Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/27/1998 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 400 - DEPT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Number 0451 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next item of business would be HB 400, "An Act combining parts of the Department of Commerce and Economic Development and parts of the Department of Community and Regional Affairs by transferring some of their duties to a new Department of Commerce and Rural Development; transferring some of the duties of the Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs to other existing agencies; eliminating the Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs; relating to the Department of Commerce and Rural Development; adjusting the membership of certain multi-member bodies to reflect the transfer of duties among departments and the elimination of departments; and providing for an effective date." Number 0459 DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Labor (DOL), came forward to testify. He noted the committee had heard a great deal of testimony over the last few days and he had prepared a statement on behalf of the DOL to read into the record: In Section 65 ... of HB 400 it states that the Department of Labor shall operate the federally-funded employment and training programs under 29 U.S.C. 1501 through 1792(b), the Job Training Partnership Act [JTPA]. The impact of this section would be to transfer the JTPA Program from Department of Community and Regional Affairs to Alaska Department of Labor. Alaska Department of Labor ... has had a long and productive partnership with the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, and as Alaska Department of Labor has not administered this program, the transition would protract the coordination and distribution of the JTPA grants, as well ... as the impact in close employer relationships that have been generated by the JTPA. Additionally, a mere program transfer would promulgate new leases for working space, remodeling and furniture and supply costs. In conclusion ... the Department of Labor envisions ... no immediate benefit to the public recipients of these services, both job seekers and employers, nor do we see any monetary savings from the JTPA transfer to Labor. MR. PERKINS noted that concluded his prepared statement. In addition, he indicated many people are under the impression DOL is in the business of job training, stating the department really is not. He said that when a person is unemployed, it is the DOL's mission to get that individual back into the workforce as soon as possible to avoid depletion of the unemployment insurance (UI) trust fund. He referred to previous testimony, noting that, as they have heard, the missions are considerably different. Commenting on the relationship DCRA has with the rural communities throughout the state, Mr. Perkins said the DOL feels it would probably be in the best interest for JTPA to remain where it currently is. Number 0664 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the Human Resource Investment Council was administered by the DOL. MR. PERKINS replied, "That is under the governor's office and they oversee the training programs, but that is not under the purview of the Alaska Department of Labor ...." Number 0695 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned Representative Kohring whether HB 400 affected the Human Resource Investment Council. Number 0715 MIKE KRIEBER, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Vic Kohring, came forward to testify. He replied HB 400 does not do anything with the council except change the names of the commissioners to the new department. Number 0742 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Perkins if the DOL had any job training programs. MR. PERKINS responded that the department did not. He clarified the department did not do job training, it put people to work. He said DOL is the "dispatcher" getting requests from employers and providing qualified applicants to those employers. Mr. Perkins stated these other programs are about job training. Number 0770 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted JTPA was under DCRA, but he questioned whether there were other job training programs in the Department of Health and Social Services (H&SS). Number 0780 MR. PERKINS responded that was getting outside his realm of expertise, noting he thought there might be some job training associated with the Division of Public Assistance but he was not sure. Number 0797 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he thought there were job training programs related to monies from unemployment compensation funds (indisc.) surcharge tax. Number 0818 MR. PERKINS said he believed Chairman Rokeberg was referring to the State Training Employment Program (STEP) which he said will sunset this year, noting there is legislation that will hopefully be seen. He stated the department's role in that program is to collect the funds the employer sends in on employment security tax and transfer those funds to DCRA for distribution to training programs. Number 0845 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that program was administered by DCRA. He asked if it was under JTPA. Number 0853 MR. PERKINS answered in the negative, stating it was a separate program. Number 0887 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked where and to whom DCRA distributed that money. Number 0900 MR. PERKINS asked which type of money Representative Ryan was referring to. Number 0903 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN clarified he was referring to the employment security tax money collected by DCRA and transferred to DCRA. Number 0907 MR. PERKINS explained that was through the STEP Program. He noted the program is up for sunset review this year and that there is legislation which would extend it. He said .1 percent of the unemployment tax from working Alaskans goes into a fund for job training. He indicated Alaskans who have had a direct connection to the workforce within the previous three years qualify to receive these funds for employment training. However, Mr. Perkins indicated, that is all administered through the private industry councils, the vocational education technical schools, and labor organizations who qualify for those funds to train these individuals, upgrading their skills. Number 0963 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated he would like to look into that bill when it came up. Number 0969 MR. PERKINS noted he would be happy to discuss it further if Representative Ryan wished. Number 0978 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented the committee was disappointed to see the DOL was not in the job training program. Number 0997 SUSAN RODEHEAVER testified via teleconference from Kodiak. She stated, "I have been a Kodiak "representative" for 26 years. ... I have been aware of the Head Start Program for many years, but only recently become involved. I have a 3 1/2 year old daughter in (indisc.) home-based program. I am calling in concern to ... House Bill 400. I feel that consolidating these two departments is not the solution. The DCRA works with community-based development along with Head Start, nurturing all aspects of family life, not just education. Head Start's goal is to support the family with physical, mental and emotional support to keep our children health and safe. The DCED supports the community with job-training programs and works to maintain fair and consistent business regulations. Let's compare the departments saying, as an old fashioned married couple, with the husband contributing to financial support while the wife takes care of the household engineering department. Suddenly the husband dies, leaving the wife totally responsible for financial and household tasks. The wife has to do it, but the end result lacks the same quality and efficiency obtained when both did their separate jobs. The DCRA and the DCED support each other, they have the same goal of improving the community life but have different methods of reaching this goal. ... The DCRA provides physical, mental and emotional support for families; the DCED provides job training programs. Both of these departments are needed, if we try to heap the responsibility on one department, the workload will become too heavy and the important tasks will be shuffled aside. The Department of Commerce and Rural Development may not have much responsibility, but what about the Department of Health and Social Services to which day care assistance and Head Start will be shifted, and the Department of Labor to which the job training program [JTPA] will be added. How would these departments bear up under the extra load? Will more employees be hired for those departments, in the end not saving any money on labor costs? We are considering our children's future with this bill, so my question is, why should we change the system that works so successfully on the possibility that we may save money?" Number 1138 ROBERT HALL had to leave the Matanuska-Susitna Legislative Information Office (Mat-Su LIO) before he was able to testify. He left his testimony with Mr. Gifford. Number 1159 DAN GIFFORD testified next via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO. He read Mr. Hall's handwritten statement supporting HB 400 to the committee. Mr. Gifford mentioned at various times that parts of Mr. Hall's statement were unreadable or difficult to make out. HB 400 represents a wonderful opportunity for the legislature to make a statement government is important to the people of Alaska. In these days of diminishing revenues the legislature has a clear option of protecting constituencies that support big, ineffective government and cut programs that help citizens, or you can reduce upper-level bureaucracy, rearrange government to more efficiently and effectively deliver services and programs which, in this case, would result in protecting $1 million worth of programs that have a clear benefit to the people. The Department of Commerce and DCRA are ideal candidates for this merger. In the days when the state had large revenues, this was a luxury the states could afford. No longer can any state (indisc.) agency stand on its own merits of whether or not it is a good idea. In the absence of budget cutting and budget deficits, legislatures must make tough comparative decisions. How does protecting entrenched bureaucracy compare to cutting funding for the actual programs? When any legislative effort suggests reducing funding, there is always opposition from those affected. In this case, the upper-level bureaucracy may make an impassioned plea to protect their camp. As legislators, you're (indisc.-- sentence). Good government is not glamorous. The people of Alaska has an interesting view. We have good, dedicated state employees that are hamstrung by a (indisc.) bureaucracy. The view point of "it's not broke, don't fix it" ignores the benefits of efficient and effective government. Yet, HB 400 delivers better services but allows other programs the financial freedom not to be cut. This bill, in some small way, also allows the "legislator" to restore credibility to state government. Number 1364 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted to Mr. Gifford that the committee would be happy to have a typed copy of Mr. Hall's testimony for the written public record. Number 1386 MR. GIFFORD said he would contact Mr. Hall about this, and he continued with his own testimony. Mr. Gifford said HB 400 looked like a very good bill from his limited amount of research. There might be some structural problems which might need to be addressed, but, overall, he thought that combining DCED and DCRA would be a very good thing since there was duplication in the areas of rural economic development; rural small business development and fisheries; rural tourism; infrastructure scoping, planning and funding; rural sanitation projects and funding; energy development; electrical utility assistance; and also assistance to economically- distressed regions. He noted these were all duplications that could be put into one agency, and, from just doing some rough math, he understands that would save at least $1 million a year by cutting upper management. Mr. Gifford said it would still be manageable for one commissioner, indicating the new department would have less than 500 people and he thinks there are several departments in state government larger than that. He commented the benefit was that programs would not have to be cut, and perhaps even more money might be made available for those same programs. He said HB 400 seems to simply streamline government and make it more efficient. Number 1487 MR. GIFFORD noted dropping oil prices, revenue and oil production on the North Slope. He said if things went badly for oil prices, and other things, state agencies might have to cut services and positions in a "meat-axe" type of way. It made more sense to him to economize in an orderly, slow, careful way, to say nothing of what it might do to Alaska citizens depending on those programs for assistance. Mr. Gifford indicated HB 400 would be advantageous to rural development in the DCRA if rural development was in the same department with DCED which currently handles most of the funding processing. He noted it would make a lot of sense to have that money available in the same department, indicating this would tend to streamline things and make them work better. Mr. Gifford stated he had a question for Mr. Perkins from the DOL, "I was under the impression that this basically keeps JTPA right where it is with the Department of Labor, or either adds the Department of Labor to - to do this, and I'm - I'm a little mystified as what the problem is, because I just read over Section 65 and it quite clearly states that the Department of Labor runs JTPA ...." Mr. Gifford noted that concluded his testimony. Number 1584 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he had asked Commissioner Irwin from DCRA at the February 23 hearing if he would possibly take a cut in pay to come into the new department and help with the transition. Representative Cowdery said he thought the commissioner had stated there was no one in the other department who could do what Commissioner Irwin was doing. Representative Cowdery said the impression he received was that the commissioner would not be interested in any salary cut to assist with this consolidation. Representative Cowdery stated that was what he thought this bill was about: management and this consolidation. He stated he would hope that both departments would give and take a little bit to end up with what was best for the public, noting that was more or less an editorial comment and he had only been present for part of that previous meeting. Number 1650 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee would go back to testimony in Juneau. Number 1664 FRED JAMES came forward to testify in Juneau. He said he completely supported HB 400, with one interesting qualification. Mr. James said it was a wonderful bill, he thinks it was consistent with the reason most of the Republicans were placed in office in 1994 all over the country, which he said was the just cry to cut government. He stated government was too big and bloated and they needed to get rid of some of it, and in many peoples' opinions, a lot of it. Mr. James commented that, while this process of cutting $50 or $60 million a year has been slow, he understood from gossip that the incentive to cut was being "piddled away" this year because of the prospect of the election. He commented that, therefore, HB 400 was excellent because it gave them a means of trimming and didn't remove any of the services provided. He said he really liked the bill and noted it was because of two deep impressions he received as a younger man. The first was an example of government waste he saw while doing his army basic training. He watched a large amount of ammunition shot off for no purpose because a second lieutenant was too lazy to go through the record- keeping to log the unshot ammunition. Number 1774 MR. JAMES said his second deep impression was several years later at the University of Hawaii when he was studying economics. He learned about the notion of "make do, make work" - the theoretical idea of one person digging holes and another one, always employed by the government, filling those holes up. He said one digs, one fills, and it is photographed with the big show that this is taxes in action, and the fact that it is "make work" is concealed. Mr. James said those two notions of "make-work" and government waste have stayed with him ever since, stating, "And as a taxpayer, I ... represent all notions of conserving what our treasure is, and that's what this bill is all about, so I - I completely back it, with this exception. And that is, that instead of moving, or ... taking all these little divisions within the departments, and the bill calls for them simply to remain in place and be administered by one commissioner instead of two. Well the notion is noble, but I would think that it would be more proper to go further than that. We should not just move them, but we should think very seriously about cutting them, because some of them are very much like digging holes and then filling them up." Number 1842 MR. JAMES indicated one of the ones he had in mind was the Division of Tourism, which he said takes government tax dollars, the people's money, and gives it to one sector of the private economy instead of another. He said the Division of Tourism was functioning as a bank and he commented that the act of the government giving out money to certain people for one reason or another, which a lot of these little departments did, was crowding out the proper function of banks and other private lending institutions. He indicated this was why bank rates went up. Mr. James also noted a secondary reason was that when private people gave away money, they were more careful with it because they were profit-oriented. He said the Division of Tourism could be phased- out and its management could find honest jobs in the private sector. He noted that then some of the complaints that were raised could be averted, commenting that the problem of computer compatibility had been brought up. Mr. James said that problem became nothing when compared to the "Y-2000" problem which every computer in the world was going to have to face in less than two years, and which, he said, would have to be solved first. He indicated this problem would be solved by someone in the private sector. Number 1931 MR. JAMES also referred to the complaint that certain buildings were ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) incompatible. He stated the solution was make the buildings compatible, using open contracts so that it could be done efficiently. He commented that another criticism had been that work would increase over a short time because of reorganization. Mr. James said with the abolishment of the Division of Tourism and the reduction of "division of licensure" (Division of Occupational Licensing) by eliminating a number of businesses requiring licensure such as "haircutting" and he used the analogy of getting government off the backs of the people, not as many bureaucrats would be needed to administer all these programs. He commented he thought the funniest complaint of all was about the full-time space organizer. He indicated that, because of the trimming, the deputies would have extra time, and said they should be assigned the task of reorganizing the space, noting that if they cut and trim, there would be space to organize. Number 2009 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he believed the testimony had been for two space planners. Number 2013 MR. JAMES said he thought Representative Kohring had been dead right when he commented two days previously that the commissioners were like rabbits running scared in front of headlights. Mr. James said he has seen it time and time again, indicating that all the testimony against HB 400 was from people were benefitting from the current system. He said they were complaining that their "cushy" jobs were being cut, but they would get more productive jobs in the private sector. Mr. James stated he would advise the committee to think about cutting whole agencies or whole departments or trimming others, noting they would have the everlasting thanks of many of the people. He said the Governor's office, as Representative Ryan commented the other day, has been noncommittal about HB 400, and he said he would go further to say that it has been arrogant, noting that those on the "third floor" are supposed to be public servants. He indicated he suggests that the legislature, the people who make the rules, ought to be the ones who call the shots, and the Governor's office ought to administer what the legislature sets up. Mr. James referred to a letter to the editor in the Anchorage Daily News, February 27, 1998, which was distributed to the committee, from a Palmer man, Jim Van Doren. Mr. James quoted, "His [Representative Kohring's] latest bill, HB 400, will consolidate two fat state government departments, get rid of their upper- management hierarchies and deliver the same services for far less cost. This should be music to our ears." Mr. James noted it was music to his, he urged the committee to do it, and he congratulated Representative Kohring for bringing it up. Number 2123 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any questions for Mr. James. Number 2125 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented that Mr. James had obviously heard the testimony from the last hearing and he asked Mr. James if he thought the departments were motivated to get behind this proposal or motivated for their own salaries. He noted Mr. James discussed reorganizations and the departments had talked about the reorganization. Representative Cowdery indicated he thinks the legislators do that every election and it seems to work out. He asked Mr. James if he thought the department heads or the departments were capable of making this merger, or did he think they were not motivated, or not interested. Number 2156 MR. JAMES said he thought, from the comments made by the departments, that they were protecting their (indisc.). He said their bottom-line motivation was higher salaries and good, fat retirements with benefits. He indicated he couldn't say exactly what the members of the departments or department heads thought, but he could almost predict what they would say, noting he believed they were conjuring up every single reason they could think of to make it look as if HB 400 was impractical and would hurt people. He referred to the two female witnesses who testified against moving the Head Start Program to H&SS. He noted that, while Representative Kohring did not want any changes, there might be some administrative changes which could be worked out in the details. He stated, "Already they're reading long prepared documents, who - who do think ... gave them those documents? They didn't think 'em up." He noted he had prepared his own documents and stated he was saying this because that was the way he felt, and that was his political philosophy. He said, "They're protecting themselves and we should see clearly that this is the case." Number 2221 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said there were two other witnesses signed up to testify, but he indicated the committee would pause the public hearing on HB 400 in order to bring HB 458 back before the committee. HB 400 - DEPT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Number 2266 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would take HB 400 back up. He noted Representative Kohring has been in attendance, and Pat Poland, Director, Division of Municipal and Regional Assistance, DCRA, had been standing by for questions in Anchorage. Chairman Rokeberg called Mr. Ritchie forward, indicating the committee had the Alaska Municipal League's February 25 letter. Number 2280 KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League, came forward to testify in Juneau. He noted the Alaska Municipal League was not a state agency. He said it worked with municipalities, many of which did work with DCRA, noting a lot of what the league does is help with the same types of issues: savings, efficiency. He indicated the league supported any effort toward efficiency in that direction, but it cautioned the committee members to carefully consider each one of the changes being recommended. He said many of the members had obviously done things like this in private business, noting it is not always quite as straight forward as it seems. Mr. Ritchie referred to the Alaska Municipal League's letter which had been made available to the committee, and indicated the league is concerned on behalf of its members because the Constitution of the State of Alaska mandates only one agency, a local government agency [Article X, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska reads: "Local government agency. An agency shall be established by law in the executive branch of the state government to advise and assist local governments. It shall review their activities, collect and publish local government information, and perform other duties prescribed by law."]. Mr. Ritchie said, according to his reading, since there is only one agency mandated, the framers of the constitution felt it was an extremely important function of government, and would be in the long term. He said the only point he would make about a local government agency was that government has become quite a bit more complicated than it used to be, and the need for an agency to provide advice and support to local governments is more and more important. He commented on the need for support with federal environmental rules, federal mandates of many kinds, state mandates and personnel law. Mr. Ritchie suggested the committee talk to some of the people involved in the constitutional discussions of the necessity of a local government agency, noting that if this agency was set aside in a separate department as a sub-program, it was probably not going to get the same type of attention and emphasis intended by the constitution. Number 2360 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented on the low price of oil, and indicated that times for cut-backs come up, and this is such a time. He said the agencies the Alaska Municipal League deals with would still be in place and the composition of upper management really didn't matter, noting the league was more interested in the programs, and he didn't think the programs would be impacted in this change. He said he had asked Representative Hudson how many departments had existed 20 or 25 years ago, noting there had been fewer. Representative Cowdery said he hasn't done the research but he stated, "The departments have split up and went just the opposite of what we're trying to do it back into one now. And I - I, just a question, do you, I just -- if you could elaborate on why you think ..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE] TAPE 98-21, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. RITCHIE stated, "... I used to - to be a city manager for a fairly large organization, and having gone through that exercise a number of times, some of the things that seem like they'll save money may not particularly save money." He noted one example in the late 1970s, where the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) had been approached by a private management corporation who guaranteed the assembly the company could save the CBJ $1 million in its organization. Mr. Ritchie said the company did save $1 million in organization, coming back for $35,000 or $40,000 with a list of positions to eliminate, but he noted there were some significant impacts beyond that. He said he would caution that it was a difficult thing to do, but not that it couldn't be done. In terms of whether or not the agency would be effective if made more of a sub-program, he said he could not say what would happen, but he noted that when a program was moved down the line in terms of importance, it often received less organizational time. He said the state constitution seemed to put a great deal of importance on a local government agency from a policy as well as a service standpoint, by saying there was only one real, constitutionally- required agency, and this might be important for the committee to think about in its deliberations. Number 0153 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted he came from the private sector also. He referred to his company and the changes that were necessary as the economy changed. Representative Cowdery said his company hadn't been very large, at times it had made $10 million a year in the heydays. Different sections had dealt with different functions: private houses, subdivision development, highway work. As the economy changed, he said it was necessary to merge these functions. He noted his company still performed these functions, it did whatever it was competitive to do, but it had to merge to remain competitive. He indicated he felt these were just necessary things that needed to be done. Representative Cowdery commented that he had been working for the Municipality of Anchorage during the oil price collapse. He said when Mayor Fink took over, the banks were failing, peoples' homes had depreciated, people couldn't afford to pay for them, and some were leaving the state. However, Representative Cowdery said, it struck him most that the city employees he worked with didn't know there was a problem because they were still getting paid. He indicated he believed the majority of employees in the two merged departments would "dig their heels in," noting that when they cut back in the municipality they ended up with a better product, and served the public better. He said Representative Kohring's idea was not new, it had been thought out a couple of years previously. Representative Cowdery indicated it was time to make some hard decisions which might not be popular with everyone, recalling that some of the municipality employees had said they didn't really care about lay-offs because they were so far up on the seniority list. He stated he really has strong feelings that this is proper, timely, and is something that should be done. Number 0536 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Mr. Ritchie's letter and testimony brought the committee's attention to Article X, Section 14, of the Alaska State Constitution. Chairman Rokeberg commented that it only said "agency," not investing it with the importance of a department. He asked Mr. Ritchie if he thought that if HB 400 passed, the existence of an agency, not necessarily a division, within the merged department would fulfill the constitutional mandate? Number 0606 MR. RITCHIE answered he believed they had a lot of latitude to interpret what the constitution says, noting he is certain it has been done many times since its writing, and he thinks that agency may have been moved around quite a bit. He stated the Alaska Municipal League's point, and something that needed to be carefully considered, was that does this agency still do the types of things as well as or as envisioned by the framers of the constitution. He indicated further research in this area might be worthwhile. Number 0649 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee would look at the minutes of the constitutional convention. Number 0667 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted there was an axiom in government that when departments were merged, the bigger one usually ate the little one. He asked Mr. Ritchie if the composition of the municipal league, and how it was funded, had changed in the past ten years since Representative Ryan had participated in it. He noted the disparity in dues had been phenomenal, although each member had only one vote. He said Fairbanks had been paying something like $50,000 a year while Fort Yukon was paying $250, noting the smaller communities were the majority. Number 0720 MR. RITCHIE indicated this was not still the case. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked how the league was currently put together. Number 0723 MR. RITCHIE answered that the maximum dues paid by any organization were $37,000 and that the minimum dues have come up considerably for the smaller organizations. He said his bosses were the ten regional representatives, noting it was much like the legislature with population as one of the key factors. He commented that Anchorage and Fairbanks both had their own seats. Mr. Ritchie indicated the key decisions on policy matters were made by the ten regional representatives, but he noted Representative Ryan was correct in that the municipalities each received one vote, which, he said, is the same as the vast majority of other municipal leagues in the United States. He noted the reason for this is that municipal leagues, by their nature, have to be consensus organizations. He indicated that if an issue causes a significant split between any configuration of the municipalities, it would not really be an appropriate statewide issue to go forward with on a consensus opinion. Number 0798 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Mr. Ritchie for his testimony, noting the committee would take testimony from one more witness in Valdez, thanking her for her patience. Number 0834 SYLVIA SULLIVAN, President, Alaskans for a Just Society, testified next via teleconference from Valdez. She noted her patience ran out about an hour ago and commented that her testimony would be brief. She asked how many legislators were present. Number 0880 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated there were four House members present. He said the committee had received Ms. Sullivan's 13-page faxed statement and it had been distributed to the committee members. Number 0871 MS. SULLIVAN noted the fiscal note on HB 400 had been requested and asked if it had been prepared. Number 0880 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied that the committee had not received the fiscal note. Number 0898 MS. SULLIVAN said she was not sure if the legislators had a chance to read her letter. She stated she was a paralegal of 15 years, noting her statement consisted of a six-page letter and the documentation she was referring to. Ms. Sullivan stated HB 400 was unconstitutional and believed she proved that in her letter. She said every piece of legislation must pass constitutional muster. Ms. Sullivan indicated the drafting attorney on HB 400 was Terri Lauterbach, and said her letter indicates she called Legislative Legal and Research Services to get the legal opinion on HB 400 but was refused. She indicates she was told that Legislative Legal and Research Services were confidential, which Ms. Sullivan said was "baloney." Number 0980 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Ms. Sullivan said she would (indisc.) a legal opinion and he asked her what legal opinion she was talking about. Number 0989 MS. SULLIVAN said she found it was interesting that so many legislators did not know there was a drafting manual for both the drafting of regulations and the drafting of legislation. Ms. Sullivan stated that, in the process of drafting legislation and regulation, the attorneys at legal services are mandated by the constitution and the Alaska Supreme Court to have a check-off list to make sure that when they give legislation back to the legislators it has passed constitutional muster, i.e. it is not illegal or unconstitutional. She noted from her experience as a paralegal she could see in two minutes that HB 400 was both illegal and unconstitutional because: 1) there was one more than one subject in this bill and a bill could not have more than subject; 2) page 11 of HB 400 listed a brand-new program, a brand-new Section. She said it was a brand-new law and was not even noted in the title. Ms. Sullivan said she stated in her letter that the reason the Alaska Supreme Court said the attorneys with legal services had to check-off the conformance of every piece of legislation was so no one would try to include something in legislation that should not be there. She noted that was illegal. Number 1096 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he appreciated Ms. Sullivan's criticisms of the legislative legal agency, noting many members might sometimes share a lot of her opinions, but, given the time constraints, he asked her to keep to the subject of the bill, not the drafting manual. Number 1120 MS. SULLIVAN replied that if it is not legal, then it is invalid. Number 1125 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted it was a matter of opinion and he appreciated her opinion, and asked her to speak to the bill on its merits. Number 1133 MS. SULLIVAN stated she wanted to update the committee, indicating she had received the two memorandums on HB 400 just before going to the LIO. She noted that on both of these pages Ms. Lauterbach said she had not checked for legal or technical review of the bill. Ms. Sullivan stated the top of the February 10 memorandum said, "Enclosed is your new final, ready-for-introduction bill." She indicated the Legislative Legal and Research Services attorneys are in trouble when they put a stamp of approval on the bill like that because they did not follow the mandate. Ms. Sullivan stated her association is absolutely against this, commenting that it has been going on two years now. She said what affects her association in particular is the business incentive training program, noting she indicated this in her letter and backed it up with the applicable federal law. She indicated federal monies cannot be used for the state work and training programs if those people are assigned to employers for training work, on the job training, or any of the like, noting that 84,000 unemployed Alaskans need jobs. She stated HB 400 was introduced so these employers could get free slave labor, commenting that all the bill sponsors were business owners. Ms. Sullivan asked if Representatives Brice or Kubina were present. Number 1243 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted they were not there that day. MS. SULLIVAN said they were the only two that were not in business, and she said her organization was taking this farther because they believed this was intentional fraud. Number 1261 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected. He stated HB 400 did not speak to any substantive changes in the law, noting those were already existing laws. He indicated HB 400 merged various elements of government currently in statute now and it seemed she was straying from the title and subject matter of HB 400 because the merging of different functions was what was before the committee, not the merits of that particular program. Number 1286 MS. SULLIVAN asked for clarification on page 11, which said Section 21 was amended by adding a new Section 3 and telling how a business incentive training program would be set up. Number 1302 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that was in existing law and not before the committee in terms of its substance. Number 1308 MS. SULLIVAN said the entire bill was before the committee. Number 1303 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied that was true; he said that if the committee chose to redraft any sections of the bill, it certainly would. However, he noted that was not the intention of HB 400, nor was it the intention of committee to review every element of existing statute as it related to the two departments; the purpose of this bill was to merge two departments and nothing else. Number 1328 MS. SULLIVAN stated that was not what the bill was doing and she commented that they would handle it from there, indicating she was sure a judge would agree. She referred to the material she had provided and the drafting manual, indicating she believed the bill was totally illegal. Number 1349 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Representative Kohring had no closing comments. HB 400 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|