Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/13/2000 08:10 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HCR 13-COMMISSION ON ALASKA'S FUTURE CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 13 Creating the Commission on Alaska's Future. Number 0546 REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN KEMPLEN, Alaska State Legislature, said he is the sponsor of a resolution creating the Commission on Alaska's Future. He noted that the reason for putting HCR 13 forward is to address a number of different issues that bedevil the state. Over the past few years, the state has been wrestling with the difficulty of crafting a solution to the fiscal dilemma. In the struggle, an increasing sense of divisiveness has been observed among Alaskans, with Alaskans seemingly to slowly divide into self-interest groups. The media has portrayed the struggle as an urban-rural divide because Alaskans are no longer together on what is to be done; the sense of common cause, purpose and vision for where Alaska wants to be has been lost. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN noted that he had come across a good model for Alaska in the state of Oregon. He had done research on the Oregon model to ascertain how they crafted their program and whether it had been effective. He found that it worked for that state; in fact, they recently came out with the 1999 benchmark performance report, which they call "Achieving the Oregon Shines Vision." This model, which has won national awards for good government, might be useful to Alaska because Oregon's situation is remarkably similar to the struggles that Alaska is facing now. Therefore, HCR 13 would allow the legislature to create an "Alaska vision" modeled after the Oregon program, and it would bring Alaskans together so that dialogue as neighbors could occur. Out of that would come a sense of where Alaska wants to go, what it wants to achieve, what performance it wants to attain, and how to get there. Number 0884 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said approximately three years ago the City of Fairbanks had attempted something very similar to what HCR 13 is proposing. Fairbanks had found that a group of individuals came to every meeting and had been to every public meeting for many years. It was a disparate group. On one hand were those who felt that government should have a role in virtually every function that the city was involved in; on the other hand were those who did not want government in anything. There was no compromise, and Fairbanks held many meetings that came to no conclusion. He asked how Representative Kemplen would avoid a similar situation with HCR 13. Number 0958 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied that a similar situation is happening right now in Anchorage where a group is crafting the update to the Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Development Plan. The group had developed a steering group and a working committee involving hundreds of residents. From the subsequent series of meetings, the group did come to a standard of goals for the community that people had agreed upon, and his sense from talking to people is that there is support. What made the meetings successful was the broadness of participation, whereas having an initiative that is enough to get the activists participating defines just a narrow slice of the community. Participants must also reflect the broader will of the community, which is why the commission is structured with a steering group but also a working group that is fairly broad. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN noted that the Alaska Humanities Forum held a series of town meetings last year, which they called "Principles and Interest." Those meetings just focused on what to do about the Alaska permanent fund, and it was a very informative experience. The forum is planning to continue that type of dialogue, but other groups out there also are organizing themselves to get their members to talk about the future of the state. He envisions that the commission would build upon citizen initiatives and work with citizens in a real partnership so that all Alaskans come together as a people. It is breadth of participation that is most important to meetings, he emphasized, so that what emerges is not just something that reflects a narrow slice of a community but rather reflects the broadness of community thinking. Number 1240 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER mentioned that there are many who say that broad-based input may be represented by the legislature, and perhaps the legislature should do what Representative Kemplen is suggesting by HCR 13 because that is the legislature's job. Representative Whitaker indicated that the legislature should describe a vision for the future of Alaska and take that to the people when seeking input. He asked what role the legislature plays as Representative Kemplen envisions it. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied that the legislature does play a very important role, and in this commission the legislature serves as the final arbiter of the vision because there has to be somebody who makes the decisions. He noted that there is a pervasive citizen distrust of the legislature, for whatever reasons. As a result, it is difficult for the legislature to make decisions on behalf of the whole state when the citizens do not trust the legislature to do anything. He suggested that legislators have to reach out and rebuild that sense of trust with citizens. He surmised that part of the problem with the legislature is that it has been difficult to develop a statewide vision when representatives are focused on their particular geographic areas; he indicated it is difficult for representatives from one area of this large state to understand the needs of people in other regions. Number 1482 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he understood that six members of the public would know what the legislature is doing, according to the commission setup. He asked how the public members will communicate legislative trust with any effect to the rest of the state. He also asked whether Representative Kemplen really believes that what will come out of HCR 13, should it pass, would make any difference. Number 1502 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN clarified that there are more than six members on the commission; the six public members are the steering committee. There is also the working group, where much of the dialogue occurs. The working group would invite participation from all parts and segments of Alaska to define a common agenda. He envisions that from the working group would come the crafting of a shared set of Alaskan values. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that the idea of HCR 13 is laudable, but he is concerned because communities hold community council meetings and town hall meetings but only about one-tenth of 1 percent of the population attends, and perhaps only 10 percent read about the meetings. He asked what Representative Kemplen is going to do differently with HCR 13 to energize the populace. He said he sees HCR 13 as another of many [reports] that stack up and gather dust. There will be a reporting back [to the legislature], the legislature will talk about it, and that will be the end of it. He asked how Representative Kemplen would avoid that. Number 1611 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied that he would avoid it by enlisting civic organizations in the project because it is not just a small, elite group of people going out and holding some public hearings about what Alaska should be doing. The way the commission is structured, it involves active citizen engagement, and it requires or encourages participation of various civic organizations. The result of HCR 13 would be a joining with other organizations such as the Alaska Municipal League, school boards, cultural groups, community councils and Rotary Clubs; all of these would be part of the working group, and they would include the discussion about the future of this state on their agenda this fall. There would be an extensive dialogue about Alaska's future, and it would not be just an isolated group of people doing a nice report that sits on the shelf. The commission would engage and reach out to Alaskans in a serious discussion about where Alaska is going. Number 1748 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated his concern stems from a two-day [House] Resources [Committee] meeting that he had attended several years ago in Ketchikan when problems began regarding logging the Tongass; there was some very vocal input from 25 people because [logging] was their livelihood. He said he could not imagine a more energized group of people, yet he is afraid that the concept of HCR 13 is going to follow the same problems the legislature has had with all these other meetings in that no one is going to be able to energize the public. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN answered that if all the legislature does is rely upon various committees of the commission to garner support and engage people in discussion, the legislature will not get very much. It is crucial to partner up with civic organizations and get them to join the initiative. It requires the steering committee to send out a call asking for all civic organizations to join in this crucial conversation about Alaska's future and to work with the commission this fall. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN noted that during the summer everybody is out enjoying the beautiful land, but when September comes people start participating in their organizations again and start looking for topics; this fall, each of those organizations across the state could be discussing Alaska's future. He noted that newspapers carry organization meeting calendars; there would be 100 people that are showing up at the East Rotary Club meeting, for example. Participation would be far-ranging in trying to craft a common vision for Alaska. Number 2031 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if Representative Kemplen thought the commission would produce a report with graphs and percentages like Oregon's benchmark performance report. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said that would be the ultimate objective. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that to her the graphs and percentages are the most exciting thing about that report. Although she is not sure how much involvement can be attained, she said it is great if the legislature can even put together the framework for something like HCR 13. She noted that she had looked at some of Oregon's report on page 15 regarding tobacco and alcohol use; there is a measurement - from 1980 through what appears to be a projection through 2010 - on the percentage of eighth-grade students who reported using cigarettes in the previous month. Therefore, it is obvious that Oregon has done its research. She suggested that kind of quantifiable information really might help the legislature. She indicated that in most scientific analyses and certainly in environmental law, having no way to make a reasonable judgment because a benchmark is lacking has always been one of the biggest problems. She emphasized that HCR 13 looks like a great idea to her in terms of just getting the information. CHAIR JAMES asked how much HCR 13 would cost. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said he had asked civic organizations how much organizing events and posting meetings would cost. He said the only recent forum that he saw was the Principles and Interest Forum, done by the Humanities Forum; they had gone out to close to 100 community get-togethers. The Humanities Forum also published a report. They had told him it only cost $250,000. CHAIR JAMES reminded Representative Kemplen that the forum was discussing just one issue, but he is talking about hundreds of issues. Number 2215 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied that he was also talking about enlisting many other organizations in the development of these goals about where Alaska wants to go. CHAIR JAMES recalled that the second year she came to the legislature, the legislature had established a long-term financial task force; some of the members of that task force were the smartest and best in the state, and they worked day and night through the legislative interim to come back to the legislature with a report about just how to balance the budget. She did not know how much that report cost. Unfortunately, when the task force came back with its answer, the public did not buy it and, consequently, neither did the legislature. However, in hindsight the task force was probably right. If this commission is right on but the public does not buy in, it would not happen, she concluded, because the public drives the system. She recounted some of her person history working with the Community Action Program. She concluded that HCR 13 is idealistic and sounds good on paper, but it looks to her like a driving issue, and people cannot be driven. If an ideal world existed, HCR 13 would be an ideal way to find answers. Number 2215 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN disagreed, saying HCR 13 is no idealism but is real. CHAIR JAMES replied that she has talked with people in Oregon, and this is not what they are telling her. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN noted that he has been talking with people in Oregon also, and perhaps Chair James has been talking to the wrong people. CHAIR JAMES answered that she has been talking with her people and Representative Kemplen has been talking with his, and she and he are on different sides of the fence. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN explained that HCR 13 is a tangible product and it has made improvements, but he admitted that nothing is perfect. He said he is not idealistic enough to think he can create the perfect solution; nevertheless, progress can be made. He envisions that HCR 13 is progress. Oregon had made progress with this program, and it has helped them to come together, though not perfectly. He said the New England town meeting style of public engagement is not liberalism but is the core of what America is all about. Number 2506 CHAIR JAMES indicated that people who live in her district are interested in their community, and they participate. However, when the process is expanded further, fewer people are found who are willing to go that far; thus some of the voices in the community get lost in the overall picture. She emphasized that it is the legislature's job to bring community voices to a common goal here in the Alaska legislature as issues are determined. She agreed 100 percent with the town meeting process, saying there is probably an overall goal to have such an organization as HCR 13 proposes, but she is not certain that it should be sponsored by the government, which gives it a different tone. CHAIR JAMES said she wants to listen to all the people and get them to the polls to vote. She recounted how she had sent a letter to constituents who had not voted a few years ago, asking the reasons; most said they were busy doing something else, and some would have voted if they could have voted for "none of the above." She said that when things are tough, people will participate, but when things are running smoothly, people fade off into the sunset. Number 2641 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked how much the Oregon project cost. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied that he did not know but could get that information. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY commented that the Alaska Municipal League (AML) could even do some research, and maybe there have been some other studies similar to the Oregon benchmark report. He mentioned that "if you fail to plan then you are planning to fail." He agreed that it would behoove the state to identify just exactly where the state is going, how to get there, what the costs are, who will pay the costs, and how much each citizen is going to share in this ride. Although HCR 13 has merit, selling the public on it will involve the 60 legislators going in 60 different directions, as well as the AML, city councils and Chambers of Commerce, for example. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY suggested that the ability to have private contributions for something like HCR 13 would be beneficial. He added that a plan for the future or a direction needs to be identified and attached to the long-range fiscal plan in order to attract voters. He recognized that education can be accomplished via the different entities within communities across the state. However, HCR 13 is not going to happen overnight, and hopefully the 161 municipalities can begin by talking about a direction that they, as communities, can help give by doing more than just community comprehensive plans. He again requested information about the Oregon figures. Number 2797 KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League, noted that committee members had a copy of a resolution passed by the AML Board of Directors in support of establishing a Commission on Alaska's Future, which occurred after Representative Kemplen had talked to several board members about the concept. On April 5, on a teleconference, the board had passed a resolution supporting HCR 13. He said the conversation that the committee is having today is interesting, and it would be nice to say that every committee is right about their comments. He agreed that many reports stay on the shelf and all the things that the committee said are true on both sides. He quoted Yogi Berra as saying "If you don't know where you are going, you may end up someplace else." MR. RITCHIE explained that the interesting thing is that municipal leaders are really enthusiastic about the enthusiasm that Alaskans share regarding the future of the state, and if each Alaskan is asked individually, he/she will give input. What the state has not done is ask Alaskans, in a coordinated way, about the vision nor allowed all Alaskans to interchange their thoughts. He agreed that a type of system like HCR 13 actually could work. The real question is: How does government get people to participate? And if they do participate, how does government get leaders to follow the input of the public? He reminded the committee that traditional ways do not work. MR. RITCHIE remarked that he was involved with the long-range financial planning commission and went to all of their meetings. The process involved some public hearings but focused on the judgments of people on the commission. He recommended that if there was a system like HCR 13, the central group of people coordinating it should not consider themselves the judgment body but the steering body, to make sure that people participate and feel empowered in that participation. He recognized that empowerment would be the biggest change from the system that he had been involved in at that time. Number 2824 MR. RITCHIE observed that there are ways that work in obtaining and channeling public participation. For example, the traditional way of advertising a public hearing in a regional newspaper in the legal section does not get people to participate. He recalled that in New Stuyahok, where the AML had been talking with people about public participation, the residents said they got everybody in town to participate not by advertising but by offering door prizes; that is the kind of thinking that really works. He mentioned that Representative Smalley had been involved in a prototype long-range fiscal plan process held in Kenai, and rather than just listen to the public, there was a very organized system. TAPE 00-33, SIDE B Number 2981 MR. RITCHIE suggested that instead of advertising an event, for example, the legislature should consult the voter list and take a random sample right off the registered voter list. The legislature could send a letter to the voters and then call them to say they had been chosen randomly from the entire community to help make decisions. He acknowledged that an allegation could always be made that an event should be a generally advertised event, and it is good to invite everybody, but there needs to be some assurance that there is going to be a representative sample of folks present. He remarked that there are different things that can be done and the AML would be excited about doing HCR 13. He explained that the reason the AML only had one hearing last year was because political events about revenue-sharing overtook the AML, and other communities were not willing to hold more hearings [about that] as opposed to other things that had to be done at that time. He concluded that the AML would be excited about participating in a process, and he does not believe it has to be totally state- or local-government-centered. Number 2921 CHAIR JAMES observed that she has put together many brainstorming sessions and workshops, and they did come up with some really good ideas. She has found that in the political process, if people get wind that something is going to happen about which they are interested, they will call their friends and all come to the meeting, thus becoming the majority at the meeting. Noting that Representative Kerttula had raised the subject of statistics, Chair James said legislators love statistics but they cost money. In fact, administrative chores are a result of demands for statistics from the legislature and the federal government. CHAIR JAMES said she has little confidence in polling because it depends on how the questions are asked. Nevertheless, gathering statistics and polling are necessary as a society. However, the value and cost are the measurements of whether gathering statistics is worth the cost. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN responded that the legislature is facing a significant challenge in the state regarding how to meet real needs in a fiscally sound manner, and in a way that the public will support. He agreed with Chair James that not many people participate and those who do participate have their own well- defined agendas. He noted that there is an increasing isolation from one another caused by technology. People are in their own little worlds because of television and computers, and there is no connection being built between neighbors. He suggested that loss of a sense of statewide community is the biggest challenge that Alaska faces. He emphasized that the Commission on Alaska's Future would reach out and engage Alaskans in true discussion about community. [HCR 13 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|