has, in almost all cases, is the authority to dissolve a corporation. If the department dissolved a corporate charter because of failure to file reports, for example, the department can reinstate that corporation if it pays the fees assessable at the time the report was due. In the case of for-profit corporations, there is a provision in statute for a double-the-amount-due penalty to reinstate. Therefore, there is an additional penalty to reactivate a charter if the corporation fails to file in a timely manner. Number 0223 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the fee is for a profit-making corporation to file. He further asked, "How could you dissolve a foreign corporation?" MR. MONAGLE replied that right now the initial fee is $350 for an out-of-state corporation to register; that breaks down to a $150 filing fee, plus the first two-year, biennial tax of $200. He pointed out that they cannot dissolve an out-of-state corporation but can simply revoke its authority to do business in Alaska, which means the certificate of authority no longer exists and the corporation would be prohibited from certain activities under the statute. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the $200 biennial tax is incurred against the corporation's taxable income or is another form of tax. MR. MONAGLE answered that it is a flat tax, called in some states a franchise tax. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether a corporation also needs a business license. MR. MONAGLE said yes. Number 0279 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER recalled discussion of the nonprofit legislation, but asked whether Mr. Monagle remembered what happened to it. MR. MONAGLE said he believed it was in 1991 or thereabouts, and it was introduced late in the session. He suggested a major code revision like that would require a bill that runs 200 pages, and the committee did not feel up to tackling it at that point. He said unfortunately the Code Review Commission was disbanded in the interim, as it was not funded, and the issue went away. "The department certainly would support a revision of that code," he added. CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that everyone who had signed up had testified. He asked the wish of the committee. Number 0332 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern about the failure-to-file provision, mentioning the $5 penalty and noting Mr. Monagle's testimony that the "stick" is dissolving a corporation. He asked whether that would be enough enforcement to preclude the continued contributions of funds if corporations didn't file. Number 0370 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thinks the idea of "sunshining" this information is laudatory, and he would like to do that. He questioned the ability to do that with this vehicle, however. For example, he said he doesn't believe that the Brainerd Foundation referenced in packets does business in Alaska and would therefore be required to file for anything. Consequently, there would be no enforceability there. CHAIRMAN GREEN replied that he may be right, but suggested it is a step in the right direction to gather those that don't skirt the law through loopholes. Number 0427 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether there had been consideration of the notion of reporting by those who receive the money. CHAIRMAN GREEN said there really wasn't. Number 0461 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that if they want to know where nonprofits in Alaska get their money, they ought to ask those nonprofits. She said she wished they had in front of them the rewrite of the nonprofit law, as it is unnecessary to get the information from missions and churches, for example. She also agreed with Representative Porter that probably many corporations, both for-profit and nonprofit, send money into Alaska without being registered to do business in the state. She offered to work on the bill. Number 0537 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG told members that the House Labor and Commerce Committee, which he chairs, has been in communication with the Department of Commerce and Economic Development on a larger rewrite. He said if it was Chairman Green's desire, they would be happy to look further into that. He mentioned the alleged 200 pages, noting that Chapter 20 is only 35 pages long. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were further comments, then thanked participants. [HB 452 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|