Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/07/1997 08:19 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 1997
8:19 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivan Ivan, Chairman
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Al Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Reggie Joule
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 164
"An Act providing that employment as a legislator or with the
National Education Association is not credited service under the
teachers' retirement system; prohibiting membership in the
teachers' retirement system for holders of limited certificates;
removing teachers holding limited certificates to teach Alaska
Native language or culture from membership in the teachers'
retirement system; and repealing a provision permitting members of
the teachers' retirement system to count unused sick leave credit
as credited service."
- HEARD AND HELD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 212
"An Act relating to determination of an established village for
purposes of regulating the sale, use, and possession of alcoholic
beverages in the unorganized borough; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 212 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 164
SHORT TITLE: TEACHERS RETIREMENT: ELIGIB. & SICK LEAVE
BILL VERSION: SSHB 164
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/27/97 510 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/97 510 (H) CRA, HES, STATE AFFAIRS
03/10/97 607 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
03/10/97 607 (H) CRA, HES, STATE AFFAIRS
03/12/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/12/97 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/19/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/19/97 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/02/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/02/97 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/07/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 212
SHORT TITLE: LOCAL OPTION BOUNDARIES FOR VILLAGES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KUBINA,Dyson
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/25/97 827 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/25/97 828 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY
03/27/97 882 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
04/04/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/04/97 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/07/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/07/97 (H) CRA RPT 2DP 3NR
04/07/97 (H) DP: DYSON, KOOKESH
04/07/97 (H) NR: OGAN, RYAN, IVAN
04/07/97 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCRA)
04/07/97 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 13
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3719
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 164
DENNIS LODGE, Instructor
Alaska Vocational Technical Center
P.O. Box 889
Seward, Alaska 99664
Telephone: (907) 224-3322
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 164
MEL JONES, Diesel Instructor
Alaska Vocational Technical Center
P.O. Box 3634
Seward, Alaska 99664
Telephone: (907) 224-8713
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 164
ROGER HOHL, Welding and Aluminum Instructor
Alaska Vocational Technical Center
P.O Box 333
Seward, Alaska 99664
Telephone: (907) 224-8713
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 164
JOHN CYR, President
National Education Association
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 164
BILL CHURCH, Retirement Supervisor
Division of Retirement and Benefits
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110203
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0203
Telephone: (907) 465-4460
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 164
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4859
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 212
ALAN LEMASTER
Box 222
Gakona, Alaska 99586
Telephone: (907) 822-3664
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 212
LINDA O'BANNON
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
1031 W. 4th Ave., Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-5200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 212
JUDY SHELTON
Box 572
Gakona, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-3471
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 212
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
550 W 7th Avenue, Number 350
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-8638
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 212
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-15, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN IVAN IVAN called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:19 a.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Ogan, Ryan and Kookesh.
Representative Dyson arrived at 8:47 a.m. Members absent were
Representatives Sanders and Joule.
Number 050
HB 164 - TEACHERS RETIREMENT: ELIGIB. & SICK LEAVE
CHAIRMAN IVAN indicated that the committee would hear Sponsor
Substitute for House Bill 164, "An Act providing that employment as
a legislator or with the National Education Association is not
credited service under the teachers' retirement system; prohibiting
membership in the teachers' retirement system for holders of
limited certificates; removing teachers holding limited
certificates to teach Alaska Native language or culture from
membership in the teachers' retirement system; and repealing a
provision permitting members of the teachers' retirement system to
count unused sick leave credit as credited service."
Number 228
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, as sponsor, came forward to testify on HB
164. He pointed out that the difference between the original bill
and the committee substitute is that Section 1 of the original bill
was deleted and the following sections were renumbered accordingly.
In the repealer section, which is now Section 2, subsection (f),
which was repealed in the original bill, is now in the committee
substitute. There still seems to be some confusion regarding this
proposed legislation. The Division of Retirement and Benefits has
stated that prior to 1988, teachers of Alaska Native Language who
have limited certificates may have been covered under PERS. He
pointed out that the statute affected, AS 14.25.00, begin by
stating that a teacher shall participate in the TRS program. The
qualifying statute that they are dealing with does not distinguish
between what type of certificate a teacher holds. He thought AS
14.25.220 (21)(f) was redundant but he stated that the issue here
was not preventing teachers from using TRS, the issue he was trying
to address was private sector employers participating in the
retirement system. He said he had no problem with taking out the
repealer of the limited certificate because it's not applicable
either way.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN stated that he didn't understand the
differences between these two versions.
Number 462
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the only difference between them
was that they took out any reference to limited certificates. The
rest of the bill is the same. This involved two changes, deleting
Section 1 and renumbering the remainder. It also involved deleting
one reference to a statute in the repealer section which is now
Section 2. Representative Vezey stated that he was in support of
this change.
Number 576
DENNIS LODGE, Instructor, Alaska Vocational Technical Center
(AVTECH), Seward, testified via teleconference from Nome on HB 164.
He noted that there seemed to be some confusion regarding changes
to HB 164 and stated that he would proceed with his prepared
testimony. He mentioned that he had taken leave to testify and
noted that he spoke on behalf of the 34 teachers who belong to the
teacher's association at AVTECH in opposition to how this
legislation was originally written.
MR. LODGE continued that AVTECH provides accessible, technical and
related training to a statewide, multi-cultural population for
employment in the developing Alaskan work community. They deliver
post-secondary training to Alaskans all over the state in a variety
of vocational areas such as maritime fishery training, business and
office technology, physical plant technology, etc. As professional
educators they are committed to quality vocational education.
Their staff combines people with formal education degrees up to
masters and doctorates, as well as those with relevant trade
experience. They deliver skills to those entering the work force.
MR. LODGE noted that over half their teachers hold limited teaching
certificates. They place great importance on the licenses,
certificates and trade experience that create credible vocational
educators. He used himself as an example by highlighting his work
experience which did not require a type A teaching certificate or
its equivalent. Those teaching at university level are evaluated
on the basis of their abilities and teach without a credential.
Many of his colleagues at AVTECH have had successful careers in
industry and are now sharing this experience with their students.
MR. LODGE continued that as professional educators with limited
certificates they believe that the exclusion of future teachers,
such as themselves, from the teachers retirement system will
severely impact the quality of vocational education delivered in
Alaska. He used the example of someone who wished to be taught how
to cook and pointed out that they'd probably want a teacher with 20
years of experience rather than someone fresh out of college.
Incentives and rewards must be maintained to attract the best
teachers to Alaska's institutions. They believe that limited
certificates allow the state to deliver quality education and they
oppose eliminating these individuals from participating in the
retirement system.
MR. LODGE added that they oppose provisions of the bill that makes
unused sick leave not credited as service in the TRS. Most
teachers at AVTECH do the best to attend to their assigned duties
and avoid the expense of substitutes whenever possible. They
believe that the fractional increases to a person's retirement from
unused sick leave is a definite savings to the state when compared
to the additional costs of hiring substitutes. Under the latter
scenario, a regular teacher gets a sick day and AVTECH pays a
substitute as well. Sick leave cannot be redeemed for cash except
in the sense of teachers retirement service credit. Currently, the
public retirement system allows no credit for sick leave days in
retirement. The use it or lose it philosophy prevails. When
someone is trying to adhere to a curriculum in an established
course or program it's in the best interest of the school and the
students to provide continuity and oversight with a regular
instructor.
Number 953
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to adopt the draft committee
substitute as discussed previously. Hearing no objection it was so
adopted.
Number 985
MEL JONES, Diesel Instructor, AVTECH, testified via teleconference
from Seward on HB 164. Mr. Jones spoke in opposition to the
previous version of this legislation. Many of his colleagues hold
limited certificates, including himself. He gave his very
extensive college and practical experience for the committee. He
holds a limited certificate and compared this to his colleagues who
might have a more extensive teaching credential even though he has
extensive background and experience himself. He also noted the
diversity and wealth of experience combined on the teaching staff
at AVTECH. This enhances the education which their students
receive, as well as the potential for placement after graduation.
MR. JONES pointed out that this legislation as proposed would
destroy the uniqueness of vocational education in Alaska. He also
noted those teachers who after years of service would be removed
from the TRS system. This would make these teachers second class
citizens. He also mentioned in light of sick leave those teachers
who would as a general rule attend class knowing they are sick, but
feel that continuity in their classrooms is important. He added
that by doing so saves the state money in the long run. If a
teacher misses class due to sickness they receive their wages, plus
a substitute must also be paid. Accrued sick leave must not be
attacked but considered a savings.
Number 1180
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY came forward to explain again the changes from
the original proposed legislation. The committee substitute
adopted deletes all reference to the statute regarding limited
certificates. He did say that the Division of Retirement and
Benefits have not straightened this situation out, but claim that
prior to this statute's enactment, teachers with limited
certificates participated under PERS. This is not what the statute
says. The enabling statute, Title 14.25.00 says that a teacher who
is an employee of a school district or other recognized public
entity will be covered under TRS. This issue is not germane to the
bill, or affect it one way or another.
Number 1257
ROGER HOHL, Welding and Aluminum Instructor, AVTECH, testified via
teleconference from Seward on HB 164. He noted that he took leave
in order to testify. He mentioned the diverse staff at AVTECH and
the mix of this experience that enhances the quality of education
given. This in turn competently equips students for the job
market. He also holds a limited certificate and gave his
educational and practical experience. He added that trade
experience and education should be considered equally for the
benefit of the student. Practical training is vital to student
learning. He was also against excluding limited certificate
teachers from the retirement program.
Number 1445
REPRESENTATIVE AL KOOKESH stated that public testimony was very
important, but to do so in regards to something that's not germane
to the bill is not productive. The provision testified to by the
last three participants is no longer in the legislation.
Number 1475
JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association (NEA), came
forward to testify on HB 164. NEA applauded the committee for
removing the section that takes away the ability for Native
Language and Vocational Education Teachers to remain in the system.
They are still concerned with the section that takes unused sick
leave away as credited service for the retirement system. This is
absolutely onerous. This sick leave is a benefit earned. To lose
this provision would be punitive. The retirement system is sound.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that a mandate exists in statute for
local school districts to provide this benefit for teachers. The
affect of repealing this mandate is that it would then become a
local issue. It would then be negotiated between the local school
board and the employees. He believed as though this was a more
proper way for Alaska to manage their educational programs. He
didn't think that school districts would take away this benefit,
but stated it should be negotiated on a local level.
Number 1660
MR. CYR responded that if this ability to count used sick leave as
TRS credit was rescinded then it would not be negotiable. This is
a benefit provided as part of the state teachers retirement system.
School districts have no ability to negotiate with their employees
over this because it wouldn't be something provided for through
TRS. He appreciated local control and the ability to bargain
contracts, but he didn't believe that they could bargain with the
school districts for a provision provided by the state. If this is
repealed it's a moot point.
Number 1709
CHAIRMAN IVAN proposed an amendment dealing with the issue of sick
leave credit. This amendment would delete the language that
disallows this credit against the retirement system. This
amendment, labeled O-LSO636\K, was referred to as amendment number
one and read as follows:
Page 1, Line 2, following "system":
Delete ",and repealing a provision permitting members of the
teachers' retirement system to count unused sick leave credit as
credited service"
Page 1, Line 12, following "14.25.045,"
Delete "14.25.115 (a),"
Number 1828
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH made a motion to adopt this amendment as
noted.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN objected for discussion purposes.
Number 1866
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked about a person who comes to retirement
age and they have sick leave credited towards this retirement. He
understood that as part of this system there were three particular
portions: the benefit is fixed, the employee contribution is fixed
and the only variable is the employer contributions. He asked if
this was correct.
BILL CHURCH, Retirement Supervisor, Division of Retirement and
Benefits, Department of Administration, came forward to answer this
and other questions regarding HB 164. He noted that Representative
Ryan's understanding as outlined was correct.
Number 1902
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked that if a person used sick leave for
retirement purposes, who would pay the employee contribution
portion.
MR. CHURCH responded that this factor for unused sick leave is
calculated in as part of the contribution rate. In other words,
this is pre-funded. This is not something that would be an added
burden after someone claims their unused sick leave. He believed
that their actuary used six-tenths of a year of unused sick leave
for each person. This is the factor built in as they build the
components for the contribution rate. The employer would pay the
employee portion in any excess. The total cost to be paid must be
looked at, either the member or the employer, to fund these
benefits. Set in statute is the amount that the employee
contributes. The only variable is the amount that the employer
would contribute, which could either increase or decrease.
Number 1928
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that he didn't see a provision in this
law that would allow for the employee to cash out their sick leave
at the time of retirement.
MR. CHURCH responded that this was correct. It was never the
intent to establish the unused sick leave credit to allow an
individual to receive any type of cash benefit from the retirement
system. The unused sick leave is a provision under Department of
Education statute and codified through their regulations allowing
transfer of unused sick leave from district to district. It
wasn't until 1978 that the credit for unused sick leave was
afforded as a benefit under the teachers retirement system,
however, it had always been a component of teachers benefits long
before it was recognized as a benefit from the teachers retirement
system. This is a benefit afforded through statute.
Number 2016
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON stated it seemed to him that originally,
sick leave and vacation were very different things. He thought
that sick leave was instituted for people working regular shifts in
order to encourage them, when they were sick, to get well and not
contaminate the remaining work force. Over the years, folks have
not used their sick leave for legitimate purposes in order to
augment vacation time. He asked when they began to allow unused
sick leave to be taken as vacation, as well as being credited
towards retirement.
MR. CHURCH responded that he didn't believe unused sick leave has
ever been a vehicle for taking vacation days. This doesn't mean
that some people wouldn't abuse the intent of sick leave. The main
purpose of sick leave is so they don't contaminate others and to
recuperate. There seems to be a balancing between recuperation and
as an incentive not to use it at will, but by saving this time, a
person can use it as part of a retirement benefit.
Number 2129
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that this seemed to imply that they
need to build an incentive into the system in order to encourage
people not to exploit sick leave.
MR. CHURCH responded that maybe this was just the evolution of it
and not part of any original intent. As a supervisor, in regards
to his own staff with annual and sick leave, he finds that some
people rarely take sick leave and others who take all they've
accrued. Sometimes this creates problems with getting the work
done.
Number 2172
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what happens with teacher contracts now
with unused sick leave, does it lapse, is it cumulative?
MR. CHURCH responded that unused sick leave is cumulative. There
is statute and regulation with the Department of Education which
allows it to be continuous and allows it to be transferred between
the various school districts. He then gave his perspective on sick
and annual leave. He's been an state employee since 1980 and
always viewed this as in the event he became seriously ill and
needed time, it was there for him as a benefit for the future.
Number 2249
MR. CYR stated that the misuse of sick leave is in fact something
a teacher could lose their certificate for. After someone is out
for five days the district can ask that they see a doctor and get
a certificate of wellness. They have very strict provisions for
using sick leave. He imagined that someone using sick leave for
vacation time is non-existent. Employees under TRS do not get
annual leave. They work a set amount of days negotiated through a
bargaining unit and this is what they get paid for.
MR. CYR explained that the way a sick leave bank works is that most
districts allow an employee to contribute a day of their sick leave
a year to a bank. If someone is ill they have to use all of their
own personal sick leave first and then they apply to the bank.
Number 2415
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN wondered how each person's pay scale ranges
affected what's contributed to the sick leave bank. He asked if a
general figure would be applied. How is this time valued and how
would people not lose equity if a teacher, for example, who had
been teaching for twenty years with a high hourly rate was compared
to a new hire.
MR. CHURCH stated that as they calculate the unused sick leave
benefit as part of someone's retirement benefit this is calculated
based on their average base salary. The actuary determines this
based on the actual experience of the fund. They take into
consideration those who are on the high end of the pay scale, those
who may be in the middle of the pay scale and then it is averaged
out. He then went into an explanation of how these formulas
worked.
TAPE 97-15, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. CHURCH stated that a consideration is what this benefit costs
at the present rate. What is the salary of the retirees at this
point in time? These are the figures they will use to calculate
the value of it and also the financial impact. He pointed out that
on the average there is not a disproportionate amount of people
whose salaries are very high as compared to those in the average.
There is not a difficulty in meeting both levels and coming up with
an average.
Number 081
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what the arguments would be in favor of
letting accumulated sick leave count as a credit towards
retirement.
MR. CYR responded that sick leave is an earned benefit that is part
of the retirement system. To take it away when the retirement
system is sound seems to be punitive. He believed that people will
use a benefit. If someone has as part of their salary a certain
amount of money it will used during the course of a year. If
something is considered a drop dead benefit, such as 13 days of
sick leave a year and someone is required to use it or loose it, he
believed that people would use this benefit. This program was
established to maintain a continuity so that classrooms would not
be disrupted with substitutes. The more they are able to keep the
teacher in the classroom, the better off the program is.
MR. CYR continued that this is an economic benefit to the district.
He compared this to the option offered in PERS where an employee is
able to cash these hours out. He thought this would be more
expensive to districts than to provide these hours as a retirement
benefit.
Number 181
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if Mr. Cyr saw sick leave as more than
just a provision for people to take care of their health, as a
benefit along with the wages, insurance and retirement.
MR. CYR responded that he did see this as a benefit to both the
employee and the employer.
Number 207
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if Mr. Cyr had inferred that if they
didn't allow people to accumulate sick leave, because it's a
benefit they would spend it by taking sick leave days whether they
were sick or not.
MR. CYR responded that he believed people use sick leave when
they're ill. The question to ask is how sick does someone have to
be before they stay home.
Number 242
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN pointed out that earlier comments were
made about punitive measures which could be taken if a teacher was
found abusing their sick leave.
MR. CYR responded that yes, if someone is found abusing this sick
leave option, they are in danger of loosing their certificate.
Number 278
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that on the one hand Mr. Cyr was saying
if sick leave privileges to accrue were taken away, people might
use their sick leave options more, but on the other hand Mr. Cyr
had pointed out that someone could loose their certificate if
abuses were proven.
MR. CYR responded that the word "abuse" was the wrong word. He
thought people would use their sick leave. He believed that there
were people teaching in Alaska today who have colds and don't feel
well, but they are still in the classrooms. This is a judgment
call, should they be home, should they be at work? He didn't know.
He believed that people use their sick leave when they are sick.
Is this a misuse? It might be an abuse to themselves if they
choose to work even if they are sick, but this is by their own
choice. He said that if this policy changed, they would see an
increase in the use of sick leave. If people know they will loose
a benefit if they don't use it, they will use it. Is this an
abuse? He didn't think so. This is a legitimate use. Will the
usage go up? He believed it would and stated that he could be
wrong.
Number 396
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that he did not support the amendment.
The issue he is trying to address is a state mandate that goes to
the local districts without direct appropriations to support it.
The real debate is what are the options at the local school
district level. He submits that there are countless case histories
involving public employees in the state of Alaska where employers
and employees mutually agree to put some sort of economic value to
unused leave, either sick or vacation. He recommends that they
remove this state mandate.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted that they might consider a cash out
option for this sick leave accrual.
Number 524
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY responded that he hadn't had time to review
this. He said that the local employers should have the maximum
flexibility on how they manage their funds and how they attract and
keep quality employees.
CHAIRMAN IVAN asked for a roll call vote regarding amendment number
one before the committee. Representative Ryan, Dyson and Ogan
voted against the amendment. Representatives Kookesh and Ivan
voted in favor of the amendment. Amendment number one failed to
pass.
Number 540
CHAIRMAN IVAN stated that he would entertain a conceptual amendment
which would address the use of unused sick leave be made part of
the collective bargaining process in order to bring this issue to
the local control.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY responded that he had also considered this
option and stated that he had no opposition to an amendment that
would change the current statute from a mandate to a local option.
CHAIRMAN IVAN suggested that they hold the bill over to encourage
this change.
HB 212 - LOCAL OPTION BOUNDARIES FOR VILLAGES
Number 570
CHAIRMAN IVAN indicated that the committee would next consider HB
212, "An Act relating to determination of an established village
for purposes of regulating the sale, use, and possession of
alcoholic beverages in the unorganized borough; and providing for
an effective date."
Number 609
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA came forward to testify on HB 212 as
sponsor of this legislation. He stated that villages have a local
option law where they are allowed to opt out of selling alcohol in
their communities. A vote is taken to do so. A five mile radius
from the center of the village is mapped out and this area would be
the area opted out of. No alcohol would be allowed in this radius.
He understood that there were three different levels involved as to
whether alcohol would not be sold or whether to have no alcohol
whatsoever.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA continued that a problem came up in the
village of Gulkana which is on the road system. Previously, all of
the villages that have opted out have not been on the road system.
This five mile radius did not touch any other places. When they
voted to opt out, the five mile radius touched a number of other
places like Gakona Junction and restaurants that are already
established, etc. The village did not intend to take these other
entities in. The way the law is written, the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board's (ABC) hands are tied. Also, people outside the
village of Gulkana and inside the five mile radius didn't have a
vote on the issue either. Only the people inside the village did.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated that the ABC Board needs more leeway
to make some common sense decisions on where these boundaries are.
In paragraph (c), there is language which allows the board to
adjust this five mile radius, especially in situations where there
is a road system. This gives the board more flexibility. He
believed this was supported by the villages of Gulkana and Gakona.
There has been some discussion about Copper Center voting to go
dry. This would also have complications because of the road
system. He continued that this legislation gave the board a common
sense approach to draw these lines as necessary.
Number 780
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if the purpose of a village is to go dry
and avoid the related problems of alcohol use, what happens in the
case of a nearby community which does provide alcohol. He used
Fort Yukon as an example.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noted that when they talk about communities
on the road system five miles doesn't mean that much. With this
five mile radius someone could go down the road seven miles to
Glennallen to another liquor store. This policy does work well out
in the bush. This keeps someone from setting up an establishment
to sell alcohol right outside a village, but this same concept
doesn't work on a community connected to a road system.
Number 889
ALAN LEMASTER testified via teleconference from Gakona on HB 212.
He applauded this legislation and said it was needed. Otherwise
nothing would be accomplished. He noted that if the five mile
radius provision stood in the legislation, then everyone within the
five mile radius should have the opportunity to vote. He stated
that he held a license in this area and said he has seen no
increase in sales since it's gone into effect. In Gakona, there
have been 20 to 22 people who have died in the last few years due
to alcohol related incidents. He said this is a sad thing to see.
Assuming this bill was passed, he asked Representative Kubina if
another vote would be taken in Gakona since the people within the
five mile radius didn't get to vote.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated he wasn't sure about this and he
hasn't asked the ABC Board. He emphasized that the people in
Gakona and the Copper Valley area are very supportive of the
village and their objectives. This in no way would try to hinder
them from those purposes.
Number 1057
LINDA O'BANNON, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage on HB 212. She pointed
out that the five mile perimeter only affects sales of alcohol.
Possession and importation are limited to the actual village
boundary. The perimeter concept is not defined currently in
statute but in regulation. The boundaries were drawn in this
particular election in Gulkana and Gakona such that Gakona was
excluded from the five mile radius. The current licensees are
still able to hold onto their licenses. The board will adopt the
boundaries suggested by staff so she didn't think there was a need
for another election in this situation since it doesn't affect the
current licensees. If this legislation was to pass, along with
it's resulting statute, this would override the regulation. The
perimeter definition would be changed by statute. The board is
considering an amendment to the regulation.
Number 1219
JUDY SHELTON testified via teleconference from Gakona on HB 212.
She stated she was in favor of this legislation, but she was
disappointed in the way this whole issue came about. She thought
that a little forethought could avoid added expense. She noted
that she doesn't drink, but she thought that everyone involved with
regulation and statute have the right to vote.
Number 1321
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage on HB 212. The board hasn't
taken a formal position, but have had discussions in principal on
HB 212. He said he was sure the board would be supportive of this
effort given the problems with the Gakona situation. The local
option provisions, as they exist currently, were probably drawn up
to deal with villages that are not on the road system. These
villages are more compact which has meant that the local option
provisions have worked fairly well. Alaska is entering a new era
where communities on the road systems are approving local options.
This presents a whole host of challenges in terms of enforcement.
MR. GRIFFIN added that there were some concerns about how someone
would apply the technic provided for in statute, to do so fairly
and reasonably. HB 212 is designed to try and correct this by
giving the ABC Board more flexibility in how votes are structured.
He mentioned that the ABC Board is just part of a collaborative
effort in this whole issue. If there's an unincorporated area in
an unorganized borough of the Division of Elections, discussions
take place between this division and the Department of Community
and Regional Affairs. If this were to pass, he saw this type of
collaboration continuing in order to make sure that an area would
qualify before they get into the election process, along with some
of these other issues. This legislation gives the board
flexibility to look at each situation on a case by case basis,
apply some general goals and then use common sense.
Number 1492
CHAIRMAN IVAN asked about the current regulations controlling the
local option law and wondered if the elections regarding the same
are held within the boundaries of the five mile radius.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA responded that he believed this was how they
did it in this last election.
Number 1552
MR. GRIFFIN noted that the Division of Elections looked at just the
village for purposes of voting in the local option election and not
the five mile perimeter around the village.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA added that the area affected was greater than
the village for purposes of sale, manufacturing and personal use of
alcohol. There was a larger area of people who were not allowed to
vote.
Number 1588
MS. O'BANNON offered that the Division of Election is required on
these local option elections to have pre-clearance by the U.S.
Department of Justice. There are always issues of not diluting the
vote. In general, they believe that everyone should get to vote
who would be affected by the ban on importation or possession
particularly. They limited the eligible voters of this election to
the boundaries of the village of Gakona.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA added that those people who did not get to
vote within the radius feel like they were disenfranchised. In
fact, it seems they would have an argument to challenge this
election because they did not get to vote. With this statute, it
makes it easier for a village to deal with this themselves because
it won't automatically take in such a large area. This means they
can take care of their own issues themselves without the
surrounding areas needing to concur.
Number 1703
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved and asked unanimous consent to move HB
212 out of committee with individual recommendations and
accompanying zero fiscal note. Hearing no objection, HB 212 was
moved out of the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee.
Number 1761
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN IVAN adjourned the meeting at 9:42 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|