Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/16/1994 01:40 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced HB 254 (OPEN MEETING ACT) to the committee and explained a work draft was still being written. He invited SENATOR LITTLE to move the committee substitute and offer amendments for discussion purposes. SENATOR LITTLE moved to adopt the SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 254(JUD) (8-LSO859\Q). Without objections, so ordered. SENATOR TAYLOR asked SENATOR LITTLE if the committee substitutes had been distributed to the LIO's, and she said the bills had been circulated. She acknowledged the work done by the League of Women Voters, the Alaska Municipal League, the University of Alaska, and representatives from the newspapers to come up with the latest committee substitute, and she praised the groups for putting so much time and effort into this very important issue. Number 047 SENATOR LITTLE began by reviewing the changes to the latest committee substitute beginning with page 2, line 16, which adds and d with specificity to require some specificity given insofar as the subject for which an executive session is called. On page 3, lines 1 and 2, by law is added to require that government records are not ot subject to public disclosure. SENATOR LITTLE proceeded with page 3, lines 14 through 17, to explain this takes care of a concern by the University of Alaska. Since the University is not covered by the State Personnel Act, a tenure review committee needs to meet in executive session. On lines 21 through 22 of page 3, she explained why but only if no action is taken and no business of the governmental body is conducted at the meetings was added. Number 096 SENATOR LITTLE referred to page 4, lines 3 through 8, to explain this language provides an administrative remedy for a possible violation of the Open Meetings Act. SENATOR TAYLOR asked that she read the additional language, and she further explained it would allow the public entity to correct any wrong doing before going to court. If it does go to court, three mitigating factors on page 4 in paragraphs (7) and (8) and paragraph (9) on page 5 could be used. On page 5, lines 22 through 24, SENATOR LITTLE explained the definition of a "meeting" has been rewritten and provides that three people, who are members of a body, so long as they are not a quorum of that body, can meet without noticing their meeting. If more than three people are meeting, they are not allowed to consider a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act. SENATOR TAYLOR asked for an expanded explanation of this paragraph. Number 152 Finally, SENATOR LITTLE referred to page 5, lines 22 through 24 and explained the changes made are to be construed narrowly. She said it referred to subsection (c) on line 24 of page 2 and subsection (d), which is on line 4 at the top of page 3. She emphasized those sections should be construed narrowly to minimize executive sessions. SENATOR TAYLOR questioned whether a city council would be allowed to discuss matters with the city attorney in executive session. SENATOR LITTLE said the city attorney would be allowed to discuss matters in executive session, but they cannot act upon them. She understood within the legislation an attorney can meet with the governmental body on page 2, line 21. There was some discussion of the provision and placement in the bill. SENATOR LITTLE also explained in the last two days, a great deal of work has gone into this "latest and greatest" committee substitute, and she praised all the groups that participated in the extended conferences as being supportive of this legislation and much better than last year. It was considered a good compromise piece of legislation, and she said those groups were present to support the bill. She commended the time spent by the groups during the interim to work out the bugs in the issue. Number 203 SENATOR LITTLE said the participants from the League of Women Voters and the Alaska Municipal League would like to represent themselves regarding their part in the last several days, and SENATOR TAYLOR agreed to their request. SENATOR TAYLOR led a brief discussion among the members about the changes in the committee substitute and explained the executive branch has never been construed to have been required to meet this requirement. He asked if the committee intended to include the executive branch of the public entity in reference to lines 14 through 17 on page 3, and SENATOR LITTLE answered,"no, only solely the employees." They continued to discuss this section. SENATOR TAYLOR said, since there were a large number of those wishing to testify, he would ask each person to limit their testimony to no more than two minutes per person. First to testify was GORDON TANS from Anchorage. Number 251 MR. TANS, a municipal attorney, gave some history on municipal cases involving the Open Meetings Act between 1980 and 1984. He said it has become a very powerful tool to attack substantive decisions made by local governments and costing in excess of millions of dollars in public funds. MR. TANS claims local governments are willing to conduct their business in eyes of the public, but he suggested the act should be constructed carefully to prevent the waste of money. He thought there were factors that could be considered by the court such as a reasonable statute of limitations that would allow the court to undo actions that were done in violation of the policy and spirit of the Open Meetings Act. Number 286 MR. TANS thought the most important controversial question under the act is the definition of a meeting, and he talked about how many people could constitute a meeting. He said the supreme court had indicated a willingness to go along with that in the recent Hickel v. Southeast Conference case. SENATOR TAYLOR questioned MR. TANS on what he considered the statute of limitations to be on an action brought under this section as amended under the committee substitute. MR. TANS referred SENATOR TAYLOR to Section 6 on page 4, Subsection (f) on lines 1 through three and thought the 180 days as mentioned would be correct. SENATOR TAYLOR turned to the list of prospective people to testify in Juneau and invited KENT SWISHER employed by the Alaska Municipal League. MR. SWISHER asked that he be accompanied by ROSEMARY HAGIVIG, State President for the League of Women Voters of Alaska. MR. SWISHER began by expressing appreciation to SENATOR TAYLOR and SENATOR LITTLE for their long hard work on the legislation. He also indicated their strong support for HB 254, and although there were a few reservations, they would rather have the bill than moan about minor problems with the language. MR. SWISHER praised the progress through the meetings and said the latest committee substitute represents a reasonable and balanced approach that have been seen by the committee working on the act. MS. HAGIVIG thanked the committee for holding the hearing and making it available over the teleconference network. She explained the League of Women Voters worked over the interim with the Alaska Municipal League, Alaska Association of School Boards, the University of Alaska, and the Alaska Press Club - extensively and exhaustively. MS. HAGIVIG described a number of drafts written during that period with the primary interest of the League in good government and open government. She agreed with MR. SWISHER there could be some fine tuning on the bill, but felt this recent committee substitute meets the concerns expressed in the final days of the 1993 legislative session. She urged the support of the Judiciary Committee. Number 345 SENATOR TAYLOR turned the teleconference to Barrow to hear from DONALD LONG, the mayor. MR. LONG agreed with the latest committee substitute and stressed the need to clarify the Open Meetings Act as it applies to local municipalities. He explained the problems he saw in having special meetings, people serving on several different boards and councils together, and the reluctance by people to run for public office for fear of being sued for violations under the Open Meetings Act. He thought the legislation would do much to clear up this confusion and should be looked upon favorably. SENATOR TAYLOR praised JOHN MCKAY for playing a significant role throughout the legislative process, and asked him to comment on behalf of the press club. MR. MCKAY echoed MS. HAGIVIG'S comments of appreciation on the long, difficult sessions of working on the act by all the parties, and he thought it had resulted in a better piece of legislation. He choose to focus on a couple of concerns to the members. The first concern was the definition of a meeting, and he opined that nearly everyone had agreed on more than three members except for the Press Club and the Alaska Newspaper Association. He said the dissidents would still like to see the committee consider an amendment that would change that to two rather than three. MR. MCKAY explained they have supported all along the proposition that two people ought to be able to get together notwithstanding a ruling from the Alaska Supreme Court. He further explained the policy should be changed to include two or more because it is an issue that comes more from the rural members from the smaller newspapers around the state. He described the quorum problem for such areas. Number 398 MR. MCKAY suggested, in reference to page 5, subsection (g) line 8, subparagraph (B), an addition after make recommendations directly to another governmental body of words such as public officials, and d he explained his reasons. He was concerned the present language would exempt commissions and task forces appointed by mayors or the governor. MR. MCKAY agreed with objection by other groups to the waste of public funds such as the Cordova suit, and he thought it had to do with the elimination of personal liability. He said their concern was more with the public process rather than suits to void action. Lastly, MR. MCKAY expressed concern about the notice provision and the recording of executive sessions, which were issues that have been asked to be included from other parts of the state. Again, he expressed appreciation for the effort, which has gone into the legislation, and the changes made. He offered to continue to work on the project. SENATOR TAYLOR expressed concern the recommendations made by MR. MCKAY were those in which he didn't prevail in the consensus of the construction of the bill. He thought an equally long list of concerns by other groups such as the ACLU or the Municipal Attorney's Association. He asked MR. MCKAY if he could live with the current bill. Number 444 MR. MCKAY described the many other ideas that were not considered in the legislation, but his main concern was with the definition of the number of people constituting a meeting. He explained there were many things they had agreed not to raise about the legislation to the committee. SENATOR LITTLE asked to relay some discussion about these points brought up by MR. MCKAY, beginning with the recording of executive sessions, which is not currently required, but engendered a number of additional questions about the procedure. Because there seemed to be no resolution of the problems, she said it was decided not to include it. SENATOR LITTLE said the same thing happened with the notice, and she thought MR. MCKAY had hope to adopt a consistent noticing requirement, where the public entity would have to notice in the same fashion every time there was a meeting. She described the impact of the guidelines requested by MR. MCKAY as being too difficult for some communities to comply with the requirement. In discussion of the two or three members present, SENATOR LITTLE said the working group thought it reasonable to have three people meet so long as they do not constitute a quorum of the body they represent. She acknowledged the concerns on this point and said there was some considerable dissention. MR. MCKAY returned to the propose amendment to add "officers" to the place cited in reference to page 5, subsection (g) line 8, subparagraph (B), after make recommendations directly to another governmental body to cover governor and mayor's task forces are covered. Number 494 SENATOR TAYLOR explained, as chairman of the committee, he did not intend to entertain additional amendments until after the testimony has been presented. He explained proposing amendments limiting mayors, borough assembly members, or the governor would get him a fast veto. MR. MCKAY said he was not trying to control cabinet meetings, but he did think there were some in the administration that would be covered by the Open Meetings Act. He continued to present his arguments in the area of governmental bodies. Next, SENATOR TAYLOR called on RON DRATHMAN, who expressed some concerns with the definition of meetings. He used the example of the Homer City Council, where the mayor only votes to break a deadlock, and asked if this would permit three members of the city council to meet with the mayor, who is not a member of the city council in private. SENATOR TAYLOR clarified he meant there were four people meeting in private to discuss city business, and MR. DRATHMAN described the makeup of the Homer assembly. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if it would take four members of the assembly to make a quorum, and MR. DRATHMAN explained the mayor only voted in the event of a split vote. SENATOR TAYLOR thought the limiting language at the end of the new amended version says all exceptions shall be construed narrowly. He said a narrow construction would not allow the mayor, , who actually votes, upon casting a vote, he becomes a member. SENATOR TAYLOR claimed MR. DRATHMAN'S hypothetical would be a violation of the act. MR. DRATHMAN thanked all parties that worked on the bill and gave his support. SENATOR TAYLOR explained he would have staff get a legal opinion on MR. DRATHMAN'S questions about the voting structure of the Homer Assembly. Number 545 Next, SENATOR TAYLOR went to Valdez to JEANNE DONALD, who agreed with previous testimony, and favors the bill. Also from Valdez, was DOUG GRIFFIN, City Manager thanked everyone who worked on the legislation, including SENATOR TAYLOR and SENATOR LITTLE. He spoke in support of the aspects of the bill that enable the administrators, managers, and staff to do a good job for the people they serve. He praised them for their strong spirit of public service. SENATOR TAYLOR went to the Kenai/Soldotna Teleconference site next to hear from JOAN BENNETT-SCHRADER, testifying on behalf of the Coalition of Labor Union Women, and she indicated she had the latest draft only within the last two hours, so she was not prepared to comment. She did raise the 180 days issue in relation to drafting a challenge, and said she would be sending a written opinion after she read the bill. She suggested the legislature think more in terms of who is Alaska, and secondly, who benefits. SENATOR TAYLOR next called on GLENN SCHRADER from the same site. MR. SCHRADER, representing the Kenai Peninsula Central Labor Council, agreed with his wife that the bill was not sent in a timely manner. He said their main concern was that the Alaska Municipal League, a publicly financed meeting, closed their meetings by charging admission to other than their members. He felt that because public money was involved, there was a direct violation of the Open Meetings Act. SENATOR LITTLE suggested MR. SCHRADER look at page 3, lines 21 and 22, at the exceptions to the Open Meetings Act. She read to him the section she thought applied to his concern, and directed his attention to the exception on lines 20 through 22, but only if no action is taken and no business of the governmental body is conducted at the meetings. MR. SCHRADER thanked SENATOR LITTLE for r her remarks, and promised to read over the bill. TAPE 94-17, SIDE B Number 001 SENATOR TAYLOR moved on to Fairbanks to hear testimony from VALERIE THERRIEN, a member of the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly. MS. THERRIEN testified in favor of the bill with only one question in regards to the latest committee substitute in Section 4 and asked about some omitted language. SENATOR LITTLE answered it was a consensus of the groups, and she said it was felt these meetings are acceptable so long as there is no quorum of members meeting with the elected officials. She said there was no real purpose to not have the meetings open to the public. MS. THERRIEN said she had introduced a resolution which would support passage of legislation, which would favor the version that would allow three or more members who could meet and not be in violation of the Open Meetings Act. She said the assembly wanted the Open Meetings Act to apply to the legislature, too. SENATOR TAYLOR asked that she fax (465-3922) their resolutions to him. Also in Fairbanks, was DAVID STANNARD, who introduced himself as an individual citizen, who was not familiar with the proposed committee substitute. He explained he was a member of a sub- committee, which is advisory to a committee which is advisory to the borough assembly, and offered his perspective as a public volunteer. MR, STANNARD said he was disturbed about the present circumstances which prohibits him from talking to anyone else on the working committee about any business in between the publicly scheduled meetings. He claimed he had 50 years of committee work and he felt constrained at not being able to talk to committee members in between for informational purposes or speculating purposes. Number 042 MR. STANNARD wondered if the committee substitute was going to change that condition, and he suggested separating all advisory bodies from the decision making bodies. SENATOR LITTLE said his testimony exemplifies why a bill is needed. She said considerable discussion had gone into what committees should required to meet the notification parts of the bill, and she asked members of the committee to assist in the definition. SENATOR LITTLE thought the definition of a governmental body takes care of MR. STANNARD'S concerns which reads: "A governmental body basically includes the members of a sub-committee or other subordinate unit of a governmental body if the subordinate unit consists of two or more members." SENATOR LITTLE said there was no intent to get to the sub-committee of a sub-committee, etc. to require very low levels of operations be open, and she asked MS. HAGIVIG to add to the explanation. MS. HAGIVIG explained sub-committees of sub-committees were included, but she said they felt the definition of a meeting in permitting three people to meet together would take care of his concern. SENATOR TAYLOR clarified that up to three members of a city council be members of a task force or an advisory group and not be required to comply with the Open Meetings Act. MS. HAGIVIG said that was true unless the task force or advisory group were reporting back to the city council, so they would be subject to the Open Meetings Act. MS. HAGIVIG referred back to MR. STANNARD'S example of sub- committee, which she thought was probably made up strictly of local citizens, and any three of his sub-committee could get together and discuss issues from the committee. SENATOR TAYLOR clarified that every sub-committees would be subject to the Open Meetings Act, and SENATOR LITTLE read the part which addresses his question: "A governmental body means an assembly, council, board, commission, committee with the authority to make recommendations directly to another governmental body, authorized to take action on a matter." She continued to explain if the first sub-committee down cannot take action, then the sub-committee of that sub-committee is not required to notice their meetings. Number 095 SENATOR TAYLOR thought what she said made sense but the law didn't, and he quoted that any sub-committee that is appointed by the mayor or city council, that doesn't have a single elected person on it, but is going to make an advisory recommendations on a task force, is going to have to comply with the Open Meetings Act, but only if they report or make an advisory recommendation to a council, who can act upon the subject. Both SENATOR LITTLE and MS. HAGIVIG said he was correct, and they reviewed the provisions of the Open Meetings Act in relation to his example. SENATOR LITTLE noted there were considerable discussions about the subject, and in considering MR. MCKAY'S suggestion to include "or public official" on line 8 of page 5, she said they came up with a scenario of SENATOR LITTLE requesting several constituents to get together meet on an issue to answer some problem. If the legislation contained his suggestion of including public officials, her constituents would have to give public notice of their meeting. SENATOR LITTLE said she understood the concerns of everyone involved and would be glad to work with anyone to reach a resolution of that concern. MR. STANNARD opined that the effort to legislative in such detail all the way down into local businesses is a grave mistake, and he thought the legislature would be better off to establish guidelines for everyone who was a committee member in any kind of public body. He thought the committee was making a severe mistake to try to legislate from the top down in this much detail. MR STANNARD also thought it was coming out of a no faith approach and legislators were responding to the kind of cynical pressure that non-involved citizens are making on legislators. He suggested the committee think about how far they wanted to go in micro- managing constitutional rights. Number 144 SENATOR LITTLE answered with a reference to the language on page 5, lines 5 through 11, saying she thought it would meet his concern. She said it basically requires that if the sub-committee is reporting to a body that cannot make a decision, that sub-committee meeting does not have to be noticed; however, if that sub-committee meets and reports to a body that does make a decision on their recommendations, their meetings would have to be held in the open. Additionally, on lines 12 through 15, SENATOR LITTLE noted the definition of a meeting as "more than three members or a majority of the members ... of a governmental body." She said MR. STANNARD would be able to discuss with his sub-committee members, at least three of them, the issues before them without noticing the meeting. SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. STANNARD to send him a list of his ideas and recommendations. They discussed a time line for submitting his recommendations, and SENATOR TAYLOR complimented him for his involvement and comments. SENATOR LITTLE corrected her previous remarks to MR. STANNARD by explaining he could meet with two other sub-committee members. SENATOR TAYLOR asked for some legal answers to questions ask by MR. STANNARD on page 5, beginning with line 6 where a governmental body could "make recommendations directly to another governmental body authorized to take action on the matter that is the subject of the recommendations." SENATOR TAYLOR questioned whether a task force was a governmental body, and he gave some examples such as making recommendations to a chamber of commerce. He questioned the restrictiveness of the governmental body. Number 185 SENATOR LITTLE explained the Open Meetings Act would not apply to a chamber of commerce since it isn't a public entity, but she did defer to TAMARA COOK, Director of the Division of Legal Services to answer SENATOR TAYLOR'S questions. MS. COOK said SENATOR TAYLOR'S questions were well chosen, but she contended the Open Meetings Act would only apply to a governmental body of a public entity. She explained they must be in conjunction before they trigger the statute as a whole, and she told SENATOR TAYLOR he was correct in assuming the definition in Section 7, paragraph (1), would pick up the chamber of commerce, but she referred to the lead sentence of the Open Meetings Act which indicates it must be "a governmental body of a public entity." She suggested the committee needs to look to the definition of "public entity." SENATOR TAYLOR said her information was helpful to MR. STANNARD, since he would not be required to comply under this law. She explained it is correct if it is established by action of a political body such as the legislature passing a resolution to establish a task force, but the fact it is comprised of citizens does not save it from the open meetings statute. MS. COOK explained at that point there is an interesting question of whether or not such a task force comes under the Open Meetings Act. She speculated in addition we have the curiosity in paragraph (1) which says if such a task force is advisory in nature it is covered if the advice that it gives is to another governmental entity that can give advice or make decisions for a public entity. She described this as a chain of groups that could qualify as a governmental body of public entity which triggers the open meeting statute. SENATOR TAYLOR used an example of the Juneau Assembly as appointing the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) as a task force, which would then open up their meetings to public scrutiny under the Open Meetings Act. MS. COOK explained he was correct only to the point where they were functioning as a task force, after which they could resume being a private organization and close their meetings. Number 343 SENATOR TAYLOR declared once so appointed, if they ever met and attempted to come forth and advise the community about their thoughts, SEACC would have to show they did so in compliance with the Open Meetings Act. MS. COOK said they would unless they could demonstrate they were not functioning as a task force at the time they gave the advice. There was some raillery among the committee members to open up the editorial board of the Anchorage Daily News on this, too. MS. COOK also said an entity that is appointed can also decline the appointment. MS. COOK said if the may appointed a group of citizens to report back to the mayor, not to a council, the mayor will not qualify as a governmental body. That group would be outside of the open meetings statute. SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. STANNARD and turned to the Mat-Su teleconference site to hear from ERNIE LINE, who introduced himself as an old sheep hunter. MR. LINE explained when he was in doubt about the curl of the horn, he didn't shoot, and he thought if these people have doubts about whether they are meeting illegally, then don't meet. He referred to page 2 to suggest a larger number than a simple majority of legislators meeting in executive session, particularly when it has to do with finances. MR. LINE asked if the state owned any hospitals, and SENATOR TAYLOR explained hospitals were exempt on page 3, line 10. He confirmed to MR. LINE hospitals need not be concerned with the Open Meetings Act. SENATOR TAYLOR explained the open meetings statute as decided by the supreme court applies to the legislature, but it can't be enforced. In the course of their discussion, SENATOR TAYLOR said he would rather see no government rather than one so hamstrung it can't operate. Number 310 SENATOR LITTLE suggested MR. LINE'S concerns were relative to the Open Meetings Act applying to the legislature, and she explained the ethics committee has been charged with trying to figure out how to apply the Open Meetings Act to the legislature. She invited MR. LINE to send his suggestions and recommendations. MR. LINE asked if it could be done by way of the public opinion messages, and SENATOR TAYLOR said his message could be sent to him. He would see it reached the ethics committee. SENATOR TAYLOR next called on DONNA FISCHER in Valdez. MS. FISCHER felt strongly the act must be defined to allow governments to get on with their business without being afraid of lawsuits. SENATOR TAYLOR turned to Haines, and was told there were three people, the first being BONNIE HEDRICK from the Chilkat Valley News. MS. HEDRICK testified in support of the number of members that qualify for a meeting as described by JOHN MCKAY. She said in Haines, there were only six members on the city council and borough assembly, and she didn't think three members should be allowed to discuss and develop consensus on an issue out side the public eyes. She said it would detract from a discussion that takes place in public sessions and removes a large chunk of the important public process from the public eye. She also expressed concern about provisions to allow action to be taken during an executive session, and the difficulty in contesting this irregularity. Number 352 RAYMOND MENAKER introduced himself as a member of the Haines Borough Assembly, but testifying as a private person. He said he didn't have much difficulty in doing deliberations in public among the rest of the members, and he thought it is nice to be able to talk to a member, so the number ought to be three members rather than more than three. SENATOR LITTLE questioned the quorum established for their public body, and he replied it was four assembly members. She explained her reasons for asking about his suggestion of three members, and said she understood his concerns. Number 383 Last to speak from Haines, was CLAIR SOLIMAN. MS. SOLIMAN took issue with SENATOR TAYLOR on her perception of the number of days involved in getting a notice of legislation to the teleconference site. SENATOR TAYLOR confirmed she was looking at the March 16th fax, but he had difficulty in helping her understand the notification process used by the teleconference network. He carefully outlined the process and assured her no one was trying to prevent her from testifying on the bill, and he said the bill would be scheduled for another meeting. SENATOR LITTLE commended the explanation made by SENATOR TAYLOR, and she tried to assure MS. SOLIMAN that every effort has been made to get information out to people - and will continue to do so during the deliberations of the issue. Number 451 MS. SOLIMAN launched into a long dialogue about amendments, the seven day notice, the definition of a meeting, the end results and a decision, freedom of speech, and the rights of the people. Number 497 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MS. SOLIMAN for her comments and moved on to Anchorage to hear from LORRA KEENAN. MS. KEENAN, in discussion of a recall action in Anchorage, questioned the use of E-mail as notice. When SENATOR TAYLOR asked for her reference, she quoted it from a memorandum of March 10, 1994, Section 5, : "the notice may be given in any reasonable manner". SENATOR LITTLE asked if she was referring to page 3, lines 28 through 30, and MS. KEENAN said it was from a memorandum. She described a recall against school board members which used E-Mail to put out recall notices. MS. KEENAN wanted to send some information on what the court system is doing on the Open Meetings Act and what the legislature is doing on the Open Meetings Act. SENATOR LITTLE explained MR. MCKAY, of the Alaska Press Club, has proposed some language that was considered about notice, and she read the lengthy, specific language as proposed by MR. MCKAY. She said the language had been considered, but no agreement was reached on including it in the committee substitute. Number 584 MS. KEENAN complained the legislation upsets her civil rights, and she referred to a lawsuit in which she is involved. SENATOR LITTLE clarified she was saying her civil rights were being jeopardized by the use of E-Mail, and MS. KEENAN said it was because E-Mail has no geographical boundary. She didn't agree that MR. MCKAY'S language helped, either. TAPE 94-18, SIDE A Number 001 Next to testify was the president of the Alaska Municipal League, JOHN TORGERSON. MR. TORGERSON wanted to know if there was anything in this bill that would stop a municipality from adopting an ordinance that would be more restrictive than the terms of the bill, and he wanted to respond to the concerns of the Haines Borough. SENATOR LITTLE thought any body could make a more restrictive ordinance, which would apply only to their own meetings. MR. TORGERSON thought she was correct, but he wanted to enter the thought into everyone's mind. He thought some of the problems could be handled by local ordinance. Number 043 In conclusion, MR. TORGERSON thanked SENATOR LITTLE and MS. HAGIVIG for their work on the bill, as well as others, including SENATOR TAYLOR for hearing the bill. SENATOR TAYLOR returned the testimony to Juneau to hear WENDY REDMAN, Vice-President for University Relations for the University of Alaska. MS. REDMAN noted one point in the bill where JOHN MCKAY brought up some issues they agreed to disagree upon, and she directed attention to Section 7 on page 5, line 12 with the removal of "prearranged" in the definition of a "meeting." She claimed to the University it was the most significant issue, and she explained it as a crucial piece in trying to define a meeting. MS. REDMAN described governing board members as friends, relatives, and co-workers, and she said these individuals need to be free to carry on normal personal and professional lives, without the constant fear of appearing to be in conflict. SENATOR TAYLOR asked where the word would fit, and she explained it is on line 12, following "meeting" means a (prearranged) gathering... MS. REDMAN said she recognized it as a significant difference, and she described long discussions on this with the working group. She explained in terms of consensus, the University lost on this issue, but she felt that since MR. MCKAY brought back an issue, so could she. SENATOR TAYLOR called on BILL COFFMAN testifying OFFNET from the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. MR. COFFMAN said he was calling to support MS. REDMAN, but he thought she was doing fine. He suggested some additional language after the word "prearranged" which would further change the intent of the paragraph. SENATOR LITTLE explained that was the language in the previous work draft, and she further explained considerable discussion was under- taken regarding this definition. She said the word "prearranged" and "for the purpose of considering," were seen as shields under which a group could meet and discuss business in private. SENATOR LITTLE maintained that in order to have a clear definition, the new language is better, and she gave some examples of how the changes could allow public matters to be discussed in private situations. Number 145 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked SENATOR LITTLE for her explanation, but he gave examples of how people in social gatherings deliberately approach other people about business or political concerns. He described how difficult it would be to keep people from grilling other people in a social gathering. In his position he thought it was a valuable part of being accessible to the public. MR. MCKAY interjected his views given by SENATOR TAYLOR, who gave him a dose of frustrations at the attempts to distance public officials from any communication within their community relative to information they need to make decisions. SENATOR TAYLOR moved on to JEFF BUSH, testifying on behalf of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union. Number 203 MR. BUSH spoke to the word "three" before members, on line 13 of page 5, to say the Alaska Civil Liberties Union would support MR. MCKAY and the press in having the number reduced more than two, or three or more, as opposed to three. Otherwise, the ACLU supports the legislation and see it pass. SENATOR TAYLOR told MR. BUSH he appreciated the candor of his comments throughout the process. SENATOR TAYLOR next went to the Kenai/Soldotna teleconference site to hear from PEGGY MULLEN. MS. MULLEN expressed her belief the latest committee substitute is better than the bill of last year, but she was still concerned at the avoidance of public notice by public officials. She thought there should be ways to open up the process, and she repeated criticism about the governmental process. She thought open meeting were part of this criticism and outreach should be a particular effort on the part of elected officials. MS. MULLEN expressed some concerns at the language on line 21 of page 3, and asked why public officials are so possessive of these sort of meetings. She described a visit by the attorney general to a meeting in Soldotna, at which there was hardly any seating for the public. She quote JANET RENO on an expansion of the Freedom of Information Act in the Justice Department, and she urged the legislators to err on the side of openness in their meetings. Number 255 MS. MULLEN suggested elected officials go out of their way to erase the perception people have that the officials are sneaking around doing things behind their back. SENATOR TAYLOR protested MS. MULLEN'S perception that elected official deny access. He described being at the Soldotna meeting and didn't remember anyone being denied access to the meeting. He said he would have been offended if anyone was denied access to such a meeting. SENATOR TAYLOR claimed the doors of government are open much wider today than they have ever been before, and he commented on the number of reports he hears every morning for all kinds of meetings. SENATOR TAYLOR described the good old days as not being so open, and he thought the legislation was being inclusive rather than exclusive. He urged MS. MULLEN to encourage her elected officials to go to all of the available meetings and not be fearful they might be illegal meetings. Number 308 SENATOR LITTLE thought PEGGY MULLEN'S comments were well taken. She hoped the Alaska Municipal League would reconsider their policy regarding their annual meetings, and at the situation described by MS. MULLEN, people did feel excluded. They could only attend if they were willing to pay the entire fee, and SENATOR LITTLE told MS. MULLEN she hoped the committee was getting to where she would like the committee to be on the legislation. SENATOR TAYLOR next called on CARL ROSE testifying in Juneau. MR. ROSE identified himself as the Executive Director of the Alaska Association of School Boards. MR. ROSE put the association on record as supporting HB 254, and said they were grateful for the definition of terms and the clarification of the process. He spoke to the subject of executive sessions from the stand point of a school district as being one of form as well as legal exposure. MR. ROSE listed the issue of negotiations and legal affairs as being executive functions. With the ability to extract information from a group of people, he thought it important to allow for the opportunity to answer questions, to be informed, and to allow for focused directions. He thought all of this should be done in executive session free of any political influence or legal liability to all persons present. He spoke in appreciation of the issues presented by MS. REDMAN on prearranged meetings, and he explained his reasons because of close relationships among members of a school board. The Anchorage teleconference site noted there were two people still to testify, KRISTE LOWER and CHARLES MCKEE. Number 351 SENATOR TAYLOR called on MS. LOWER, who began with some background information on a recall hearing in Anchorage with accusations against four assembly members and two school board members, with what thought to be an attempt to thwart the public such as alerting the public only on E-Mail less than 24 hours prior to the meeting in a very small office. She described this process leading up to 14 parents being sued by the Municipality for bringing culpable information forward about the posTing of the meeting. MS. LOWER referred to information on posting in Section 5, page 3, lines 24 through 30 indicating the public notice of a meeting maybe given in any reasonable manner. She thought it should be more restrictive in defining the type of manner, and she outlined how she thought the posting should have been done. SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MS. LOWER for her testimony and explained the committee was working on possible language to take care of the problem. He indicated agreement with SENATOR LITTLE that E-Mail would not be adequate notification process. CHARLES MCKEE, a candidate for mayor of Anchorage, protested some language that SENATOR LITTLE said had been removed. SENATOR TAYLOR discussed with the committee what he considered interesting points from the testimony and he proposed to hold the bill in committee. He thanked SENATOR LITTLE and praised the committee that worked with her on the legislation.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|