Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/25/2005 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB62 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 62
"An Act making a supplemental appropriation for increased
operating costs of the division of elections; and providing
for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken explained that this bill, which is sponsored by the
Senate Rules Committee by Request of the Governor, would
appropriate $694,900 to the Division of Elections, as increased
operating expenses would exhaust the Division's FY 05 funding prior
to March 1, 2005.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR LOREN LEMAN suggested that this supplemental
budget request be recognized as the result of success rather than
an indication of failure. The State's November 2004 General
Election was a success in addition to the fact that 25,000 more
voters voted than in any previous Statewide election, a record
numbers of absentee ballot requests were received. In addition, the
Division responded to five initiatives and one recall petition,
each of which required the Division to hire additional personnel in
order to verify, review, and count signatures, and, as required by
State law, outside legal counsel provided guidance regarding the
recall petition. Furthermore, the Division had to reprint ballots
and, in a cooperative arrangement between the State and the
Municipality of Anchorage, an Anchorage school bond election was
held concurrently with the November General Election. While this
arrangement increased costs to the State, the Municipality would
remit payment for the $100,000 expense. The combination of these
elements served to substantially impact the Division's funding;
particularly, the expenses associated with the General Election.
While a Youth Ambassador Program to train young people as poll-
workers was implemented, it did not add to the expenses. This
program would assist in providing a pool of replacement workers as
long time poll workers age.
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, reviewed the summary of the Division's
expenses as outlined in her memorandum to the Co-chairs of the
Senate Finance Committee, dated January 24, 2005, [copy on file].
Temporary Hire costs in excess of 2002
election cycle costs $304.0
Court-ordered Ballot Re-printing costs $243.2
Ballot printing $203.1
Transportation $ 35.6
Destruction $ 4.3
Personal Services $ 0.2
*Municipality of Anchorage's bond
question on General Election ballot $104.6
**Recounts - District 5 and Statewide
conducted simultaneously $ 39.8
***Independent Counsel re: Recall $ 37.6
Expedited forms and freight charges $ 22.1
Mainframe "chargebacks" in excess
of 2000 and 2002 election cycles $ 23.3
Additional cost for postage related
to by-mail absentee $ 19.0
Fax presses $ 11.7
TOTAL to date $805.3
*Please see contract with Muni and detail sheet on costs to
date
** $750 and $10,000 respectively were deposited into the
General Fund for the District 5 and Statewide recounts
***Please see email from Department of Law regarding costs of
independent counsel.
Ms. Glaiser expressed that the largest expense component resulted
from the need to hire 13 Temporary Hires to process absentee
ballots, review the recall and initiative petitions, and assist in
two election recounts: one being a local and one being a Statewide
election recount. These tasks placed "an incredible burden" on the
Division in terms of salaries and staff overtime.
Ms. Glaiser shared that the reprinting of the ballots was time
consuming as the paper supplies were scarce and the turn-around
time was short. Associated costs included destroying of the
original ballots and shipping expenses for the replacement ballots.
Ms. Glaiser noted that the incorporation of the Municipality of
Anchorage bond packets into the election was not precedent setting
as such coordination had previously occurred. The Municipality has
not, of yet, reimbursed the State for the $90,000 plus expense.
Ms. Glaiser noted that the Division owes the Department of Law
approximately $37,000 for their role connected with the independent
counsel associated with the Senator Scott Ogan recall petition.
This is further detailed in the memorandum [copy on file] from
Kathryn Daughhetee, Director, Administrative Services, Department
of Law, to Lauri Allred, Division of Elections, dated Monday,
January 24, 2005.
Ms. Glaiser commented that the Division conducted two recounts: one
for a District 5 recount at the request of Tim June, one of the
State House of Representatives candidates and a Statewide recount
at the request of Alaskans for a Fair Election. Current State
Statute limits the cost of the bond required by the requester of a
Statewide recount to $10,000 and the cost for a House District
election recount to $750. Both of the requesters paid the required
bond amounts; however the actual costs of the recounts exceeded
$39,000. These recounts were conducted simultaneously to more
efficiently utilize staff and contain costs.
Senator Bunde asked whether the $39,000 expense was the total
recount expense as opposed to being the cost associated with the
Statewide recount.
Ms. Glaiser clarified that $39,000 was the total recount expense.
The bonds, totaling $10,750, were deposited into the General Fund.
Senator Bunde asked the cost attributed to the Statewide recount.
Ms. Glaiser responded that this expense is unavailable as the
recounts were run simultaneously in order to more efficiently
control expenses.
Senator Bunde expressed that the intent of his question was to
ascertain the actual costs of conducting recounts as compared to
the Statutory bond amounts. Therefore, an approximation would be
appreciated.
Ms. Glaiser acknowledged.
Senator Hoffman asked why the recount expenses were three times
higher than anticipated.
Ms. Glaiser clarified that rather than the amount of the bonds
being based on estimation, the amount is specified in State
Statute. The State must conduct a recount "regardless of the cost."
Senator Hoffman asked when these Statutes were last addressed.
Ms. Glaiser did not have that information.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the $39,800 recount expense would be
reduced by the $10,000 and $750 bond payments.
Ms. Glaiser clarified that the Division would absorb the $39,800
expense, as the $10,000 and $750 bonds proceeds were deposited into
the General Fund.
Lieutenant Governor Leman declared that while the recounts were
appropriately conducted, the associated expenses exceeded the
amount of the bonds. The Division conducted an AccuVote machine
recount with hand-count testing of a representative number of
Statewide precincts. This sample testing confirmed that the
AccuVote machines are accurate. The entire recount process was
reasonable; the $39,800 expense is an accurate portrayal of the
cost of conducting such recounts in this State.
Senator Dyson understood that the expenses resulting from the
increase absentee voter requests, the record number of voters, the
petitions as well as the recount process were beyond the control of
the Division. He asked how these "uncontrollable variables" have
historically been addressed.
Ms. Glaiser stated that long-term Division employees have described
her as a "magnet for the unprecedented", as there has never been an
election cycle that included such things as the processing of five
petitions and the record number of absentee ballot requests. "There
is no easy mark to compare it against." The Division's most recent
large supplemental request resulted from reapportionment issue.
Co-Chair Green informed that the current bond level guidelines were
established in State Statutes in 1986.
Senator Hoffman asked for further information regarding the
$304,000 in Personal Costs; specifically as this indicates that the
13 temporary staffers were hired at an average expenditure of
$27,000 each.
Ms. Glaiser clarified that in addition to the wages paid to the 13
temporary staffers, overtime costs for election employees were
included in the total. The amount would provide for FY 05 expenses,
to date.
Senator Hoffman asked for the expense solely attributed to the 13
temporary workers who processed the five petitions.
Ms. Glaiser asked for clarification as to whether the request is
that overtime charges be presented separately from the wages of the
extra temporary employees.
Senator Hoffman asked that a breakout of wages and overtime wages
be developed.
Ms. Glaiser stated that, while this would be a "difficult process,"
this information could be provided.
Senator Hoffman understood therefore that this information, which
would provide justification for the request, is unavailable today.
Ms. Glaiser concurred.
Co-Chair Wilken asked Ms. Glaiser to continue her testimony.
Ms. Glaiser continued that the Division's database is located on
the State's mainframe computer system and that the Division is
charged for this usage. To date, this usage, for such things as
voter registration and petition processing, exceeds normal election
year usage by approximately $26,000.
Ms. Glaiser shared that the high level of absentee voting by mail
resulted in an unanticipated increase in postage expenses. The
Municipality of Anchorage would be reimbursing the State for the
postage expenses associated with its bond packet election.
Ms. Glaiser noted that, in addition to the increase in mailed
ballot voting, there was also an increase in Facsimile voting. As a
result, the Division was required to acquire two additional
Facsimile presses, which provided 16 additional lines. This cost
amounted to $11,700.
Senator Bunde stated that, while the Committee should be excited
were this supplemental request "driven by increased voter
participation," it is essential that more detailed information be
provided. He surmised that the substantial increase in absentee
voters was the result of the political activities affiliated with
party politics. He asked whether the Division could compare the
number of voters who requested absentee ballots to the number of
ballots actually voted.
Ms. Glaiser responded that comparing the number of the absentee
ballots voted to the number requested would be a difficult
calculation as the numbers are "skewed" due to many factors
including that some absentee voters were sent two ballots because
they requested a "special advance ballot" and then they were mailed
the official ballot. Were a person to mail the Division both of
these ballots, only one would be counted. She noted that there was
a 300-percent increase in "special advance ballot" requests. In
addition, some people inadvertently requested an absentee ballot
thinking they had requested a voter registration form, received an
absentee ballot, but voted at their voting precinct. The Division
could provide the exact number of absentee ballots that were
requested and how many were processed. The inability to provide
exact information is "frustrating;" however, "human factors" must
be acknowledged.
Senator Bunde clarified that rather than desiring to know the
reason that ballots were not returned, he is asking for the percent
of requested absentee ballots that were returned.
Ms. Glaiser stated that approximately fifty-percent of the absentee
ballots were mailed back to the Division. However, she stressed
that this number "is skewed" as some people might have received
more than one ballot. Therefore, the numbers must be further
evaluated, as the Division's database does not separate Special
Advance ballots from absentee ballots.
Senator Bunde asked whether the involvement of "partisan political
activity" might have generated some of the absentee ballot
increase. Continuing, he asked whether an absentee ballot request
that is processed through a political party rather than being
individually directed to the Division might incur additional
expenses to the Division.
Ms. Glaiser responded that both major political parties conducted
voter registration drives for this election. Voter registration
drives do incur costs to the State; however, this is viewed "as a
good thing." There were instances in which the voter registration
information was first submitted to the party and then to the State.
This resulted in delays and stress to the Division because some of
the voter registration forms were held for up to a month before
being delivered to the Division. Thus they could not be processed
in a timely manner. In one instance, the Division had to contact
approximately 1,000 people by priority mail to confirm information
on their voter registration form as a party had altered the
application by adhering a sticker to it. The Division did not
separate the costs associated with these efforts by party or per
application as the focus at the time was to get the applications
processed expediently.
Senator Bunde voiced that rather than his comments being critical
of the Division, "the thrust" of his comments was that, were the
action of political parties to generate expenses to the Division of
Elections, he would support a request that the parties reimburse
the Division. However, he applauded the efforts to increase voter
participation.
9:40:37 AM
Lieutenant Governor Leman commented that his Office would be
supporting proposed changes to the process that would address
situations in which unwarranted party activities incurred expenses
to the State. He noted that although the party altering of the
voter registration forms had complied with the Cease and Desist
order he had issued, a number of costs were associated with the
situation including staff time, postage, and the processing of
large batches of registration forms that were delivered. Temporary
employees had to be hired to process them expediently.
Senator Hoffman commented that "obviously" the desire is to
encourage people to vote. He asked how the Division could assure
that the situation in which 2,500 absentee ballots were delayed in
the Juneau post office due to both a lack of postage and an under
count of the number of ballots being delivered, would not re-occur.
Ms. Glaiser reiterated that this is a "human process," and rather
than being a lack of postage, "an accounting error" was made in
filing out the paperwork for the post office. The Division has
acknowledged the error. The Postal Service should also acknowledge
that, on their part, an error was made in that the Division was not
contacted until the following day, even though staff could have
been contacted that day. The Division regrets the mistake.
Senator Hoffman countered that the Postal Clerk stated that both a
lack of postage and a ballot count error were involved.
Lieutenant Governor Leman stated that this was an unfortunate bulk-
mailing mistake. The process is very strict on reconciling the
count of the pieces to the paperwork. He declared that the State,
which is the Post Office's largest customer in Juneau, is good for
the postage and that "it is sad that a lower level Postal employee"
held up the mailing rather than conferring with the Postmaster. It
is agreed that were such an issue to re-occur, the Postmaster would
ultimately make the decision. In summary, two human errors occurred
with the result being that the absentee ballots were not mailed
until the next day. He understood that this situation did not
result in anyone not receiving his or her ballot in time for the
election. It was unfortunate that this occurred and received media
attention.
Senator Hoffman agreed, but understood that there were numerous
complaints about the processing of absentee ballots. He asked
whether the Division could track how many of the delayed ballots
were mailed back to the Division in time for the election.
Lieutenant Governor Leman stated that while he has received fewer
than 20 complaints from people who had not received their ballot in
a time to vote, "one person is too many". The Division would
attempt to perfect the process. Efforts would be made to
investigate how many of the delayed mailings were not delivered in
time.
Senator Olson asked what improvements could be made in order to
avoid unexpected expenses and processing delays in future
elections; perhaps the 1986 bond requirements should be updated.
Lieutenant Governor Leman reiterated that this appropriation
request is not being advanced solely due to problems in the system.
There are a number of things involved, and contrary to media
representation, no mismanagement occurred. Contributing factors to
the request included costs associated with the substantial increase
in new voters, the two recounts and their associated bond levels,
the costs of managing five petitions, and the costs incurred with
conducting concurrent State/local government elections. While the
concurrent election costs would be reimbursed, the Legislature must
appropriate the funds to pay the bills. In addition, the bond level
requirements should be updated to reflect true costs of the
process. He would be willing to further discuss the reprinting of
the ballots and the lessons that could be learned from that
situation.
Senator Olson asked how the Legislature might assist in improving
the process so that the Director and the Division of Elections'
staff not continue to be subject to criticism.
Lieutenant Governor Leman responded that one problematic area is
the time period designated for the receipt of absentee ballet
requests. The current process could be likened to a bell curve with
a large high, preceded and followed by extreme lows as a result of
ballots being batched and processed in a narrow period of time.
Extending the processing timeframe would require fewer temporaries
and allow the Division to be more efficient.
Co-Chair Wilken, referencing the "FY 2005 Division of Elections
Budget Status As of January 24, 2005" spreadsheet provided by the
Division [copy on file], asked for further information regarding
the footnote, "$181,300 in CIP Receipts for Personal Services has
also been reduced for management reporting purposes".
Ms. Glaiser understood that this footnote referred to receipt money
that was removed from the total funding as the result of hiring
only one of two positions involved in furthering The Help America
Vote Act [HAVA]. This funding was from the Election Fund.
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore that the CIP Receipts equated
to federal HAVA funding.
Ms. Glaiser concurred.
Co-Chair Wilken asked for further information regarding the
$187,599 charge under the "73000 Services" "Obligated" column on
the aforementioned spreadsheet.
LYNDA PEREZ, Director, Division of Administrative Services, Office
of the Governor, explained that this category includes anything
that the Division had purchased, but as of yet, has not been
invoiced. This would include the charge-backs for computer
services, Central Mailroom services, phones, and other operating
costs.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the amount consists entirely of
interagency charges or whether outside vendor services are
included.
Ms. Perez would provide that information.
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore that the "7300 Services"
component includes both interagency and outside vendor services.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether it is anticipated that any of the
expenses depicted on the Division's summary sheet might re-occur in
FY 07.
Ms. Glaiser understood the question to be how could the process be
refined in order to allow the Division to remain on budget. She
stated that when budgeting for FY 07, the Division would be mindful
of possible issues that might affect them, but at the same time,
must not over-budget. While some issues are presented early, some
are not. Such things as whether or not Alaskans are serving their
country on foreign soil would also affect absentee numbers.
Therefore the Division would present its best budget estimation.
This election cycle was wrought with "multiple unprecedented
occurrences.
Co-Chair Wilken asked how voter participation in FY 04 compared to
FY 2000 and FY 1996.
Ms. Glaiser stated that she did not have those comparisons with
her. However, voter participation in FY 04 was "the highest ever"
at 66-percent. She noted that while 24,000 voters were purged from
the Voter Registration Rolls, 170,000 new voter applications were
processed in 2004. "Real additional voters … were added to the
process."
Ms. Glaiser stated that the FY 04 comparison to FY 2000 and FY 1996
would be provided.
Co-Chair Green asked for further information as to why the
Division's summary sheet reflects Total additional expenses of
$805,300, the bill designates $694,900 and the aforementioned
spreadsheet depicts expenses of $717,500.
Ms. Glaiser responded that the bill specifies the amount determined
essential to the Division's operation. While the $717,500 amount is
the Division's "honest projection" of expenses, that amount would
be pared back to $694,900. The $805,000 is the "real costs" total;
however, some of that has been absorbed into the Division.
10:01:24 AM
Lieutenant Governor Leman addressed the ballot reprinting issue by
stating that it should not have occurred. He recounted that a group
called "Trust the People," which included three members of the
House of Representatives, formed to further an initiative
pertaining to how the State's vacant Congressional Senate seat
should be filled. At the same time, the Legislature "established by
policy" that a special election would be held to replace a vacant
State Congressional Senate seat. The House and Senate both passed
legislation in this regard, which then went to Conference
Committee. The Chair of the Conference Committee, Representative
Lesil McGuire, asked him, as Lieutenant Governor, for an opinion in
regards to whether the measure language being considered by the
Conference Committee was substantially similar to the
aforementioned Initiative language. The "rationale" being that,
were it deemed "substantially similar", the initiative would be
removed from the ballot. His conclusion, as agreed to by both the
Department of Law and Legislative counsel, "was that it would be
similar, word for word", with the only exception being that the
Conference Committee's language would include a Temporary
Replacement provision that "would allow the Governor to name a
temporary replacement who would serve from the time of the vacancy
until the special election" was held, certified, and the member
seated; this time frame might range from three to approximately six
months. His opinion was presented in writing to the Conference
Committee. There was no discussion in the Conference Committee nor
was there any "dissention" from the Initiative's sponsors. "In
fact, the sponsors voted for the Legislation" as well as for the
Conference Committee Report when it was presented. It became law.
Lieutenant Governor Leman stated that subsequently, he sent a
letter to "Trust the People" notifying them that the Initiative
would be removed from the ballot. They sued on the grounds that it
was not substantially similar. This was viewed as "a direct
confrontation" to himself as Lieutenant Governor as well as to the
action taken by the Legislature. In late August 2004, the Alaska
Supreme Court issued a decision that the Initiative must be
included on the November ballot; with the "ruling to follow". This
decision came at a very busy time, being that it was made one day
prior to the State's August primary election. The Lieutenant
Governor's Office has three days from receipt of the decision to
the time when the language was due to the Division of Election for
printing. State Statutes require that ballot language be submitted
sixty days prior to the date of the election.
Lieutenant Governor Leman concluded that, since the ruling from the
court had not been received and the Special Election issue had been
addressed by the Legislature, were the Initiative placed on the
ballot and adopted, "it would repeal the Temporary Replacement
language". This was discussed with the Department of Law.
Initiative ballot "language was devised that met the test … of
being fair and impartial." The language was provided to the
Division of Elections, posted on the Division's website, and the
ballots were printed. Two weeks later, "Trust the People" objected
to the ballot language and sued over the language and the ballot
title. The Judge agreed, "at least in part", with Trust the People
that the language was inaccurate and biased. "With all due
respect," the Judge was wrong regarding the inaccuracy ruling. She
did not understand the time required to run and certify an
election. In addition, she did not explain her statement that the
language was inaccurate. This election cycle has proved that it
would take approximately an entire month to count ballots and
absentee ballots and certify election results, and, including the
sixty-day prior to an election ballot language requirement it would
require three months to conduct an election. In addition, he did
not support the fact that the Judge's opinion ultimately would
leave the State without Congressional Senate representation during
the time between the Seat's vacancy and the election.
Lieutenant Governor Leman voiced that the Temporary Replacement
provision adopted by the Legislature "struck a happy medium
between" Trust the People's desire to prevent the Governor from
naming the Seat's replacement and "the parties' bosses" naming "in
closed door sessions", the nominees to the seat. The better
approach would be to clearly state what was happening and its
impact. The Judge's decision timing was so close to the election
that it actually jeopardized the delivery of ballots to absentee
ballots. Therefore, rather than challenge the Judge's decision to
the Supreme Court, the State agreed to reprint the ballot with
language that was discussed by Trust the People and the Lieutenant
Governor's Office, and approved by the Court. He voiced that, at
the end, the Court had accepted against continued objection by
Trust the People, the language that had been developed by the
Lieutenant Governor's office. "The irony is" that the outcome of
the election would not have been significantly different were the
original ballot language allowed. However, "tremendous cost to the
State" was incurred in order "to satisfy whatever reason the people
who were bringing this suit" forwarded it. He declared that the
lawsuit was unnecessary and should not have happened. It should be
recognized that Courts "are just like us", they are made up of
people, and judges make their decisions based on their own biases
and backgrounds. What is considered fair and impartial to one
person might appear otherwise to another. He declared that the
original ballot language "was truthful and should have been allowed
to go forward."
Senator Hoffman noted that the backup material contains two
different Personal Services expenses: a June 31, 2005 deficit
depicted as $717,000 in the spreadsheet and the $304,000 depicted
on the Division's memorandum.
Ms. Glaiser clarified that the $304,000 amount depicted on the
memorandum reflects the amount the FY 04 election costs exceeded
the 2002 election cycle cost. The $717,000 amount depicts real and
projected costs that include the $304,000.
Senator Hoffman understood that the $304,000 amount reflects the
increase in Temporary Hire expenses as compared to the FY 02
election budget. He asked that a breakout of the total $618,000 for
Personal Services charge be provided; specifically the expenses
incurred by the hiring of the 13 additional workers.
Senator Dyson stated that the reprinting of the ballots was "an
unfortunate event." In regards to what has been learned and what
could be done in order to preclude this sort of thing from re-
occurring, he asked whether a "formal process" with a finite
timeline should be established through which petitioners could
weight in on the ballot language.
Lieutenant Governor Leman recalled that approximately ten years
prior, a group called "FRANK" gathered signatures for an initiative
relating to campaign finances and contributions. The Legislature
also addressed the issue and, and as a result of the Legislative
process through which issues are discussed and refined, developed a
measure that was similar in nature to the petition, "but corrected
some of the deficiencies in the initiative." FRANK was able to
participate in this process, accepted the end product as being
substantially similar, and did not contest the legislature. In the
FY 04 situation, one of the sponsors of the 2004 Initiative was on
the Conference Committee and had not objected to the language at
either the Conference Committee or the Floor proceeding. Therefore,
it was assumed that the language was acceptable.
Lieutenant Governor Leman stated that had he known the Court was
going to apply a different standard than what had done before, in
that the Legislature should have adopted language that was exactly
the same, then his advice to the Legislature would have been, "If
you want this to come off the ballot, then pass it in a different
format, deal with the other issue later." Another consideration is
that the Lieutenant Governor's Office could implement an informal
review process that would include proponents and opponents; whose
comments would be taken into consideration by the Lieutenant
Governor in regards to the proposed ballot language.
10:19:47 AM
Lieutenant Governor Leman shared that former Lieutenant Governor
Fran Ulmer had called him when he was a Senator regarding the
wording of several different ballot initiatives she had developed.
While he had "differed with her" on the initiative wording, and
stated that it was "not a fair characterization of the language",
she chose not to accept his language, and he chose not to challenge
her position as Lieutenant Governor to write the language.
Senator Dyson asked whether there should there be "a date certain"
formal process in which petitioners could weight in on whether the
Legislature's effort was substantially the same as the petition as
well as whether the ballot language was substantially the same.
Were their challenge presented after a specific date, "their
objections would be precluded." This would assist in avoiding the
situation that recently occurred.
Lieutenant Governor Leman commented that, "that would probably be a
fine thing to do." He quoted former Legislator Ramona Barnes who
had stated that, "All you have here as Legislators is your trust."
If it were believed that someone would not honor a trust agreement,
then this would be good public policy. This would still allow,
according to Statute, the Lieutenant Governor to continue "to have
deference in writing the language. Even the Court agrees with
that." A formal review process "would help eliminate situations
like this in the future."
Senator Dyson understood that "the Administration would not be
initiating legislation to formalize this process."
Lieutenant Governor Leman responded that while it might not be
submitted as a Governor's bill, were the Legislature to propose it,
the Administration would work to further it. He allowed that his
advice to the Governor had been to reduce the number of Governor's
bills.
Senator Bunde understood that the final ballot language was similar
to the original language. He warned that even were a formal review
process developed, it might not preclude a third party from suing.
He avowed that the purpose of the 2004 lawsuit was to "perpetuate
headlines" as well as to change actual language.
Lieutenant Governor Leman responded that numerous conclusions could
be reached in regards to what the motivations were. He read from a
letter he had sent to Representative Eric Croft, one of the
sponsors of the Initiative [copy not provided] as follows. "I am
reticent to question your motives because I do not like it when you
question mine. However, when I look at your entire track record on
this initiative, I conclude that you could be more interested in
politicizing this initiative rather than enacting good public
policy."
Senator Hoffman asked regarding the urgency of this particular
legislation; specifically whether other fast track supplemental
legislation would be forthcoming. He questioned how not fast-
tracking this legislation would affect the Division.
Co-Chair Wilken responded that this legislation is on "a very fast
track" as the Division's funding would conclude at end of February.
Presenting this appropriation as a single item would allow it to
move forward without being "entangled" with other issues. Other
fast track legislation would be forthcoming.
10:27:47 AM
Senator Hoffman understood therefore that this legislation is on a
real fast track.
Co-Chair Wilken concurred.
Senator Hoffman asked regarding the Department of Law's legal costs
that are included in the bill.
Lieutenant Governor Leman responded that the legal costs were
associated with the independent legal counsel relating to the
Senator Scott Ogan recall.
Co-Chair Green moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations.
There being no objection, SB 62 REPORTED from Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|