04/09/2009 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB24 | |
| HJR31 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 9, 2009
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Peggy Wilson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 24
"An Act relating to a public procurement preference for Alaska
veterans."
- MOVED CSHB 24(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31
Urging the United States Congress to pass the Honor the Written
Intent of our Soldier Heroes Act.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act relating to village public safety officers and regional
public safety officers."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 76
"An Act relating to the membership of the Alaska Legislative
Council and the membership of the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 58
"An Act establishing February 2 of each year as Marmot Day; and
providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING RESCHEDULED TO 4/11/09
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(STA)
"An Act relating to use of child safety seats and seat belts."
- BILL HEARING RESCHEDULED TO 4/11/09
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 24
SHORT TITLE: PROCUREMENT PREFERENCE FOR VETERANS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FAIRCLOUGH, GATTO, LYNN
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) MLV, STA
03/31/09 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/31/09 (H) Moved CSHB 24(MLV) Out of Committee
03/31/09 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
04/01/09 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 2DP 2NR
04/01/09 (H) DP: LYNN, GATTO
04/01/09 (H) NR: RAMRAS, BUCH
04/07/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/07/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/07/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/09/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HJR 31
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT SOLDIERS' BURIAL DESIGNATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMAS
04/01/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/01/09 (H) MLV, STA
04/07/09 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/07/09 (H) Moved CSHJR 31(MLV) Out of Committee
04/07/09 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
04/08/09 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 3DP 2NR
04/08/09 (H) DP: OLSON, BUCH, GATTO
04/08/09 (H) NR: KAWASAKI, LYNN
04/09/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 106
SHORT TITLE: VILLAGE & REGIONAL PUB.SAFETY OFFICERS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOULE
02/02/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/09 (H) CRA, STA
02/26/09 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/26/09 (H) Moved CSHB 106(CRA) Out of Committee
02/26/09 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/27/09 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 6DP 1NR
02/27/09 (H) DP: CISSNA, HARRIS, GARDNER, MILLETT,
HERRON, MUNOZ
02/27/09 (H) NR: KELLER
04/09/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff
Representative Anna Fairclough
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an update and answered a question
during the hearing on HB 24, on behalf of Representative
Fairclough, prime sponsor.
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer
Division of General Services
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
24.
JOSH TEMPEL, Staff
Joint Veterans' Caucus
Senator Charlie Huggins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HJR 31 on behalf of the Joint
Veterans' Caucus.
NICHOLAS HENDERSON
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support
of HJR 31.
DAVID ROGERS
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HJR 31.
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 106 as prime sponsor.
ELIZABETH SAGALAQ HENSLEY (ph), Intern
Representative Reggie Joule
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
106, on behalf of Representative Joule, prime sponsor.
SIIKAURAQ MARTHA WHITING, Mayor
Northwest Arctic Borough
Kotzebue, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 106.
SUE STANCLIFF, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the hearing on
HB 106.
JOHN GLICK, Major, Deputy Director
Central Office
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 106.
STAN HAWLEY
North West Arctic Borough
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed a concern during the hearing on
HB 106.
JAMES KNOPKE, Director
Village Public Safety Officer Program
Tanana Chiefs Conference
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 106, Version T.
JACKIE HILL, Director
Native Services
Maniilaq Association
Kotzebue, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 106, Version T.
CHRISTINE HESS, Staff
Representative Reggie Joule
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Confirmed information during the hearing on
HB 106 on behalf of Representative Joule, prime sponsor.
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
106.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:06:11 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Johnson,
Petersen, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Gatto and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
8:06:51 AM
HB 24-PROCUREMENT PREFERENCE FOR VETERANS
8:07:13 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 24, "An Act relating to a public procurement preference
for Alaska veterans."
[Before the committee was CSHB 24(MLV).]
8:07:18 AM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Anna Fairclough, Alaska
State Legislature, reported that after the House State Affairs
Standing Committee's last hearing of HB 24, on Tuesday, [April
7, 2009], the sponsor and her staff met with Representative
Gruenberg, and were able to address his concerns without the
need to create a committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled a concern [voiced by
Representative Gruenberg at the prior hearing of HB 24]
regarding language beginning on page 2, line 11, [relating to
qualification for bidder preference, and which read as follows]:
"or the bidder must have sold supplies of the general
nature solicited to other state agencies, governments,
or the general public."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that the concern
had been that [that language would discriminate against someone
who is new in business]. He asked if that was the sponsor's
intent.
8:08:16 AM
MS. KOENEMAN explained that that language is currently used
"under the Alaska bidder preference." In response to a follow-
up question, she offered her understanding that if this language
was changed in HB 24, it would be necessary to also change the
Alaska bidder preference language.
8:09:14 AM
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer, Division of General
Services, Department of Administration (DOA), stated that
changing the aforementioned language in HB 24 would not change
the requirements for the Alaska bidder preference; a bidder
would still have to be in business for six months prior to the
bid opening in order to qualify for that preference. He
continued:
To qualify for this preference, you also have to
qualify for the Alaska bidder preference, so, unless
you went back and changed that, ... the change you
might be contemplating would have any affect wouldn't
necessarily require you, though, to change the Alaska
bidder preference either.
8:10:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked Mr. Jones if he had had time to
consider [a suggestion Representative Johnson had made, during
the April 7 meeting, to add language so that the proposed
definition of "Alaska veteran" as an individual who is a
resident of the state was changed to require that individual to
have been a resident of the state for at least 30 days]. He
said he wants to know if that change can be made without going
"over the line."
MR. JONES prefaced his answer by stating that he is not an
expert regarding veteran discharge papers. He said he had
discussed the suggestion with some staff members and it is their
consensus that "that would be a difficult thing to be able to
determine and track." He said [CSHB 24(MLV)] does not require
the onerous provision that the division maintain a registry. It
would be necessary for the division to create a "check box" for
veterans to check, and, in addition, some competitive policing
would be necessary. He stated that even if the division was
able to gather the initial information, it probably does not
have the means and is not the right entity to track that
information without a registry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded that although he thinks it
would be nice to include that requirement, he can "see the
problem" in doing so.
8:12:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 24(MLV) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 24(MLV) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HJR 31-SUPPORT SOLDIERS' BURIAL DESIGNATIONS
8:12:53 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31, Urging the United States Congress to
pass the Honor the Written Intent of our Soldier Heroes Act.
[Before the committee was CSHJR 31(MLV).]
8:13:02 AM
JOSH TEMPEL, Staff, Joint Veterans' Caucus, Senator Charlie
Huggins, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HJR 31 on behalf
of the Joint Veterans' Caucus. He said the proposed resolution
would express Alaska's support of H.R. 1633, a Congressional
bill entitled, "Honor the Wish Act." The federal bill would
allow military personnel to designate people other than their
immediate family members to oversee their disposition if they
are killed in the line of duty. Mr. Tempel explained that
members of armed forces fill out a DD FORM 93 to designate who
will direct disposition of their remains if they die while in
active duty. Current law allows these members to designate a
spouse, blood relative, or adoptive parent. Mr. Tempel stated
that some service members need someone who does not fall into
those categories to bear that responsibility, but current law
prohibits that. He said H.R. 1633 supports the nation's troops
[by upholding] their dying wishes, and passing HJR 31 would be a
meaningful way for Alaska to continue its support of those in
the military.
MR. TEMPEL noted that two individuals were present to testify,
one of whom was responsible for bringing forth the idea for HJR
31.
8:15:48 AM
NICHOLAS HENDERSON told the committee that he is a veteran,
having served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and is testifying on
behalf of himself in support of HJR 31. He related a story
about the loss of a "brother through service" - Specialist
Christopher Fox (ph) - who was killed in action in Baghdad. Mr.
Henderson said that on a DD FORM 93, Mr. Fox had specified a
woman named, Amy Frost, as the person responsible for the
disposition of his remains, in the event that he was killed in
action. Ms. Frost was not Mr. Fox's mother, but was someone who
had taken him in after he had been kicked out of his step-
father's home. Mr. Henderson said Mr. Fox's mother had already
died, and Ms. Frost considered Mr. Fox her son. The U.S. Army
notified Ms. Frost, but told her that they were awarding custody
to Mr. Fox's step-father.
MR. HENDERSON stated, "This resolution is our way of showing
that not only do we support our veterans, but we want to honor
them in life and in death. Their last and final wishes should
be honored."
8:18:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked who would have been next in line
after the step-father if that detail had not been designated on
the form.
MR. HENDERSON responded that each soldier fills out a DD FORM 93
before he/she is deployed. He said in the case of Amy Frost,
the Casualty Assistance Office notified her, and additionally it
sought out Mr. Fox's step-father and step-brother.
8:19:47 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he heard this bill during a House Special
Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs hearing. He opined
that HJR 31 is well-intended, but has issues. He offered his
understanding that today, the cost of basic life insurance in
the military is $400,000, while the cost for military funeral
expenses is $100,000.
MR. HENDERSON confirmed that is correct.
CHAIR LYNN directed attention to a list included in the
committee packet, from Section 1482 of federal law, entitled,
"Expenses incident to death." Included on the list is:
identification, uniform, funeral services, and Hearst services.
The $100,000 is given to the person whose name is listed on the
DD 93 form. He offered his understanding that that person is
not obligated to spend the entire $100,000 on those expenses.
Chair Lynn stated that family members are "forever," while
friends can be "transitory." The potential exists for a
girlfriend to get the $100,000 and not spend it on the necessary
funeral expenses. Furthermore, the same woman could be the
girlfriend of several military personnel and "end up being very
wealthy rather rapidly." Conversely, Chair Lynn said anyone who
is old enough to carry a gun and go into battle ought to have
the right to designate whom he/she wishes. He indicated that
the same argument applies to the age at which someone should be
allowed to drink and smoke. He said he wants to support the
wishes of soldiers, but is concerned about someone preying upon
the military community.
8:23:37 AM
MR. HENDERSON said he echoes Chair Lynn's standpoint that if a
person is old enough to carry a gun and go into battle, he/she
should be allowed to have a drink legally.
8:24:18 AM
MR. TEMPEL, in response to Representative Johnson, confirmed
that a person who has filled out a DD FORM 93 can later change
the name of the designee on the form.
8:24:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated his understanding that an adult male
or female fills out a DD FORM 93, does so with guidance.
MR. HENDERSON responded that that is correct. He said every
time a soldier deploys, he/she fills out a new DD FORM 93 and
can modify that form at any time. He said he had four soldiers
under his direct supervision in the last year of his service.
Each time those soldiers filled out paperwork, they were
counseled on the correct way to do so, and the paperwork was
checked to ensure it was completed in its entirety.
CHAIR LYNN reiterated that he supports the intent of the bill,
but noted that the committee must look for unintended
consequences in each bill before moving it out of committee.
8:26:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the previously mentioned
list from Section 1482. He noted that the list pertains to "any
decedent covered by Section 1481 of this title," and said he
would like to know if Section 1482 covers only those military
personnel who die while engaged in battle or if it covers
someone who has been sworn in but dies while still in the U.S.
MR. TEMPEL responded, "This applies to everyone."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Does the bill apply to anyone
who passes away after the effective date, even if they filled
out their [DD FORM 93] 10 years before?"
MR. TEMPEL responded that if that person is still in the
military at the time of his/her death, then "it does apply." He
explained, "The forms you fill out will stay with you until you
... fill out new ones; however, they are redone annually - it's
a requirement of every unit."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Does it apply to National Guard
and reservists during their time on active duty?"
MR. HENDERSON answered yes.
8:29:15 AM
DAVID ROGERS stated that he is the father of the late Private
First Class Jesse Rogers (ph), who was killed in action on July
23, 2007, in Afghanistan. He said he does not know if he agrees
with allowing a soldier to designate anyone he/she chooses
concerning funeral arrangements and for [that designee] to be
the recipient of the $100,000.
MR. ROGERS shared his story as follows:
When my son was killed, it hit me hard. The best way
to explain it may be to explain my state of mind
during the process the Army has set up for this
situation. My son designated me to have the final
word on everything related to his death. ... [My wife
and I] went into the office at Fort Richardson. A
military [representative] would ask me a question, I
would have to look at my wife, she would then repeat
the question, and I would then look at the officer and
give my answer. This went on for several days. Even
the most simple question didn't register until I heard
my wife ask it.
I've lost two brothers in my adult life, one by
suicide and one by cancer. Losing a child was far
harder. I still to this day, including last night,
lay awake most of the night. When my son joined the
Army, I did my dead-level best to explain to him the
monotony of the military life as well as the rewards.
I also explained to him the best I could the reality
of going in, in a time of war - not to steer him one
way or the other, but to help him understand fully
what he was volunteering for. No father could have
been prouder than I was of Jesse. ... He was becoming
a man, and seemed to have a sense of direction for his
life.
The question before us today seems to come down to
this: At the age of 18, does the typical teenager
have the maturity or clarity of thought to make
responsible choices with their life? As a father of
13 children, I can tell you they don't - not without
wise counsel. My children rely on my wife and I for
advice on a range of issues. Not every child has
parents that are involved with them - they tend to
cling to the advice of a coach or a teacher. This is
not a bad thing, of course. In my own life I had a
15-year-old boy tell me, "I wish you were my dad." I
squared him away promptly, however, because he had a
great dad; they just didn't see eye to eye.
I try to imagine myself receiving news that my son
died in war, then hearing that some teacher, coach, or
neighbor is in charge of making the burial
arrangements as I look on helplessly. My personal
opinion is: ... at least make the soldier wait 'til
they are 21 to make that decision. Most teenagers
don't make these kinds of decisions in a civilian
world. If a teenager has life insurance, it is
because a parent is providing it. Very rare are the
teenagers that actually do know everything.
One other point before I finish: There are ...
opportunists out there that may see this as a way to
take advantage of a gullible teenager. Kids are sent
credit cards as soon as it's legal, knowing that they
will overspend and be paying the coveted penalty for
many years until they finally cut their credit cards
up. Sometimes adults have to protect teenagers from
themselves. I believe this may be one of those times.
The memory of my son is one of respect and honor. The
memory of a soldier that wrote a name down on a piece
of paper that caused a nightmare to ensue as a result
of his or her hasty decision may be something we
adults should control now by not giving them that
choice - not at the age of 18.
8:34:54 AM
CHAIR LYNN said if the rules are still as they were in the past,
a person can enlist in the military at 17 with parental
permission, thus, this issue could pertain to 17-year-olds.
8:35:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his sympathy for Mr. Rogers.
He asked if the military provided any counseling to family
members.
MR. ROGERS replied that the military respected and honored the
family in every way possible. He said the matter is so personal
that he thinks the military steers clear of giving advice. He
said he and his wife could have had their son buried at
Arlington, but they wanted him close, so they had him interred
at Fort Richardson. In regard to the aforementioned $100,000,
he said, "It was paid for by the military; we never saw a single
bill." He praised the military for allowing his family the time
they needed to absorb the information, and for offering only
that which they wanted to know. Mr. Rogers said he needed to
know what his son had gone through in his last moments on earth.
8:38:06 AM
MR. ROGERS said when he served in the U.S. Army, there were a
lot of troubled youth in the service, some of whom were kicked
out of the military. He said, "That's life. Sometimes it's
tough love, sometimes it's irresponsible parenting and the kids
end up in the military as a way out of their situation." He
said the parent who does not love their child and treats him/her
in a way that is not beneficial is the exception to the rule.
He acknowledged that there are mentors who help children, and he
said he hopes his own children find mentors to help them through
life. He continued:
But for that child to, in a moment of -- ... because
they have that deep affection for that individual and
they're angry at their parents at the time -- I'm
seeing this as a situation that actually could happen.
I've seen some very irresponsible soldiers in the
military. And I was told by the military myself, they
said, "Dave, as you well know, not every soldier's a
hero, not every soldier in the military is a good
man." And they can make life very, very hard on their
parents if they wish to, through this situation. And
nobody wishes it on a soldier. And I also want to
honor that soldier and his wishes. ... It is a
difficult quandary. I would like to see that they
wait, maybe until they're 21 - maybe until their
second tour, where they've had a chance to experience
life a little bit more.
8:40:23 AM
CHAIR LYNN indicated that voting on this issue would be
difficult.
MR. ROGERS spoke about teaching children consequences and
guiding them so that eventually they make wise choices on their
own; however, he questioned whether that means a boy is a man
the day he turns 18. He admitted that at 18, a soldier is
expected to fire a weapon during battle, and regarding the
consumption of alcohol, he said there are nightclubs surrounding
every military base in America. He said his son was stationed
in Italy, and "morally, he was slipping a little bit - falling
into that trap." He said there are people in those clubs that
"prey on these young men." Mr. Rogers indicated that it may be
possible that a door could be opened so that "some snake oil
salesman will create some document that you just need to sign -
'You sign this and you go turn it in to your Sarge' - for an
evening of fun, or whatever." He stated that the world is
"real," not "one we wish we had," and he said, "There are evil
people in the world who will look for ways to benefit from..."
CHAIR LYNN said his impression is that Mr. Rogers is a good
father, and he said he wishes more children had parents like
him.
8:42:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Rogers if he is recommending a
solution wherein a soldier who has made a decision related to a
DD FORM 93 subsequently dies, and "some authority would say, 'I
don't care what he signed, I'm not going to allow this.'"
MR. ROGERS replied that he does not perceive non-commissioned
officers (NCOs), officers, or captains as able to counsel a
soldier one way or the other. He said he thinks those authority
figures just "allow the soldier to fill out a form properly."
He said a soldier's personal choice is his/her own. He stated
that he supports 21 as the legal drinking age, and he related
that his son, although remaining a responsible soldier, began
drinking in Italy where the drinking age is 18. He recalled
that Mr. Tempel had said this issue is related to an Act of
Congress, not something over which the military has to make a
decision, and he said he thinks that is wise. He added that he
doesn't know if the military even would want to "enforce this
kind of thing." Mr. Rogers emphasized that at age 18, an
individual is not fully mature and does not "look at life in a
real way." Males 18 years of age are full of testosterone and
feel invincible. Mr. Rogers related that his son had told him
he would rather be killed than come home wounded. Mr. Rogers
said parents just want their children to come home alive. He
said he does not know the answer, but said wisdom has got to
prevail. Mr. Rogers concluded, "There are people out there -
organizations out there - that hate our military ... and ...
wouldn't think twice about taking advantage if they could ...."
8:46:39 AM
CHAIR LYNN questioned whether there may be some possible form of
appeal process so that a parent or other family member could
show there was fraud involved when the DD FORM 93 was signed.
8:47:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested that any soldier who enlists who
is not yet 21 would have to have his/her DD FORM 93 form
approved by a panel, a real judge, or a counselor. He asked Mr.
Rogers if he would consider that a "resolution to preventing
fraud."
MR. ROGERS answered that he knows there are exceptions to every
rule, and he can see where a person might have a need to
disassociate him/herself from an abusive parent and not allow
that parent any say regarding his/her remains. He said there
should be a record of that child abuse, and the person could use
that record when filling out a form in order for an exception to
be made to the general policy.
8:49:13 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he is a parent of six children, all of whom have
been angry with him at one time or another - especially during
their teenage years. However, that anger was transient.
8:49:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN suggested having a requirement wherein
if a person between the ages of 17-21 names someone other than a
parent or legal guardian on his/her DD FORM 93 form, the parent
or legal guardian would be notified.
MR. ROGERS responded that perhaps it would be possible that some
parents would understand, admit to failing their child, and
"sign off on something like that" to show they understand their
child's wishes. However, he stated, "I don't think we should
kid ourselves, that $100,000 is a prize to some people." He
said he and his wife considered the money sacred and made
decisions on how to spend it with consideration of what would
have made their son proud. He said, "I just wonder how many of
these soldiers would have someone interested in their burial
arrangements if they didn't have that $100,000."
8:52:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded everyone that the committee is
not creating a law, but considering a resolution. He directed
attention to Section 1482, subsection (a), which stipulates that
the "Secretary" concerned may pay necessary expenses and lists
[in paragraphs (1)-(11)] which expenses qualify. He added, "It
doesn't say they can give somebody $100,000 to do it." He
referred to the first sentence of subsection (b), which read:
(b) If an individual pays any expense payable by the
United States under this section, the Secretary
concerned shall reimburse him or his representative in
an amount not larger than that normally incurred by
the Secretary in furnishing the supply or service
concerned.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON then referred to subsection (c), which
read:
(c) Only the following persons may be designated to
direct disposition of the remains of a decedent
covered by this chapter:
(1) The surviving spouse of the decedent.
(2) Blood relatives of the decedent.
(3) Adoptive relatives of the decedent.
(4) If no person covered by clauses (1)-(3) can be
found, a person standing in loco parentis to the
decedent.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that [subsection (a), paragraph
(11)] defines "parent" to include "a person who for a period of
not less than one year before the death of the decedent stood in
loco parentis to him". He cited the second sentence of
[subsection (d), paragraph (2)], which read:
However, the amount of the reimbursement shall be
determined in the manner prescribed in subsection (b)
for an interment, but may not be larger than that
authorized when the United States provides the grave
site.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that subsection (e) states that "the
Secretary concerned may pay the necessary expenses", and he
cited language within the first sentence of subsection (f),
which read as follows:
(f) The payment of expenses incident to the recovery,
care, and disposition of a decedent covered by section
1481 (a)(9) of this title is limited to the payment of
expenses described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of
subsection (a) and air transportation of the remains
from a location outside the United States to a point
of entry in the United States.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is not sure where reference to the
$100,000 is, and he recalled that previous testimony related
that the $100,000 was not given to someone, but expenses were
paid, perhaps with a limit of $100,000.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to "ITEM 11a." on the
front of a two-sided DD FORM 93 (INSTRUCTIONS) page [included in
the committee packet], which read [original punctuation
provided]:
ITEM 11a. Beneficiary(ies) for Death Gratuity
(Military only). Enter first name(s), middle initial,
and last name(s) of the person(s) to receive death
gratuity pay. A member may designate one or more
persons to receive all or a portion of the death
gratuity pay. The designation of a person to receive
a portion of the amount shall indicate the percentage
of the amount, to be specified only in 10 percent
increments, that the person may receive. If the
member does not wish to designate a beneficiary for
the payment of death gratuity, enter "None," or if the
full amount is not designated, the payment or balance
will be paid as follows:
1)To the surviving spouse of the person, if any;
2)To any surviving children of the person and the
descendants of any deceased children by
representation;
3)To the surviving parents or the survivor of them;
4)To the duly appointed executor or administrator of
the estate of the person;
5)If there are none of the above, to other next of kin
of the person entitled under the laws of domicile of
the person at the time of the person's death.
The member should make specific designations, as it
expedites payment.
ITEM 11a. (Continued) Seek legal advice if naming a
minor child as a beneficiary. If a member has a
spouse but designates a person other than the spouse
to receive all or a portion of the death gratuity pay,
the Service concerned is required to provide notice of
the designation to the spouse. NOT APPLICABLE to
civilians.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to language in "ITEM 12a." of the
aforementioned instructions, which read, "The member may
indicate anyone to receive this payment." He stated, "I'm not
an expert enough to deal with this, but it seems that if the
secretary is handing out $100,000 to someone designated on a
form, that's not what these things are saying, and that's not -
[according to] what we've heard from testimony - ... the way
it's handled by the military."
CHAIR LYNN asked, "So you're saying, basically, that we may have
a non-issue?"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered, "I think so, unless the
secretary is not following all of the information that we have
before us. I just don't have any data or testimony to tell me
what to do in this issue."
8:56:59 AM
MR. TEMPEL explained that there are three separate pots of money
involved. First is the $400,000 life insurance policy given to
every member of the military. Second is the $100,000, which is
not specifically for funeral expenses, but is intended to ease
the lives of the recipients of that money. The third pot of
money consists of unpaid allowances, and the beneficiary(ies)
for unpaid pay/allowances would be designated in section 12a of
the DD FORM 93. Mr. Tempel indicated that there are no
restrictions regarding who can be elected to receive that money.
In response to Representative Seaton, he said the $100,000 is
the death gratuity, and the beneficiary(ies) for death gratuity
would be listed in section 11a of the form. Mr. Tempel noted
that section 13a of the form is where the name of the person
authorized to direct disposition would be written, and he
specified that the name written in sections 11a and 13a would be
the same. He also said the aforementioned restrictions apply
regarding who can be elected to receive that money and be
authorized to direct disposition.
MR. TEMPEL, in response to Representative Seaton, corrected his
original statement and said the death gratuity is not the
$100,000, but is the $400,000 life insurance. He said, "There's
another form where you have your life insurance filled out, and
this is just an easy way for the military to say ... this is
what needs to happen here."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the language of 11a, [text provided
previously], instructs that the person filling out the DD FORM
93 may designate anyone as beneficiary or may enter "None."
There is no exclusion regarding who can be chosen, he noted.
MR. TEMPEL clarified that the life insurance can be left to
anyone, but the $100,000 can only be left to the aforementioned
exclusive list. In response to Chair Lynn, he emphasized that
the $100,000 is not just for burial costs, but for all related
funeral costs. He continued as follows:
Some of these funeral expenses they talk about here
are provided by the U.S. Government. As Mr. Rogers
[was] saying, they end up covering a lot of these
things, and if you end up paying for a flag [or] ... a
tombstone that's supposed to be provided, they'll
reimburse you for that. So, that's actually another
separate pot. So, you'd have these expenses that the
U.S. Government said, "We're going to provide a
coffin; we're going to provide a tombstone; we're
going to provide a few other things here." And you
are not going to pay for these unless you want to pay
for them in another section. ... If you want to have
a funeral in your family cemetery or if you want to
have it wherever you want, we will reimburse you the
expenses that we would have given you to do it in the
military burial ground.
Now, that's that expense, and that's what I was
talking about there. $100,000 is a completely
separate expense. This is something that the
government wanted to do that was good for the parents
or whoever was in charge of the remains, and ...
families are going through a lot of grief, as Mr.
Rogers very well knows. And they ... most of them
aren't wanting to work right after this happens. Most
of them -- I mean, it's a very traumatic thing. This
is something the U.S. Government does instantly. The
day after it happens, they write out this check ...
and they go straight to this form. It's an instant
thing. It's meant to give these families as much
reprieve as possible. [They can] do whatever they
want with the money, no questions asked; they can
travel to be with family, they can do whatever -
that's what this money is for.
9:05:54 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else to
testify, closed public testimony.
9:06:02 AM
MR. TEMPEL asked that the committee consider that any 18-year-
old has the right to create a will, and an 18-year-old soldier
should have the right to decide who deals with his/her remains.
He indicated that unfortunately the matter of the $100,000
"starts changing things around a little bit," but the root of
the matter is a soldier's right to decide who will designate
his/her burial remains.
9:07:05 AM
MR. HENDERSON relayed that the Congressional [resolution] that
is being considered right now would only modify [subsection (c)]
of Title 10, Section 1482. The bill would delete "Only" before
"the following people" and insert a new paragraph that would
allow any person to be designated. The bill would also modify
[paragraph (4)] of [subsection (c)] to strike "clauses (1)-(3)".
9:08:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that there should be no
restrictions in regard to the allowable beneficiaries of the
death gratuity.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said there are no restrictions on the
death gratuity.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that the instructions for 11a
say a military member may not designate "anybody else," unless
that person is a "duly appointed executor or administrator." He
said that person could only be appointed if there is a will or
"if that occurs after the decedent dies."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that those provisions only
come into play if "the member does not wish to appoint a
beneficiary for the payment of death gratuity."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that he may stand corrected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that there are a lot of
technicalities involved, and he is unsure of what he would be
recommending the U.S. [Congress]; therefore, he said he is not
prepared to vote on the resolution now.
9:11:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO concurred with Representative Seaton,
noting that the testimony of Mr. Rogers "seems to indicate along
the same lines." He said he sees no harm in holding the
resolution for another hearing."
9:12:06 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated that he thinks the intent of bill is good, but
said he would be more comfortable holding the bill for now.
9:12:58 AM
MR. TEMPEL, in response to Chair Lynn, said he would be happy to
work with committee to meet the intent of the bill.
CHAIR LYNN commented that Mr. Rogers' testimony was compelling.
9:13:31 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HJR 31 was held over.
HB 106-VILLAGE & REGIONAL PUB.SAFETY OFFICERS
9:13:41 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 106, "An Act relating to village public safety officers
and regional public safety officers."
[Before the committee was CSHB 106(CRA).]
9:14:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 106 as prime sponsor. He reviewed that in the
Northwest Arctic, the regional nonprofit corporation provides
public safety services. He said the borough and Maniilaq
Association are in mutual agreement that the borough should take
over the program from the Department of Public Safety (DPS), but
this cannot be done without changing existing law.
Representative Joule referred to the language in Section 2 of
[CSHB 106(CRA)], which read as follows:
*Sec. 2. AS 18.65.670(b) is amended to read:
(b) With funds appropriated for that purpose,
the commissioner of public safety shall provide grants
to nonprofit regional corporations or municipalities
for village public safety officers in rural areas of
the state and municipalities with populations of less
than 10,000. The commissioner of public safety shall
coordinate with the commissioner of corrections when
providing grants under this section, and the
commissioners shall jointly execute an agreement with
the nonprofit regional corporations or municipalities.
For areas within a borough that exercises areawide law
enforcement powers, the commissioner may provide
grants under this section only to the borough.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said the regional nonprofit corporations
expressed concern that that wording would leave the door open
for DPS to "bypass" them. He drew attention to a committee
substitute (CS) for HB 106, [Version 26-LS0402\T], which would
"allow the department to enter into an agreement with the
municipality, which would be inclusive of a borough, when
there's an agreement between the department and the regional
nonprofit [corporation]." The language in Section 2 of Version
T read as follows:
*Sec. 2. AS 18.65.670(b) is amended to read:
(b) With funds appropriated for that purpose,
the commissioner of public safety shall provide grants
to nonprofit regional corporations or municipalities
with populations of less than 10,000 for village
public safety officers in rural areas of the state.
The commissioner of public safety shall coordinate
with the commissioner of corrections when providing
grants under this section, and the commissioners shall
jointly execute an agreement with the nonprofit
regional corporations or municipalities. Before
providing a grant to a municipality under this
section, the commissioner of public safety shall
obtain the concurrence of the nonprofit regional
corporation for the area.
9:17:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 106, Version 26-LS0402\T, Luckhaupt, 4/2/09, as a
work draft.
9:17:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to ask a question. He noted
that Section 4, on page 2, lines 14-16, of the House Community
and Regional Affairs Standing Committee version was eliminated,
and he asked why it was there and why it was removed.
9:18:27 AM
ELIZABETH SAGALAQ HENSLEY, Intern, Representative Reggie Joule,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Joule,
prime sponsor of HB 106, responded that the removal of that
language was the bill drafter's choice, and she offered her
understanding that it was a matter of being consistent with
current law.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE indicated that that language had referred
to a regional village public safety officer (VPSO), and he said
that program no longer exists.
9:19:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUNEBERG removed his objection.
9:20:25 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that there being no further objection,
Version T was before committee.
9:20:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that language on page 2, line 8, of
Version T, read: "The commissioner of public safety may adopt
regulations related to village public safety officers". He
asked if it is the sponsor's wish to leave this to the
discretion of the commissioner or if he would like to direct the
commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE responded that that language is found in
current law, and he said he has not heard of any problems with
the way the language is currently structured.
9:21:27 AM
SIIKAURAQ MARTHA WHITING, Mayor, Northwest Arctic Borough,
testified in support of HB 106. She listed the borough's top
three priorities: to bring down the cost of energy, to acquire
new sources of revenue, and to ensure the safety of communities.
She said there is a Northwest Arctic Leadership Team, which is
comprised of the NANA Regional Corporation, the Maniilaq
Association, the Northwest Arctic Borough School District, and
the Northwest Arctic Borough. In 2006, the membership of all
four boards got together to consider all areas of education,
health care, healthy communities, culture, language, and
societal issues. At that time, she said, the team agreed that
the best organization to oversee public safety would be the
Northwest Arctic Borough. Currently, she said, Maniilaq
Association takes care of the VPSO program and public safety.
She said Maniilaq Association is a health [association].
9:23:03 AM
MAYOR WHITING stated that in 2006, the Northwest Arctic Borough
was directed to take care of the public safety needs in the
region. The borough has a public safety commission, which is
comprised of memberships from each community, including the
Alaska State Troopers and the Kotzebue Police Department. The
commission meets on a quarterly basis to address issues such as
search and rescue, bootlegging, suicide, neighborhood watch,
Arctic survival, equipment and training needs, and funding. The
public safety commission is housed by the Northwest Arctic
Borough, she said, and all areas of public safety in the region
are considered.
MAYOR WHITING said right now the Northwest Arctic Borough is
addressing public safety on its own, without adequate authority.
She stated, "Everybody comes to the Northwest Arctic Borough for
any type of issues with regards to public safety, so we want to
make sure that we have that opportunity to do that." She stated
that the mission of the Northwest Arctic Borough is to provide
quality of life for the people of the Northwest Arctic Region.
She said public safety is a matter of equity; it is a basic
human right. She talked about the time that it takes to get
help in rural Alaska compared to in Anchorage. She mentioned a
dog team accident that occurred right outside of Kotzebue this
fall and the unfortunate death of a doctor. She emphasized that
hours passed before help arrived at the scene of that accident,
but said if it had occurred in a smaller village, and if the
weather had been bad, then the wait could have been days. There
are no [health] facilities in the villages. She a female aide
is often put in the position of having to deal single handedly
with inebriated people, without benefit of training related to
self-defense. The health aide for the region often ends up
being the unofficial VPSO. She credited the people of the
region for looking out for each other and the elders for acting
as law enforcement.
9:26:33 AM
MAYOR WHITING said even though the borough is not the public
safety authority, it recently hired a public safety coordinator
to handle the needs of its people. The person hired will be
working on the priorities of the public safety commission.
9:27:27 AM
MAYOR WHITING said in 2007, the Northwest Arctic Borough hosted
a law enforcement summit with the State of Alaska. Former
commissioner, Walter Monegan, was involved, and statewide and
regional public safety issues were considered. She said the
borough wants local and state entities to partner to ensure the
right of public safety to all its communities. She stated that
despite the current non-authority status for the Northwest
Arctic Borough to administer the VPSO and public safety program,
the borough was recently awarded $500,000 from the Department of
Justice via Congressman Don Young's office. The money is to be
spent on planning and training of VPSOs.
MAYOR WHITING emphasized that the borough does not want to take
away any authority from Maniilaq Association, but said the
borough is better equipped to address public safety concerns in
the region. She said the borough will continue to partner with
not only the Maniilaq association, but also with all local,
state, and regional organizations to deliver "the service that
we have." She said the borough's intent is to administer the
VPSO program, not to take care of law enforcement in the whole
region. She relayed a message to Commissioner Masters that she
would like to know how the Northwest Arctic Borough can help him
and his staff succeed in providing public safety service. She
thanked that committee, the bill sponsor, and Ms. Kensley for
"keeping this out in the forefront."
9:30:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, regarding the aforementioned population
cut off of 10,000, questioned if a situation may occur in which
cities with populations of less than 10,000 would eliminate
their police department and ask for money from the state to have
VPSOs instead.
9:30:39 AM
MAYOR WHITING said the borough considered the 10,000 population
level. Currently, she said, there are approximately 7,500
people in the region. She stated, "Once we get to that 10,000
threshold, then we deal with it at that time, because we know
that laws [and] resolutions are subject to change based on the
need." She said, "Right now we're able to take care of the
needs within that population number." The VPSO program can work
effectively in the borough, provided the training, lodging, and
equipment is made available.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he supports the intent of the
borough. He clarified that he is talking about an unintended
consequence wherein a community of less than 10,000, which has a
police department, eliminates that department in order to
contract VPSOs. He explained, "Because it says ... the
commissioner 'shall' contract with those entities for providing
VPSO service."
MAYOR WHITING opined that it would be up to each municipality to
choose which entity is best equipped to provide public safety.
9:32:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO directed attention to page 1, line 15, and
asked for the definition of "rural areas".
MAYOR WHITING answered that most of Alaska's rural areas have
VPSO programs. In response to a follow-up question, she
indicated that an area is designated as rural depending on its
population.
9:33:48 AM
MS. HENSLEY noted that the regulations related to the VPSO
program state that the program is intended for villages of 1,000
or less people. She recollected two years ago, when the Senate
convened a task force which recommended that rural areas be
considered villages of less than 150.
9:35:19 AM
MS. HENSLEY said the intent of the program is to provide VPSOs
in villages. She said, "There are different ways to look at
that." For example, she said one indicator of which village
should have a VPSO program could be whether or not that village
has a road system, because Alaska State Troopers have access via
road systems. She concluded, "So, it's not exactly set in
stone, I guess is what I'm trying to say."
The committee took an at-ease from 9:36:42 AM to 9:36:59 AM.
9:37:03 AM
SUE STANCLIFF, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department Public Safety, in response to Representative Seaton,
said she is not aware of a definition of "rural" in statute.
She noted that Copper Center is on the road system and has a
VPSO.
9:37:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he knows there are definitions of
"rural" in statute, because he said he remembers a lengthy
discussion on the House floor regarding this issue about 20
years ago. He offered to go summon the bill drafter.
9:38:42 AM
JOHN GLICK, Major, Deputy Director, Central Office, Division of
Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, stated that
he is quite familiar with the VPSO program, having served as a
deputy commander and then commander of the rural detachment of
the Alaska State Troopers, which is responsible for the
oversight of the state bi-level DPSO program. He stated that by
regulation, VPSOs are placed in rural communities with
populations of 1,000 or less, with priority given to those areas
with locations that are logistically difficult to reach. He
said there are VPSO programs in the Copper Center region, in
Copper Center and Tazlina, and one being considered for Gulkana.
He concurred with the comments of Mayor Whiting and
Representative Joule regarding the specific situation in the
Northwest Arctic Borough. He continued as follows:
At one point a few years ago, Maniilaq man power -
which was then the non-profit who administered this
program and whom the department contracted with - went
under, and we were put into a position of how to
provide VPSO services to that region. We tried
working with another non-profit region that was
logistically far-removed from the Northwest Arctic
Borough, and although administratively it seemed to
work, there seemed to be some disconnect with regards
to having intimate knowledge of what the needs of
those particular rural communities in that region were
and how to address those and how to interact on a
continuous and consistent basis with those communities
and within that region.
9:41:43 AM
So, Maniilaq, who is the current non-profit
corporation, stepped up to the plate and, although it
... did so very hesitantly, it was totally for the
recognition and support of the needs of that region
and realizing there needed to be some feet on the
ground in that area that had some input to how things
worked in the various communities they also served in
their health service capacity.
MAJOR GLICK said the addition of municipalities in the proposed
legislation gives an option in the event a non-profit entity
does not feel it is capable or willing to provide those
services. He continued as follows:
The big caveat to the consideration of this is we can
only do so with the concurrence of the nonprofit for
that region. ... It takes away our ability just to
... be competitive, if you will, and see who would
provide the services for the best bang for the buck
.... By putting the language in there, we'd need the
concurrence of the ... non-profit for that region.
MAJOR GLICK said what would still exist would be the
collaborative effort, working to identify the specific needs and
issues of each region and utilizing the VPSO program which best
serves each area.
9:43:28 AM
MAJOR GLICK, in response to Chair Lynn, confirmed that the
Department of Public Safety supports HB 106.
9:43:59 AM
STAN HAWLEY, North West Arctic Borough, noted that his
supervisor had expressed concern about the inclusion of
"municipalities" in the language of the bill. He explained that
historically, the municipalities in villages are classified as
second-class cities, which means there is less revenue-sharing
with the state than in first-class cities. Many cities are
financially non-solvent and using individual cities to
administer VPSO contracts would result in higher administrative
costs.
9:46:26 AM
JAMES KNOPKE, Director, Village Public Safety Officer Program,
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), stated that TCC understands the
reasoning behind HB 106 and wants to support VPSO positions in
the Northwest Arctic Borough. He indicated that TCC had
reservations about provisions proposed in an earlier version of
the bill: "allowing the boroughs" and "the inclusion of the
municipalities." He stated his understanding that [Version T]
would require the commissioner to obtain the concurrence of the
relevant nonprofit regional corporation, and he stated that TCC
supports [Version T] as long as that concurrence remains.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Knopke if it is his
interpretation that Version T would give nonprofit regional
corporations veto power over the commissioner's decision to
grant VPSO services to a municipality.
MR. KNOPKE answered no. He said TCC understands that the
commissioner would make the final decision regarding VPSO
position placements. He said, "We would just like to retain our
ability to be in that decision-making process - especially for
the interior."
9:49:20 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he was just supplied with the definition of
"rural", [in AS 14.43.700], which read as follows:
Sec. 14.43.700. Definition.
In AS 14.43.600 - 14.43.700, "rural" means a
community with a population of 5,500 or less that is
not connected by road or rail to Anchorage or
Fairbanks or with a population of 1,500 or less that
is connected by road or rail to Anchorage or
Fairbanks.
9:49:52 AM
JACKIE HILL, Director, Native Services, Maniilaq Association,
testified in support of HB 106, Version T.
9:51:15 AM
CHRISTINE HESS, Staff, Representative Reggie Joule, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Joule, prime sponsor of
HB 106, confirmed Mr. Glick's previous statement that by
regulation, VPSOs are placed in rural communities with
populations of 1,000 or less.
9:51:34 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else to
testify, closed public testimony.
9:51:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that in addition to the
definition of "rural" found in AS 14.43.700, there is a second
definition found in AS 44.33.239(7), which read as follows:
(7) "rural area" means a community with a
population of 1,500 or less or a community with a
population of 5,500 or less that is not connected by
road or rail to Anchorage or Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that there is a third
definition, in AS 18.56.300(2). He concluded, "It sounds like
VPSO is 1,000 or less, and it doesn't say anything about the
connection by road."
9:53:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that none of the definitions
previously noted "fit" for VPSOs, so, if a definition is needed,
the committee should adopt one. He said he wants to figure out
if Version T would give nonprofit [regional corporations] veto
power over the statutory requirement to provide a grant.
9:55:20 AM
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), offered his understanding that through the
language in Version T, the bill sponsor is attempting to ensure
that nonprofit regional corporations - the only entity that can
receive the grants under current law - would still have some say
in the process and would not be hurt by the proposal to provide
grants to a municipality. He told Representative Seaton, "So,
You are correct in your interpretation."
9:56:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he does not have a problem with "the
intent of getting there." He noted that the language directs
the commissioner through the use of the word "shall", and he
indicated that he would like to find a way to maintain the
intent while avoiding "illegal construction."
9:56:56 AM
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that there are ways to ensure that the
nonprofit [regional corporation] is "involved in the decision
that stops short of what I think you're seeing as the problem."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested changing the language [on page
2, lines 5-6], so that the commissioner would provide the grant
in consultation with the nonprofit regional corporation rather
than having to "obtain the concurrence of the nonprofit regional
corporation for the area".
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that he is not entirely sure this is a
legal problem, but if the language is of concern, Representative
Seaton's suggestion would "solve it."
9:58:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Chair Lynn, said he would
be willing to offer that change as a conceptual amendment. He
remarked that the City of Seldovia, which has a police
department, is having a huge problem making its budget. He
offered his interpretation that the language would allow a
municipality that is not on the road system to eliminate its
police department, and a nonprofit regional corporation could
veto the grant that the commissioner was directed to make. He
indicated that the corporation might choose to exercise that
veto if it did not want that area to have VPSOs, for example.
9:59:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said communities will try to work the
system to their advantage; therefore, it is important to ensure
that the language in the bill is "right."
MR. LUCKHAUPT, in response to a question from Representative
Gatto, said the corporations involved must be nonprofit regional
corporations. He added, "They are for-profit corporations in
some ways, but they also have [a] nonprofit ... sub-corporation
that's set up to run these programs."
10:01:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if a village corporation would take
precedence over a regional corporation - both being nonprofit.
10:02:08 AM
MS. HENSLEY responded that the nonprofit regional corporations
to which the bill refers are the twelve nonprofit regional
corporations that were created by the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA).
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that the word corporations be
capitalized in the bill to differentiate between those
corporations intended and other village corporations.
MR. LUCKHAUPT indicated that the language has been around
awhile and has always been interpreted to mean [the twelve]
regional corporations.
10:03:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26-
LS0402\T.1, Luckhaupt, 4/8/09, as follows:
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "and"
Insert "or"
10:03:47 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if there was any objection to Amendment 1.
There being none, it was so ordered.
10:04:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that in Section 2, language
specifies that the only municipalities that can get [the grants]
would be those with populations of less than 10,000. He then
noted that Section 4 would amend [AS 29.35.010] - which lists
the general powers of all municipalities - to include the
receipt of grants. He asked, "Shouldn't that be broken out to
be limited to municipalities of less than 10,000 to conform to
Section 2?"
MR. LUCKHAUPT answered that he does not see the need for that
change, because [the proposed language in Section 4, which would
amend the aforementioned statute] refers to [AS 18.65.670],
which he said limits the municipalities that can receive the
grants to those with populations under 10,000. He said Tamara
Cook, a Legal Services Advisor, concurs.
10:05:28 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 106 was held over.
10:06:30 AM
CHAIR LYNN briefly discussed the upcoming committee calendar.
10:06:51 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:07
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HJR031B.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 01 4-2-09 CSHB106_T.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 02 Sponsor Statement HJR 31.doc |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 03 HJR031-1-1-040809-MLV-N.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 04 Expenses Incident to Death.doc |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 05 DD93.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 06 Air Force Association support letter.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 02 4.8.09HB106_SponsorStatement.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 03 HB106_SummaryOfChanges2.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 04 HB106-Fiscal_Note-DPS-DET-02-23-09.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 05 NAB Resolution.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 06 4.8.09HB106_Sectional.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 07 H.R. 1633.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 3-13-09 - HB 76 Research.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |