Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
03/22/2012 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR28 | |
| HB347 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 347 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 347-USE OF MUNICIPAL FUNDS FOR INITIATIVES
8:41:20 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 347, "An Act prohibiting the use of municipal funds to
support or oppose an initiative proposal to circulate a petition
for a ballot initiative, or to influence the outcome of an
election concerning a ballot initiative, without approval by
municipal voters at an election."
8:41:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor,
presented HB 347. He said the bill would provide checks and
balances to the "expenditure of the money." He said he had
hoped the quarterly report from the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) was available, but said he believes someone in
the room may have a better understanding of "what the total will
be." He surmised, "It's probably going to come in at about
$250,000, possibly more." He offered his understanding that
"the actual dollars spent on gathering these signatures will be
somewhere between 80 and 100 thousand dollars."
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON noted that included in the committee packet
is information regarding related laws in 20 other states. He
said other states' laws are stricter. He said if he had had
that information in the beginning, he might have changed HB 347;
however, he indicated that he was satisfied with the balance the
proposed legislation would provide.
8:44:16 AM
CHAIR LYNN commented that quite often those trying to get an
initiative passed don't have the same funds available as the
city.
8:45:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON offered an example of petition gathering
where no public money was spent and an example where the
petition signature gatherers were paid. He said often the money
spent by municipalities has come from the state. He said his
issue is with public money being used.
8:48:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN listed the amounts spent by various
municipal entities on initiative petition gathering, as follows:
the Alaska Municipal League, $5,000; the Alaska Conference of
Mayors, $10,000; North Slope Borough, $25,000; Bristol Bay
Borough, $4,000; the community of Pribilof Island, $10,000; and
the City of Valdez, $5,000.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON pointed out that "those are only the
numbers that have been reported."
CHAIR LYNN said the money spent came from taxes of the people
who may or may not agree with the issue.
8:49:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that municipal
revenue sharing is based on the price of oil and, thus, some of
the money comes from the state's operating budget. He said
during a recent signature gathering there was no paid opposition
to the gathering of the signatures, which he said is fine.
CHAIR LYNN said ultimately the money comes from the citizens of
the state.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said that is why he wants to compare this
with the legislative Capital Project Submission & Information
System (CAPSIS) project.
8:51:06 AM
ANNA LATHAM, Staff, Representative Kurt Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 347 on behalf of Representative Olson,
sponsor. She stated:
Currently municipalities can spend thousands of
dollars on consultants and paid signature collectors
to influence the outcome of a ballot initiative.
Although voters may be in support of a ballot
initiative, they may be not be in favor of municipal
funds being allocated to special interest groups to
finance that initiative, as Alaska law currently
allows.
This bill creates awareness about where municipal
funds are actually going and it empowers voters. If
the voters' priorities are the same as the
municipalities, voters would approve of funds to
influence a ballot initiative. And if the voters'
priorities differed from the municipal agenda, the
process would stop before additional funds were spent.
So, in a sense, HB 347 could be a cost-saving measure
as the state shifts to become more fiscally
conservative.
MS. LATHAM said 14 of the 20 states reviewed by Legislative
Legal and Research Services prohibited the use of public funds
to support or oppose an initiative altogether. Those states,
she said, are: Arizona, California, Georgia, Florida, Idaho,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. She said those states do
allow municipalities to extend funds to provide information or
educational materials regarding an initiative. She said HB 347
is not nearly as restrictive as the current legislation in the
states she just listed; it would allow municipalities to use
funds with voter approval. She said the intent of HB 347 is to
keep the ballot initiative process fair and to ensure that the
priorities of the municipalities are the same as the priorities
of its citizens.
8:53:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what the cost to the boroughs would
be for authorizing expenditures of funds for special elections
and how those costs would relate to the cost that
"municipalities have put in to the recent initiative."
MS. LATHAM answered that that would depend on the size of the
municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if Ms. Latham could answer the
question for any specific borough.
MS. LATHAM said she could find out that information.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that it is important to find out
that information on behalf of those people who have elected
their municipal leaders. He said, "If the effect of this is to
dramatically increase the cost of participation, then we need to
know that." He offered his understanding that a special
election held in the Kenai Peninsula Borough costs approximately
$300,000.
8:55:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER directed attention to language on page 1,
line 7, which read, "When expenditure of money is authorized by
(b) or (c) of this section", and he said he is not familiar with
subsections (b) and (c).
8:56:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON responded as follows:
It was quite contentious when it was brought up to the
Council of Mayors. I believe that the small mayors
outnumbered the large mayors in this one person/one
vote. ... The three or four mayors that were
adamantly against expending monies on the initiative
represented probably 60-65 percent of the state.
8:57:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said the cost varies depending on
factors such as whether an initiative is going to be added to an
already planned special election or a special election is being
called just for the initiative. She stated her preference to
not have municipalities paying [for initiative processes] with
money the state has given for other purposes.
8:58:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN stated, "This is not about voicing an
opinion; this about writing a check." He said any municipality
can voice an opinion through a resolution or through letters to
the mayor. He said of the $100,000 raised by municipalities,
$50,000 was sent to a signature gatherer in Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said Representative Johansen's statement is
accurate. He related that he has not heard any negative
feedback on this proposed bill.
9:00:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Latham if she inquired of
Legislative Legal and Research Services whether any courts have
construed the constitutionality, particularly in regard to the
possible infringement of the municipalities' right to free
speech.
MS. LATHAM answered no, but said she received a court opinion
that said "initiative petition circulation is poor political
speech." She said, "So, that cannot be prohibited. What we
could prohibit, as other states have already done, is to
prohibit municipalities from receiving."
9:02:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for a copy of that case and any
other related legal matter. He said it seems that an initiative
is one method of expressing an opposition to a government policy
or program, usually utilized by people who cannot gain redress
through the normal form of representative government. He said,
"It would seem to me that the application of a ... law like this
would be to allow the initiative sponsors to present their side
of the case yet to prohibit the municipality from presenting its
side of the case." He ventured that if there is going to be an
election to determine whether municipal money can be spent, it
will change only the timing of the debate.
9:04:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON responded that [under HB 347], at least
[the municipality] would know whether the people supported the
direction in which it was going.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred. He said the debate would
take place around the time of the election that would be held to
decide whether to spend money on the initiative.
9:05:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN argued that the debate may not be
limited to the issue. To Representative Gruenberg's first
question, he pointed to [the first sentence of] the third
footnote in the aforementioned Legislative Legal and Research
Services memorandum, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
In Idaho, Massachusetts and New Mexico, the
prohibition is not codified in law but rather,
pursuant to court rulings.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said this issue is interesting because
it deals not only with policy, but also with legal issues. He
named two issues: free speech and a question regarding what
right a municipality has under the articles in the state
constitution dealing with municipality government. He offered
his understanding that under HB 347 there is no issue with the
latter, but said he "did not see anything on the free speech
issue."
9:07:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON stated, "That was my overriding concern,
and it was expressed that way to the [bill] drafter."
9:07:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to a paragraph in the Legislative
Legal and Research Services memorandum [regarding Ballot Measure
1], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The initiative would have banned the use of public
funds for political campaigns and lobbying by state
and local government agencies and school districts to
support or oppose ballot measures, lobby to pass a
law, or request public funding. The measure failed as
nearly 61 percent of voters cast their ballots against
it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how [Ballot Measure 1] and HB 347
differ.
9:08:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON answered that HB 347 is less restrictive
and does not include school districts, for example. He said he
would distribute a copy of Ballot Measure 1 [included in the
committee packet].
9:08:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained he is trying to figure out if
the issue is the same, because if it is he questioned why a
different result from the voters would be anticipated.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said reading the language of Ballot Measure
1 would answer Representative Seaton's query.
9:09:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said as a result of a Supreme Court
ruling in the Citizens United case, it is unlawful to limit the
political speech of corporations and unions. He questioned
whether trying to limit the free speech of municipalities would
result in another court battle.
CHAIR LYNN said the committee needs to get input from the
Department of Law.
9:10:30 AM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League,
testified in opposition to HB 347. She directed attention to
language in the sponsor statement [included in the committee
packet], which indicates HB 347 would prohibit municipalities
from spending "copious amounts of money" to advance their own
agenda. She questioned the meaning of copious in this context.
She explained that any amount of money spent on an initiative
must go through a hearing process in the municipality. That
hearing process must be legally posted and advertised. She said
there are two hearings, and public input is allowed. She
posited that it is false to say people do not have the ability
to be part of the process. Ms. Wasserman expressed concern with
the statement that municipalities follow their own agenda. She
said elected officials never have 100 percent of their
constituency backing them; however, they are elected, they have
fiduciary responsibilities, and some of them do have agenda.
She said agenda is not always a bad word.
9:13:28 AM
MS. WASSERMAN disagreed with the sponsor's statement that the
mayors who were against spending money [on the aforementioned
initiative] represented 65 percent of the state. She said they
were from the same area and represented a large population, but
not 65 percent. She emphasized that a vote was taken. She said
the 2010 initiative referred to by Representative Seaton was one
that the municipalities, through AML, ran the campaign against.
She said, "We did that with many organizations across the state,
and we were able to defeat that initiative, but it also
protected the state legislators from spending any money on
anything that they voted on." Ms. Wasserman said she received
thanks from many legislators for taking the stand against that
initiative. She said, "And now we have an initiative that is
against some of the legislators, and suddenly it shouldn't be
done. And I just have a very difficult time understanding why
it's dependent on which viewpoint we take."
9:15:01 AM
CHAIR LYNN noted that one of the co-sponsors of HB 347 is
Representative Anna Fairclough, who was a prominent member of
the Anchorage Assembly, and he stated his assumption that she
has intimate knowledge of municipal politics in that community.
9:15:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the information in the
Legislative Legal and Research Services memorandum and said the
document shows only how many states prohibit the use of public
funds to support or oppose an initiative. He said those laws
could take various forms. He offered the following hypothetical
examples: public funds may not be used to oppose or support a
ballot measure or an initiative; and the only prohibition is to
use public funds to speak out on an initiative proposed by the
voters. He said this brings up a fundamental question of
whether it is constitutional and good policy only to oppose
public funds vis-à-vis an initiative. He concluded: "Why
should it make a difference whether something's proposed by the
voters as opposed [to] ... the municipality? In both cases, the
voters are asked to approve it."
9:18:29 AM
MS. WASSERMAN said municipalities have donated money, but none
have sponsored "the current initiative"; it was sponsored by a
group formed separately. She said with the way some national
laws have changed, under HB 347 municipalities would be "the
only ones that can't say anything." She relayed that the lesson
learned from "the last initiative that we fought against a group
that carried the gag law to the voters" was that expenditure of
money means "while you're on the clock, you can't say anything
... unless you are at home, on your own phone." She said that
calls into question whether a mayor, who is not paid, is on the
clock 24 hours a day. She said initiatives may involve
municipalities, and she opined that municipalities need to be
able to represent themselves in a timely manner. In response to
Representative Gruenberg, she said she would seek out legal
research on this issue.
9:20:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to language in the bill
title, starting on line 2, which read, "or to influence the
outcome of an election concerning a ballot initiative". He
asked Ms. Wasserman if her interpretation from "the previous
bill initiative" is that a municipal official who traveled to
Juneau when hearings were taking place would be prohibited from
taking part in those hearings.
MS. WASSERMAN answered yes. She said, "We were told that they
would be prohibited from taking part in anything." She added,
"It's a lot more far reaching than just handing a check over."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he thinks it would be an interesting
situation if initiatives are brought up that would directly
affect municipalities, but the representatives of those
municipalities were prohibited from sending people to Juneau to
talk to the legislature.
9:22:33 AM
CHAIR LYNN suggested adding a provision stating that the
proposed legislation would not prohibit municipal employees who
are on the clock from communicating with or testifying before
the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that would help, and it would further
help if those municipal employees were allowed to have hearings
in their own municipality.
9:24:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said "this" is not "a flat-out
prohibition from taking part in the process." He then said a
borough could set up a structure that could "run through the
ballot one time and create a pot of money" that could be used to
deal with initiatives. He said that would keep "the big money"
out, but would allow for staff to testify.
MS. WASSERMAN, in response to series of questions from
Representative Johansen, confirmed that the Conference of Mayors
is part of the structure of AML, but the two entities have
separate bank accounts. The executive boards of each
organization, through votes, decide how the money is spent. She
said AML's money comes from membership dues from municipalities,
business sponsors, and associates throughout the state that join
AML, nonprofit organizations, and associations. Additionally,
AML charges fees for training in, for example, grant writing,
parliamentary procedure, and how to run a good meeting. She
relayed that the information pertaining to AML's money sources
is posted on its web site and available to the public. In
regard to her previous statement that two hearings are given,
she confirmed that that applies to every municipality in the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that some
municipalities utilize consent calendars, on which all topics
are listed, and if someone must make a motion to bring the topic
forward. He said he has seen some large appropriations go
through the Ketchikan Borough Assembly on a consent calendar
without any reading or discussion.
MS. WASSERMAN, in response to Chair Lynn, estimated that 60
percent of AML's funding comes from municipalities. She offered
further information regarding benefits of membership.
9:31:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said there is state law that prohibits
people from using legislatively appropriated money to lobby the
legislature. He said AML could say that it does not use the
municipal revenue sharing money, but uses "the money we get from
the 40 or 50 people or the other money." He questioned whether
at some point that other money would run out and AML would be
left with only municipal money. He said there is a comingling
of funds.
CHAIR LYNN asked if the funds are comingled.
MS. WASSERMAN answered yes. In response to a follow-up
question, she said the board decides how to use the funds.
9:32:51 AM
MS. WASSERMAN, in response to Representative Johansen, said she
has only four employees, so if smaller communities need help
with balance sheets and budgets, she defers them to a source of
help.
9:34:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "It seems like we're saying, 'Since
you're a member of an organization, then any organization that
you're a member of is prohibited from using any funds from that
organization to support or oppose an initiative.'" He said he
thinks the committee should qualify that with the sponsor.
9:36:18 AM
MAKO HAGGERTY specified that although he sits on the Kenai
Peninsula Borough Assembly, he is testifying on behalf of
himself. He relayed that he is one of the co-sponsors of the
Coastal Management Program Initiative. He said his first
reaction to reading HB 347 is that it is a gag order to silence
those who are making an effort to represent themselves. He said
one thing that is done at the municipal level is the allocation
of money. He said the top ordinances introduced at the last
assembly meeting were for: $29,000, $200,000, $569,000, and
$4.7 million. He said those are large sums of money that the
public trusts the assembly to allocate. He said the
municipalities felt it was important to spend $5,000-$28,000 on
the initiative, which he said is minor compared to the amount of
money it would take to run an election to see if municipalities
could even speak to the issue.
MR. HAGGERTY stated his opposed to HB 347, which he described as
"nothing less than an unfunded mandate." He warned that if
passed, municipalities would be forced to spend a lot of money
that they would not have spent in the first place. He said
there have been several local initiatives that have had an
adverse effect on the way the Kenai Peninsula Borough does
business, and under HB 347, the assembly would not be allowed to
explain why an initiative would harm the municipality. He
concluded, "No matter which direction you come at this bill, it
just ... seems kind of knee jerk and shortsighted."
9:40:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding Mr. Haggerty's comment that
under HB 347 the assembly would not be allowed to explain a
ballot measure, said that is not the way he interprets the
proposed legislation.
MR. HAGGERTY said he does not agree because of the way
information is interpreted. He said someone will decide the
explanation is in support or opposition to an initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks that would depend on how
the message was crafted.
9:42:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, regarding previous comments about
restrictions on holding hearings, said when the legislature
holds hearings, the intent is to listen to the community, not to
steer the community. He said he cannot see where a restriction
on spending money can possibly be construed to be a restriction
on freedom of speech.
9:44:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked Mr. Haggerty if he believes that
voters give the assembly members the power to manage the
community's money, and that if they don't like the way the money
is managed, they can choose to not re-elect any of those
members.
MR. HAGGERTY answered yes. He said those who elected him expect
him to listen and make good choices based on differing opinions
of the public. He said another reason he thinks HB 347 is not
necessary is because if a municipality is going to spend money
to support or oppose an initiative, it will still have to notify
the community and base its decisions off of the public's
response. He indicated that in his community, that response is
great.
9:46:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN told Mr. Haggerty he does not appreciate
"assigning the motive of introducing the bill because of a
specific initiative." He said, "Language such as this that was
compared to the ... anti-corruption initiative, that language
was introduced in 2007, so this issue ... is not a reaction to a
specific initiative." Regarding Mr. Haggerty's remark about
being responsive to the local constituency, Representative
Johansen said [the legislature] needs to be responsive to the
state, and "this" is about state money.
9:47:54 AM
SCOTT RUBY, Director, Division of Community and Regional
Affairs, Department of Commerce, Community, and Regional
Development, testified that the division provides advice and
assistance to municipalities "on these types of issues." In
regard to the previous question about subsections (b) and (c),
he said those subsections address how a municipality may use
money to explain initiatives and expressly authorizes
municipalities to do so. He said there is a zero fiscal note
because the division already has staff that provides assistance
to communities and works with AML in providing training and
assistance to the municipalities.
9:49:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON expressed appreciation of Mr. Haggerty's
petition signature gathering efforts, for which Mr. Haggerty
used no municipal funds. Regarding intent language, he said he
thinks there are some qualified people who could address some of
the issues raised today.
9:51:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON, in response to Representative Seaton, said
the intent of the bill is not to disallow elected community
leaders from coming to testify before the legislature in Juneau.
He clarified that the only intent of HB 347 is to prevent state
monies from being used for signature gathering.
9:52:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he would like to move the bill, and
he emphasized that he thinks the issues raised today could be
addressed by the next committee of referral.
9:52:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would object to a motion, because
he thinks "we all represent communities." He said he checked
with one of his municipalities who object to the proposed
legislation, and he has not yet checked with the rest of his
constituent communities, an obligation he said he must fulfill.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that the bill was noticed.
9:54:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 347 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
9:54:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.
9:54:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, regarding the remark by Chair Lynn,
noted that HB 347 was noticed 6 days and 18 hours ago, which he
opined is ample time in which to canvas a district for opinions.
He reiterated that HB 347 does not speak to any specific
initiative, but speaks for itself. He opined that it is ironic
that the sponsor of the aforementioned Ballot Measure 1 is the
same person who received $50,000 to put the Alaska Sea Party's
initiative [Ballot Measure 2 in support of Coastal Zone
Management] on the ballot. He stated his support for HB 347.
9:56:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN objected to the motion to move HB 347
out of committee. He reiterated his concern that it would open
the state up to legal entanglement.
CHAIR LYNN said as a member of the next committee of referral,
the House Judiciary Standing Committee, he will ensure that
someone is present from the Department of Law to speak to that
issue.
9:56:51 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johansen, P.
Wilson, Keller, and Lynn voted in favor of the motion to move HB
347 out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. Representatives Petersen and Seaton
voted against it. Therefore, HB 347 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HCR28 Version A.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 28 |
| 02 HCR28 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 28 |
| 03 HCR28 Council DSV 2012 Dashboard Findings.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 28 |
| 04 HCR28 2010 Alaska Victimization Survey.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 28 |
| 05 HCR 28 HSTA Zero Fiscal Note 3-21-12.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 28 |
| 01 HB0347A.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| 02 HB 347 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| 03 HB347 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| 04 HB347 Legislative Research 3-9-2012.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| 05 HB347-DCCED-DCRA-02-24-12.pdf |
HJUD 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |