Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/03/1996 03:30 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 3, 1996
3:30 P.M.
TAPE HFC 96-158, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-158, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-159, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-159, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-160, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-160, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-161, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-161, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-162, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-162, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-163, Side 1, #000 - end.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Martin
Co-Chair Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Brown Representative Navarre
Representative Grussendorf Representative Parnell
Representative Kelly Representative Therriault
Representative Kohring
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Lydia Green; Representative David Finkelstein; Laura
Williams, Staff, Senator Pearce; Anne Ringstadt, Staff,
Senator Sharp; Brooke Miles, Alaska Public Offices
Commission, Department of Administration; Steven (Neal)
Slotnik, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Mike
McMullen, Division of Personnel, Department of
Administration; Susie Barnett, Select Commission on
Legislative Ethics; John Gaguine, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Law; Jim Nordlund, Director, Division
of Public Assistance, Department of Health & Social
Services; Curtis Lomas, Welfare Reform Program, Department
of Health & Social Services; Michael Tibbles, Staff, Senator
Green; Glenda Straube, Director, Child Support Enforcement
Division, Department of Revenue; Jack Chenoweth, Attorney,
Alaska Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency; Nancy
Slagle, Director, Division of Budget Review, Office of the
Management and Budget, Office of the Governor; Virginia
Lembo, Anchorage; Rex Lamont, Anchorage; Hugh Fleischer,
anchorage; Scott Davis, Anchorage; Becky Davis, Anchorage;
Gordy Williams, Staff, Senator Zharoff; Kim McGee, Anchorage
Friends; Brant McGee, Director, Office of Public Advocacy,
Department of Administration; Anne Wilkas, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of Law; Kevin McCoy, Anchorage;
Joyce Bamberger, Alaska Human Rights Commission; Averil
Lerman, Anchorage; Barbara Brink, Public Defender Agency.
Anchorage; Barbara Hood, Anchorage; Susan Orlansky,
Attorney, Anchorage; Michael Lemay, Anchorage; Kathy Harris,
Anchorage; John Salemi, Director, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration; Rebecca Davis, Fairbanks;
James McComas, Alaskans Against the Death Penalty; Charles
Campbell, Juneau; Rachel King, Alaskans Against the Death
Penalty; Dean Guaneli, Chief Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Law; Kevin Brooks, Director, Division of
Administration, Department of Fish and Game.
SUMMARY
HB 500 An Act making capital and other appropriations;
and providing for an effective date."
HB 500 was rescheduled to another time.
SB 52 An Act authorizing capital punishment, classifying
murder in the first degree as a capital felony,
and establishing sentencing procedures for capital
felonies; authorizing an advisory vote on
instituting capital punishment; and providing for
an effective date.
SB 52 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 98 An Act making changes related to the aid to
families with dependent children program, the
Medicaid program, the general relief assistance
program, and the adult public assistance program;
directing the Department of Health and Social
Services to apply to the federal government for
waivers to implement the changes where necessary;
relating to eligibility for permanent fund
dividends of certain individuals who receive state
assistance, to notice requirements applicable to
the dividend program; and providing for an
effective date.
HCS CSSB 98 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with "no recommendation" and with nine Department
of Health & Social Services fiscal impact notes
for the Comprehensive Plan; and with ten fiscal
impact notes pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan;
one by the Department of Revenue, 4/22/96, one by
the Department of Education, 4/22/96, two by the
Department of Labor, 4/22/96, one by the
Department of Public Safety, 4/22/96, three by the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development,
4/22/96, and two by the Department of Fish and
Game, 4/22/96; and with a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Health & Social Services; or with
eight fiscal impact notes pertaining to the Waiver
Plan from the Department of Health & Social
Services.
SB 141 An Act relating to legislative ethics; and
providing for an effective date.
SB 141 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 191 An Act relating to election campaigns, election
campaign financing, the oversight and regulation
of election campaigns by the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, the activities of lobbyists that
relate to election campaigns, and the definitions
of offenses of campaign misconduct; and providing
for an effective date."
HCS CSSB 191 was reported out of Committee with
"no recommendation" and with two fiscal impact
notes, one by the Department of Administration,
dated 4/9/96, and one by the Department of Law,
dated 3/25/96; and with two zero fiscal notes, one
by the Office of the Governor, dated 3/20/96, and
one by the Legislative Affairs Agency, dated
3/25/96.
SB 265 An Act relating to receipts of commercial
fisheries test fishing operations; and providing
for an effective date.
CS SB 265 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal
impact note by the Office of Management and
Budget, 5/1/96.
SB 270 An Act relating to juveniles; relating to the
jurisdiction of juvenile courts; relating to the
release of juveniles; and relating to records
concerning juveniles.
SB 270 was rescheduled to another time.
SCR 23 Relating to long range financial planning.
SCR 23 was rescheduled to another time.
SENATE BILL NO. 141
"An Act relating to legislative ethics; and providing
for an effective date."
JOHN GAGUINE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL commented on
sections which require individuals to file conflict of
interest statements under AS 39.50. He noted that there are
currently approximately 600 - 800 high level employees and
boards and commission members that have to file conflict of
interest statements. The legislation would expand this
number to another 450 - 500 state employees, including a
large number of employees not in policy making positions.
He noted that psychiatrists at the Alaska Psychiatric
Institute (API), public defenders, and assistant attorney
generals would be among those required to file. He
questioned if the legislation would be constitutional. He
noted that an employee has privacy rights in regards to
their finances. He explained that to require a disclosure
there must be some nexus between the public interest in
disclosing and the person's privacy interest. He suggested
that the Court might find that some of the positions
affected cannot be required to disclose under the
Constitution. He added that the Court may find equal
protection violations. He pointed out that the bill applies
to ranges 19 and above in the executive branch and
legislature but not in the judiciary branch. He noted that
classified employees do not have to disclose.
Representative Martin asked if the problem could be solved
with a severability clause. Mr. Gaguine replied that a
severability clause would not hurt. He did not think that a
severability clause was necessary. He explained that a
ruling that some individuals cannot be covered would not
affect the remaining sections of the bill.
Representative Martin asked if employees of the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) and Alaska Railroad
should be covered. Mr. Gaguine observed that Alaska
Railroad senior officials are in policy making positions.
He thought they could be included in the disclosure
requirements without fear of a constitutional challenge.
Mr. Gaguine commented on section 72 on page 42 which was
added by the Senate. He noted that while the legislature is
in session the governor and lieutenant governor may not fund
raise. He maintained that the provisions on page 9, section
13 would not preclude a senator running for governor from
fund raising during the legislative session. He observed
that the intent was to allow fund raising for statewide
office during the legislative session. If the parallel
language was drawn then the governor could not raise money
for legislative races. Funds raised during the session
could not be accepted by any incumbent in a legislative
race.
BROOK MILES, JUNEAU BRANCH ADMINISTRATOR, ALASKA PUBLIC
OFFICES COMMISSION (APOC) noted that several sections of SB
141 affect APOC. She noted that the Commission has serious
reservations concerning sections 27 and 28, Legal Defense
and Election Challenge Funds. She acknowledged that Senate
Intent Language would limit the scope of the Fund. She
expressed concern with possibilities for abuse of the Fund.
She recommended guidelines concerning contribution levels,
when contributions can be made and received and how much
could be spent. She noted that there are no reporting
requirements. She observed that APOC would be required to
issue regulations. The Legislative Ethics Committee would
administer and adjudicate cases. She noted that they are in
different branches of government. She observed that the
Commission has issued a fiscal note.
Representative Parnell questioned why the Fund is limited to
defense of a civil criminal administrative action. Ms.
Miles noted that the Commission was not consulted in regards
to the legislation.
Representative Brown referred to section 49, page 27. She
noted that language relating to gifts and loans was deleted.
Ms. Miles noted that the deletion is the recommendation of
the Legislative Ethics Committee. Gifts will be reported to
the Committee. Copies of disclosure of gifts would be
forwarded to the APOC and contained in each legislator's
file.
In response to a question by Representative Parnell, Ms.
Miles clarified that any person required to submit a
financial disclosure report under AS 39.50 or AS 24.60 could
raise their own funds. A legislative employee has the same
right.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN stated that under current
law a legislator cannot raise funds for a legal defense fund
because money that is not earned or given as a political
contribution or a legal gift cannot be accepted. He
emphasized that there is no mechanism for a legal defense
fund. Money would have to be accepted as a campaign
contribution. The legislation would create a new area for
legal defense funds.
Representative Brown asked for a clarification of effective
dates in sections 27 and 28. Ms. Miles explained that
section 28 would take effect if the initiative dealing with
campaign finance reform is enacted by a vote of the people.
She noted that section 27 would be effective if legislation
is enacted into law and is found to be substantially similar
to the initiative.
Representative Brown provided members with Amendment 1 (copy
on file). She noted that the amendment incorporates changes
recommended by APOC.
MIKE MCMULLEN, PERSONAL MANAGER, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION discussed sections 68 - 70. He
noted that a substantial amount of work would be moved to
the Personnel Board in the Division of Personnel. He
observed that the Personnel Board is a lay board. There are
three members on the Board. The three members of the
Personnel Board are also members of the Public Employee
Retirement System Board. They meet several times a year.
He estimated that the legislation will require an additional
monthly meeting. He expressed concern with the additional
responsibilities of the Personnel Board. He noted that the
Board has not been informed of the proposed changes.
Mr. McMullen discussed the shift of responsibilities from
the Legislative Ethics Committee to the Executive Branch.
He spoke against the addition of language stating that an
appearance of a conflict of interest is a violation. He
observed that the Executive Branch Ethics Act already
applies to public employees. The bill would add a
subcategory called a "state official". He maintained that
additional requirements that are less demanding than the
existing Act will cause confusion. He questioned if both
provisions will apply to state officials. He noted that
section 69 is already covered under existing statute.
STEVEN (NEIL) SLOTNIK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW explained that existing law under AS
39.52.120 is more stringent then the proposed requirements.
He compared subsection (a)(1) on page 37, to current law.
He observed that "personal interest" is deleted from current
statue. He asserted that the current law maintains a higher
ethical standard. He referred to section 71. He noted that
existing law prohibits a public official from accepting a
gift in circumstances from which it could be inferred that
the gift is intended to influence the public officer's
official duties. The legislation would allow gifts of under
$250 dollars. There is no requirement to determine if the
gift was intended to influence the official's duties. He
observed that subsection (e) prohibits a state official from
soliciting, accepting, or receiving, during a legislative
session, a gift with any monetary value from a lobbyist or a
person acting on behalf of a lobbyist. He stressed that the
language implies that a gift could be accepted outside of
session. He questioned the need for the additional
language.
Mr. Slotnik acknowledged his confusion in regards to section
71. He stated that it is unclear how the original statute
would be affected. He noted that currently gifts under $50
dollars are presumed not to be meant to influence official
duties. He stressed that he is unclear how to interface the
language of the old act with SB 141.
Mr. Slotnik noted that there is a new definition of "family
member" in section 102, page 52. The new definition
requires that the child or parent live with the individual
and be financially dependent. The current law covers blood
relation regardless of whether they are living with and
financially dependent on the state official.
Mr. Slotnik observed that the legislation creates two tiers
of public employees. He referred to section 69. He
observed that section 69 is in addition to the prohibitions
under AS 39.52.120. He stated that the implication is that
AS 39.52.120 does not reach to the additional provisions of
AS 39.52.125 as contained in SB 141. He suggested that the
prohibitions in section 69 would only apply to the top tier
of state employees, but not to the remainder of employees in
the classified service. Before the legislation, current
statute was interpreted to prohibit the use of state funds,
equipment or services in campaigning. He stressed that
since the provisions are not contained in the current
statute they would no longer be implied to pertain. He
maintained that there should not be two tiers in the
executive branch. He emphasized that it would be easier to
maintain compliance to a single high ethical standard and
educate employees if there is one executive branch ethical
act.
Mr. Slotnik noted that disclosure requirements are not in
the Executive Branch Ethics Act. He acknowledged that there
are currently two tiers in reporting requirements.
Representative Brown questioned the point of having two
tiers in the Executive Branch Ethics Act. Mr. Slotnik noted
that he was not consulted in regards to drafting the
legislation.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-158, Side 2)
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr.
Slotnik stressed that he is comfortable with the rule in the
existing Executive Branch Ethics Act, which prohibits an
executive branch employee from taking a gift if it is in
circumstances that could be inferred that it was intended to
influence their performance of official duties.
Mr. Slotnik reiterated that the new statutes would be
applied in addition to the current statute. He added that
the transfer of responsibility for advisory opinions and
investigation of ethic complaints from the Office of the
Attorney General to the Personnel Board is problematic. He
observed that the Personnel Board is a lay board that does
not meet regularly. He pointed out that the Attorney
General's office is equipped to advise agencies. There are
people on staff who are knowledgeable in regards to the
Ethics Act and the operation of the agencies.
Representative Parnell questioned if the Personnel Board
would be more independent. Mr. Slotnik questioned if
independence is of concern. He noted that opinions are
available for review. He did not think the quality of
advise would improve by the transfer. Mr. McMullen reviewed
new requirements of the Personnel Board in sections 70, 71,
and 90 - 100.
Representative Mulder stressed that the issue is the
perception of independence and impartiality. He thought
that public confidence would be raised by the transfer to
the Personnel Board. Mr. Slotnik noted that there are two
issues, advice and investigation of complaints. Under
current law, complaints are investigated by the Attorney
General. If probable cause is determined then an accusation
is filed with the Personnel Board. The Personnel Board
hears the case and makes a decision as to whether a
violation did occur. If a complaint is filed against a
attorney general, governor or lieutenant governor then the
Personnel Board appoints independent counsel.
Representative Mulder stressed that the perception is that
complaints are not going to receive an impartial hearing
under current law.
Mr. McMullen noted that the legislation would direct the
Personnel Board to give the complaint to the Attorney
General to serve notice and prosecute the case before the
Board.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr.
McMullen explained that the Attorney General's staff
counsels the Board. Representative Brown asked if the
current system is broken or if there is a specific problem.
Mr. McMullen and Mr. Slotnik did not know of a specific
problem.
Representative Brown questioned the affect of not adopting
the Department of Administration's fiscal note. Mr.
McMullen stressed that there would be standstill in ethics
investigations. He emphasized that there is not enough
staff for the existing workload.
LAURA WILLIAMS, STAFF, SENATOR PEARCE observed that the
closest thing in the executive branch to an ethics committee
is the Personnel Board. She observed that Senator Pearce
felt that the Board would be more removed.
Representative Brown questioned why the section prohibiting
gifts during session was inserted into the Executive Branch
Ethics Act for year around employees. Ms. Williams
explained that the second tier was created to more closely
reflect the Legislative Ethics Act. She noted that the
intent is to make it clear that state officials should have
the same prohibitions as legislators. It was not the
Senator's intent to weaken the Executive Branch Ethics Act.
She maintained that the current law would apply to the state
offices. Representative Brown pointed out that the
standards in the legislation would not pertain to these
employees.
Mr. McMullen provided members with Amendment 2 (copy on
file). He explained that the amendment would delete
"compensated" and insert "appointed" on page 35, line 16;
and add "in the exempt services" on line 17. The amendment
would also make this change on page 53, lines 6 and 7. He
noted that the amendment would cover exempt service.
Representative Brown discussed Amendment 1. She noted that
the amendment was offered by the Administration. Mr.
Slotnik explained that the amendment deletes almost all of
the changes to the Executive Branch Ethics Act. If the
amendment is adopted there would no longer be two tiers.
All state employees would be subject to the Executive Branch
Ethics Act. The disclosure changes would remain.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 1. She noted
that the amendment would delete the transfer to the
Personnel Board and the two tier structure for state
officials and other public officers. It would leave in the
bill the changes in disclosure reporting for employees at
range 21 and above. She noted that it is not the intent to
weaken the Executive Branch Ethics Act.
Representative Parnell spoke in opposition to the amendment.
He suggested that both new and old prohibitions would be
enforced. He spoke in support of the investigation function
being transferred to the Personnel Board. Representative
Brown WITHDREW Amendment 1.
Mr. Slotnik clarified that current law pertains to
commissioners, directors, board members and other high level
policy makers. He observed that the two branches have
similar ethic regulations.
Mr. McMullen discussed Amendment 2. He explained that the
same 800 individuals would be affected. He noted that the
amendment clarifies that the requirements would pertain to
persons that occupy a position at range 21 or higher as
opposed to receiving pay equal to range 21. He noted that a
lower range with a higher step could have pay equal to a
range 21A. He explained that every hire is technically an
appointment to the position. All range 21 and above
employees would be covered, not just political appointees.
Mr. Slotnik observed that the compensation level was added
to cover exempt employees that are not scheduled by range.
He questioned the status of University of Alaska employees.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 2.
Representative Kelly OBJECTED. Representative Brown noted
that the amendment would make the disclosure cut-off at
range 21.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-159, Side 1)
Mr. McMullen further explained that the range level would be
the cut-off point rather than the compensation amount.
Representative Kelly WITHDREW his objection to Amendment 2.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Brown amended Amendment 3 to add "limited" on
page 4, line 29 after "C" (copy on file). She MOVED to
adopt Amendment 3. Representative Mulder OBJECTED.
Representative Mulder disclosed that his wife is a lobbyist.
Representative Brown disclosed that her husband has filed as
a lobbyist. She noted that all legislators are affected by
the legislation.
Representative Brown explained that Amendment 3 restores
current law. She noted that the intent is that an
occasional or incidental letter or call not related to their
office which is handled by a legislator in their state
office is permitted. She argued that without the amendment
there would be unlimited use of telephones and fax machines
for non-governmental purposes.
Representative Finkelstein clarified that "limited" would
prevent the running of a campaign or mailing house from the
office. Representative Parnell questioned the affect on the
legislator's staff. Representative Kelly asked if "limited"
is defined. Representative Mulder stressed that there is no
definition of "limited". He argued that there are
protections built in to the current system. Representative
Martin spoke in opposition to the amendment.
Representative Finkelstein noted that the supervisor
interprets the use of "limited". Representative Kelly
expressed concern with the lack of definition.
Representative Finkelstein stressed that the amendment
requires that employees comply with the policy of the
supervisor.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
3.
IN FAVOR: Therriault, Brown, Kelly
OPPOSED: Martin, Mulder, Kohring, Foster
Co-Chair Hanley and Representatives Navarre, Parnell and
Grussendorf were absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-4).
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 4 (copy on
file). Amendment 4 would delete on page 3, lines 23 -30.
She reiterated that her husband has filed as a lobbyist.
She explained that the amendment would delete section 3,
which bans legislative spouses from being employed as a
lobbyist. Representative Martin OBJECTED. Representative
Brown maintained that spouses should be required to disclose
their lobbying activities. She stressed that legislators
are not prevented from contracting with or receiving gifts
from lobbyists. She noted that spouses may be employed in
the other body. She emphasized that the ban would be
inconsistent. She stressed that Alaska is a small state and
there are limited things that spouses can do in Juneau.
Representative Mulder reiterated that his wife is a
lobbyist. Representative Martin spoke against the
amendment. He stressed the poor public perception of
allowing legislative spouses to lobby the legislature.
Representative Kelly maintained that legislators vote their
conscience. He added that they will have to answer to their
constituents.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
4.
IN FAVOR: Mulder, Therriault, Brown, Kelly, Kohring, Foster
OPPOSED: Martin
Co-Chair Hanley and Representatives Navarre, Parnell and
Grussendorf were absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-1).
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 5 (copy on
file). She explained that the amendment would clarify that
legislator's offices are considered public areas and are not
appropriate areas for display of campaign materials.
Representative Mulder OBJECTED. He asked if a campaign
button on a legislator's jacket in their office would be a
violation.
SUSIE BARNETT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE ETHICS noted
that legislative employees cannot wear campaign buttons
while performing legislative duties.
Representative Martin indicated that a legislator's office
becomes their home away from home. Ms. Barnett indicated
that a division could be made between a legislator's inner
and outer office.
Representative Therriault maintained that no campaign
material should be distributed or posted in legislator's
offices. He added that a brochure or pin inadvertently worn
or carried into the office should not be considered as
distributing or posting. Representative Brown noted that
campaign buttons could be excluded.
Representative Mulder spoke in support of maintaining the
privacy of legislator's inner offices. He maintained that
legislators are not campaigning from their inner offices.
Representative Parnell suggested that "distributing and
posting" be further defined. He agreed that the inadvertent
position of campaign brochures or pins should not be
considered as distributing or posting. He expressed concern
with the proposal to exempt the inner office from the
prohibitions.
Representative Brown summarized that "distribute or post"
means to deliberately put something out, proactively
distributing or posting for view.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
5.
IN FAVOR: Parnell, Therriault, Brown, Kelly, Kohring
OPPOSED: Martin, Mulder, Foster
Co-Chair Hanley and Representatives Navarre and Grussendorf
were absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (5-3).
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 6 (copy on
file). She explained that the amendment prohibits
legislators from receiving more than $100 dollars in any
form. The legislation would raise this amount to $250
dollars.
Representative Finkelstein explained that the intent is to
raise the threshold to $250 for gifts outside of the
legislature, from friends or families. Legislative gifts
would still be held at $100 dollars. He noted that the
federal level is $50 dollars.
Representative Martin spoke in support of reducing the gift
level to $50. Representative Brown noted that there are
exemptions for gifts that are not connected to a
legislator's status.
Representative Therriault noted that food consumed at a
social event or meal is not included.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 6 was adopted.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 7 (copy on
file). Amendment 7 would delete discounts when on state
business. Representative Kelly spoke against the amendment.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-159, Side 2)
Representative Finkelstein emphasized that discounts can be
a way to circumvent the gift prohibitions. Representative
Martin pointed out that many legislators receive discounts
on housing.
Representative Kelly maintained that the danger of the
ethics law is not that a legislator will make an ethical
violation, but that there will be a perception of a
violation in the media. He spoke against the amendment.
Representative Finkelstein stressed that pricing based on
rental length or season is not a discount.
Representative Martin questioned if he could take advantage
of a 15 percent discount on carpet cleaning. Ms. Barnett
noted that the discount would be under $100 dollars. She
added that the discount is also being offered to a broader
group.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
7.
IN FAVOR: Brown
OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Parnell,
Therriault, Foster
Co-Chair Hanley and Representatives Navarre and Grussendorf
were absent for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (1-7).
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 8 (copy on
file). Representative Finkelstein explained that the
amendment would provide for contribution and time limits on
legal defense funds. It also clears up the division between
the Legislative Ethic Committee and the Alaska Public
Offices Commission.
Ms. Miles summarized that the amendment would provide more
statutory guidance concerning the accounting behavior of
legal defense funds. It would also require that the
Commission by regulation determine when reports would be
filed disclosing who contributed to the Fund. It provide
that the Alaska Public Offices Commission the enforcement
body and provide for civil penalty assessments of late
filings of required reports.
In response to a question by Representative Parnell, Ms.
Miles noted that there would not be provision for a loosing
candidate who is not a seated legislator, subject to AS
24.60. However, they would be disclosure on their financial
disclosure reports.
Representative Finkelstein noted that the State of Alaska
acts on behalf of the winning candidate.
Representative Parnell expressed concern with the
contribution and time limits. He felt uncomfortable with
placing limits on someone who can be sued just because they
are legislators, when a person who does not hold office can
raise all the money that they want to participate in a
lawsuit.
Representative Parnell MOVED to AMEND Amendment 8 by
deleting the reference to page 16, line 2 and page 16, line
27. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. There
being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 8 was adopted.
Representative Brown provided members with Amendment 9 (copy
on file). Amendment 9 would delete "political" "or public
policy" on page 15 and 16. She questioned the need for this
language. Ms. Barnett noted that the language was added by
Senator Donely in the Senate. She stated that the language
was added to clarify that the defense fund could not be used
to fund divorce proceedings or other personal matters.
Ms. Miles observed that the without the amendment any civil,
criminal or administrative action could be covered.
ANN RINGSTADT, STAFF, SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
clarified that Senator Donley's intent that the Fund should
only refer to the political position or election. Divorce
or small claims cases would not be covered. She noted that
monies could be used to defend against a frivolous case
having to do with a campaign.
Ms. Miles noted that expenditures for election challenges
are proposed for inclusion in other legislation.
Representative Mulder summarized that the legislation will
codify provisions regarding legal defense relating to
campaigns.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Ms.
Ringstadt noted that the intent is to cover the cost of
actions arising against a legislator that was not under
their control.
Representative Brown HELD Amendment 9.
Representative MOVED to adopt Amendment 10 (copy on file).
She explained that the amendment would allow the subject of
a complaint to attend amy meeting concerning the complaint.
She noted that the Committee can consider the request and if
it decides to deny the request notify the subject of the
complaint their reasons.
Representative Kelly spoke against the amendment.
Representative Finkelstein noted that committee final
deliberations are not open to the public or the subject of
the complaint. He stressed that the amendment clarifies the
internal inconsistency.
Representative Therriault argued that the Legislative Ethics
Committee should not be elevated to jury status.
Representative Martin spoke against the amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
10.
IN FAVOR: Brown
OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Parnell,
Therriault, Foster
Co-Chair Hanley and Representatives Navarre and Grussendorf
were absent for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (1-7).
Representative Finkelstein noted that page 22, line 17 is
inconsistent. He noted that the legislation would prohibit
the subject of the complaint from being present at committee
deliberations and vote on the dismissal order and decision.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt oral Amendment 11,
delete "or the subject of the complaint" on page 22, lines
11 and 12.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Parnell,
Therriault, Foster
OPPOSED: Brown
Co-Chair Hanley and Representatives Navarre and Grussendorf
were absent for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-1).
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt oral Amendment 12 to
delete on page 23, lines 24 - 28. Ms. Barnett noted that
the amendment would retain the status quo. The language
would impose restrictions on the release of information by
the subject of the complaint unless the complainant has
agree to be bound by similar restrictions and has not made
public the information contained in the complaint,
information about the complaint, or the fact of filing the
complaint. She noted that the language would tie the
Committee to conditions as set by a person that the
Committee has no jurisdiction over. She noted that the
language pertains to be information irrelevant to the case.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt oral Amendment 13, on
page 8, line 29 insert "incidental" before "political
activities". She maintained that the language is too broad.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Mulder questioned if a ethics complaint can
be initiated within 60 days of an election. He alleged that
ethic complaints are being used as campaign tools. Mr.
Gaguine noted that AS 11.56 makes the crime of false
accusation with the Legislative Ethics Committee, a class A
misdemeanor. Representative Parnell pointed out that the
penalty requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In response to a question by Representative Martin, Ms.
Barnett noted that the statues do not speak to a gift given
to a family member and imputed to the legislator. She noted
that family members are limited to those people listed on
page 13, lines 17 - 23.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-160, Side 1).
Representative Brown spoke to the need for changes within
the proposed legislation. She pointed out that following
communication with Senator Pearce's office, some changes
would be permissible. Representative Brown suggested that
the current bill could cause unfortunate repercussions. She
stressed that the legislative ethics as proposed would be
"forced" into the Executive ethics, explaining that the two
concepts are quite different.
SB 141 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
SENATE BILL 52
"An Act authorizing capital punishment, classifying
murder in the first degree as a capital felony, and
establishing sentencing procedures for capital
felonies; authorizing an advisory vote on instituting
capital punishment; and providing for an effective
date."
BRANT MCGEE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to
the proposed legislation. He pointed out that costs do not
appear to be attached to the proposal. Mr. McGee stressed
that implementing the death penalty would be
"astronomically" costly and that execution would be many
times more expensive than life in prison without parole.
The legislation will impose indirect costs on every citizen
who attempts to bring their case before an impartial
tribunal.
Mr. McGee continued, the defense and prosecution costs
estimated for the first four years would alone amount to $18
million dollars. He urged the Committee to consider the
costs associated on any bill associated with the death
penalty. Representative Martin agreed that voters should be
informed regarding the costs involved.
V. BONNIE LEMBO, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, opposed the
legislation as passage would seriously increase the work
load for all prosecuting attorneys and it would become more
difficult to obtain the cooperation of witnesses. If a
person knows that when they cooperate with the government as
a witness, and that someone they care about could face
execution, they are more hesitant to provide the needed
information.
Ms. Lembo continued, it will be more difficult to obtain
convictions in homicide cases. The standard of proof being
"beyond a reasonable doubt" would remain legally the same.
Both practically and humanly, a person would be more
reticent to loath someone to death unless they are convinced
without a "shadow of a doubt".
Ms. Lembo concluded, she feared that there would be court
case capital rulings which will make it more difficult to
obtain a court conviction in other kinds of criminal cases,
and judges will become more careful in capital cases. In a
judgement call, judges will tend to error in favor of the
defense when a human life is at stake.
She informed members that there is little scrutiny on
appeals or curatorial attacks in other case convictions
when sentencing to life without parole.
Ms. Lembo pointed out that the bill as written does not have
a fiscal note attached. This is a very complex matter and
will involve increased expenses for the defense agencies,
the Department of Corrections and the Court System. She
stressed that each agency should be required to provide a
meaningful fiscal note. Representative Martin requested a
faxed copy of Ms. Lembo's testimony.
REX LAMONT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PRIVATE
PRACTIONER- CRIMINAL DEFENSE, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition
to the death penalty. He addressed the impact to the poor
and the minorities. Our criminal justice system continues
to have a number of fallacies in adequately representing the
poor. Currently, the Legislature is unable to fully fund
the public defender and public advocacy agencies. He urged
the Committee not to pass the proposed legislation.
AVERIL LERMAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
spoke against the proposed legislation. She provided
Committee members with a brief history of the death penalty
in the State of Alaska. There were three hangings in
Fairbanks between 1900 - 1957. Three hanging also took
place in Juneau during a ten year period.
The history of Alaska has shown that an ill advised vote by
"uninformed" people will not reflect the way those same
people will feel ten years later. At that time it would be
too late for the decision to be reversed.
HUGH FLEISCHER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
spoke against passage of SB 52. He had read an article
written in February, 1995, by a well known
attorney/prosecutor in New York, Robert Martinthaw. Mr.
Martinthaw spoke about the death penalty and how it hinders
the fight against crime. To date, 350 people have been
wrongfully accused and convicted of murder.
SUSAN ORLANSKY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY IN
PRIVATE PRACTICE, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to SB 52.
She stressed that an advisory vote on the death penalty
would not be a good idea. When people vote on ballot
questions, they vote on limited information and emotion.
Legislators are chosen representatives for the people, and
are responsible to analysis information regarding voters
concerns.
She pointed out that we like to think that we live in a
civilized society, although, no other modern western
civilized country supports the intentional killing of other
human beings by the state. Ms. Orlansky urged Committee
members to take a stance to support the dignity and sanctity
of human life and vote against the bill. Representative
Martin agreed.
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR questioned what the fear was in
allowing Alaskans to express an opinion at the poll. He
suggested that the question was a simple one, and that
Alaskans should be given the opportunity to voice their
opinion. He emphasized that voters should not be kept from
expressing their opinions because of someone else's
personal, philosophical or theological points of view.
Senator Taylor referenced a poll that had been provided to
the Senate Judicial Committee.
Representative Martin asked who had requested the poll.
Senator Taylor replied that the pollster provided the poll
independently and then sent the result to him on his own.
The poll had not been requested. This was a statewide poll
taken involving an interview of 500 people. Senator Taylor
interjected that the people of Alaska have not been heard
from on the issue.
Representative Martin questioned the costs involved with the
proposed legislation. Senator Taylor responded that there
was no way to project the costs. He suggested, an attempt
to ascertain the savings associated with the change, would
be equal to the cost of the trial. He concluded that the
only cost incurred with passage of the legislation would be
the cost in placing the measure on the ballot, which would
amount to $2 thousand dollars.
Representative Martin asked how many people would be
eligible for the death sentence at this time, it the bill
should pass. Senator Taylor explained that the November
vote would only be an advisory vote to the Legislature as to
whether or not to implement the action. No one already with
a conviction and judgement would be subject to the
sentencing. He reiterated that there would be no
retroactivity to the death penalty.
Representative Martin inquired why this legislation had been
proposed as a bill instead of a resolution. Senator Taylor
stated that it was a bill in order to accomplish the full
purpose of implementing a death penalty within the State of
Alaska. Representative Martin asked if Senator Taylor would
object if the legislation was changed to a resolution.
Senator Taylor noted that he would not support that motion.
Representative Therriault agreed that resolutions were
usually incorporated for motions as proposed. He asked if
putting the question on the ballot would be subject to a
veto. Senator Taylor replied that he did not know.
Representative Therriault voiced concern with the finality
of execution given the number of mistaken cases. Senator
Taylor agreed that mistakes happen but he believed that the
United States has the finest judicial system in the world.
He added, people are killed all the time in accidents.
People do not expect perfection out of any institutions
within this country.
Representative Kohring voiced his support of the legislation
and noted that he wanted to cross-sponsor the bill.
Representative Navarre countered Representative Kohring,
speaking in support of the current judicial system. He
acknowledged that SB 158 would be much worse for the
criminal victims throughout the State. Representative
Navarre emphasized that innocent people will die because of
mistakes or because the judicial system is weighted in favor
of the wealthy. He agreed that the legal system in this
country is the best in the world, and that is because a
person has the presumption of innocence, a right to an
attorney and the right to an appeal process. In most cases,
it will be the poor that the State will have to pay for the
prosecution and the defensive all the way to the Supreme
Court. He maintained that the status quo would be more
financially sound.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-160, Side 2).
Senator Taylor responded that living in a correctional
facility for the "rest of ones natural life" was a death
sentence. He could not understand a philosophical belief
system which could think that would be a more humane
treatment than to execute that person. He emphasized that
both sentences result in the termination of that person's
life; although, one would take longer than the other.
Senator Taylor stated that it becomes a choice whether that
person deserves the right to continue to utilize services
and receive benefits. He elaborated that those benefits and
services should be made available to other productive
members in society.
Representative Navarre pointed out that there have been
cases in which "new" evidence was brought forth and innocent
people were set free. Many people are beat by the system
and he concluded that the death penalty has no ability for
recourse.
JAMES MCCOMAS, PRESIDENT, ALASKANS AGAINST THE DEATH
PENALTY, ANCHORAGE, spoke against SB 158. He pleaded that
the Committee consider the voice of rural Alaska. He noted
the late hour of the meeting and the fact that the
Legislative Information Offices (LIO) across the State had
closed except in Anchorage. Mr. McComas stressed that
information from rural Alaska is critical because 75% of the
people executed have been and will continue to be Native.
He interjected that 25% of the people executed were white
even though white people committed 75% of the crimes. Every
Native organization has strongly denounced the proposed
legislation.
Mr. McComas addressed Senator Taylor's intent. He stressed
that the sponsor was playing a political game and that
peoples lives are at stake. He thought that it was Senator
Taylor's intention to have the Governor veto the
legislation. Mr. McComas believed if Senator Taylor really
had wanted to know what people thought, he would have
proposed the idea as a resolution. The legislation's intent
would be to force a veto in order that it could be
campaigned against in the fall election. Mr. McComas
objected to "politics" being played with issues of life and
death.
He continued, there should not be an advisory vote until the
public is adequately educated regarding the concern. The
volunteers for Alaskans Against the Death Penalty is a
volunteer organization and can not afford such an
undertaking. Legislators have the responsibility to
debating important issues. Mr. McComas noted that there has
been no debate on the death penalty within either Body of
the Legislature. He informed Committee members that most
people (voters) think that it would cost more to house a
criminal for life in prison than the death penalty. That is
a misconception! He advised that there are thirty-seven
states with the death penalty in tact, and for the sponsor
to insinuate that "we do not know the costs" is a lie. The
attorney general's estimate for each execution will cost the
State $5 million dollars. Mr. McComas pointed out that $5
million dollars is one half of the Department of Law's
budget for an entire year. States that are going bankrupt
because of enforcing the death penalty. It costs too much
money.
Mr. McComas continued, popular opinion is totally wrong.
People were asked how long someone convicted of murder
would be sentenced. He noted that 78% of Alaskans believed
it would be 20 years or less; those people are afraid of a
crime risk repeat which could not happen. Under the Alaska
Statutes, anyone convicted of a first degree murder must
serve twenty years without "good time" and without parole.
No one is released. The average first degree murder
sentence, according to the Department of Law, is 80-90
years. In those cases that could be death eligible, parole
is restricted. Mr. McComas summarized, there is no public
safety risk which the death penalty can address.
He continued, the question proposed in SB 52 is slanted and
inaccurate. Mr. McComas spoke to the "tolerance" that has
existed in the State of Alaska. If the death penalty is
ratified, the values of tolerance will decimate. He spoke
to the mean spirited intent of the legislation's sponsor.
He urged Committee members to further consider the death
penalty.
Capital punishment has been struck from the law of every
western industrialized nation except America. It has been
struck from the law of the Soviet Union and Africa. Yet, in
the land of liberty, a sponsor schemes to provide a
gubernatorial veto for the purpose of campaigning to create
the false appearance of an uninformed public mandate in
order that they can resume for first time in 46 years, which
Alaskans are worthy of life.
In defense of Representative Martin being cut off by
Representative Mulder, Representative Navarre stressed that
it is the Legislature's responsibility to provide adequate
understanding of such complex issues as being presented.
JOYCE BAMBERGER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF,
COMMISSIONER, ALASKA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, ANCHORAGE,
spoke against the proposed legislation. She compared the
Legislature's intent not to place the North Star Oil lease
legislation out for public vote, whereas, at the same time
considering a vote on placing human resources out for public
opinion. The duty of legislators is to protect life.
KIM MCGEE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE FRIENDS
COMMUNITY - QUAKERS, ANCHORAGE, stated that Quakers have
always been against the death penalty and are against the
bill. Quakers uphold the sanctity of all life. "That of
God" exists in each person. She concluded that the State
can not emulate the person lost by taking another persons
life.
MICHAEL LEMAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), BUSINESSMAN,
ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation.
He believed that the proposal was being fuelled by a
misconception regarding the length of prison sentences. The
death penalty will not save money. He summarized that the
death penalty is "racist"; capital punishment means if you
don't have the "capital", you get the "punishment".
ANNE WILKAS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT
PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, voiced
opposition to SB 52. She advised that voters are ignorant
regarding the issue and that the House Finance Committee
members are responsible for weighing the monetary conditions
of the legislation. Voters do not have that information
available to them. No agency affected by the death penalty,
supports the death penalty.
Ms. Wilkas spoke to the moral costs wrapped up in the death
penalty. There does exist a racial disparity impact.
Innocent people will be killed. She explained that there
are strong moral implications of the death penalty bill.
The decision should be made by people who are educated and
informed. She urged Committee members to vote no on the
death penalty.
KATHY HARRIS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
spoke against the proposed legislation. She pointed out
that almost all religious affiliations oppose the death
penalty and noted that all the testimony had been against
passage of the bill.
KEVIN MCCOY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
testified against of SB 52. He suggested that the
legislation should require careful study; matters this
important should not be rushed through the last couple of
nights. He reiterated the high costs associated with
implementing the death penalty.
CHARLES CAMPBELL, PREVIOUS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke against the proposed
legislation. He corrected Senator Taylor's misconception of
life in a prison cell as "death". He agreed that it is not
much of a life, but an overwhelming majority of "lifers"
make a "life" for themselves somehow in it. They often have
jobs at industries within the prison and are capable of
sending money home to their families or try to cover
restitution costs associated with their crime.
Mr. Campbell pointed out that the Legislature is more
informed than voters regarding the issues. The death
penalty is far more costly than life in imprisonment. He
stressed that it is not fair to put the question to the
voters, when legislators know they will be voting on
misinformation. He stated that would be inappropriately
using the electorate.
In response to Representative Martin's question, Mr.
Campbell indicated that there are about three thousand
people on death row today. Death row continues to grow;
there is no way that the number of persons added could be
executed. The average time between the death sentence and
the execution is nine years.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-161, Side 1)
BARBARA BRINK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ANCHORAGE testified via the
teleconference network in opposition to SB 52. She stressed
that the death penalty is a complicated issue. She agreed
that there is a costly appeal process. She emphasized that
there is a separate sentencing trial. She noted that the
cost of maintaining an inmate on death roll is greater than
keeping an inmate in the general population. She noted that
in the state of California it costs $15 million dollars per
execution. She gave examples of costs in other states. She
maintained that the cost will be significant enough to
require taxes. She asked what programs will be reduced to
pay for the cost of the death penalty.
BARBARA HOOD, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference
network in opposition to SB 52. She maintained that there
is no constituency for the legislation. She emphasized that
vengeance is a terrible trait. She alleged that the power
to take human life is a power no government should have.
JOHN SALEMI, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION testified via the teleconference network in
opposition to SB 52. He emphasized that the death penalty
is not a simple issue. He acknowledged citizens are
concerned regarding crime in their communities. He
maintained that the perception of a yes vote on the death
penalty is that public safety will be helped. He argued
that studies demonstrate that the death penalty does not
lessen crime. He noted that the cost of defending seven
death penalty cases would be approximately $1.5 million
dollars. He questioned where the funding will come from.
He emphasized that the money could be better spent on other
public safety items. He stressed that 38 other states have
shown that there is no savings and that the death penalty
does not deter crime. He noted that rural committees have
not been heard from on the legislation. He observed that
rural communities will be the most affected.
REBECCA DAVIS, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference
network in opposition to SB 52. She maintained that many
innocent people have been executed in the United States.
She alleged that more innocent people, particularly
minorities, will be kill. She emphasized the fiscal cost.
SCOTT DAVIS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, FAIRBANKS testified
via the teleconference network in opposition to SB 52. He
maintained that it is inconsistent to be anti-abortion and
pro-death penalty. He emphasized that the death does not
deter crime.
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
testified in opposition to SB 52. He noted that the
Administration opposes SB 52 because it is too expensive.
He estimated that the cost per trial would be $3.5 million
dollars or greater. He stressed that the death penalty
skews the case law related to criminal prosecution. He
noted that capital punishment is not reversible. He
observed that capital punishment has a discriminatory impact
on minority members. He added that capital punishment does
not deter crime. The death penalty was repealed in 1957.
Mr Guaneli stressed that the Legislature is the proper forum
for discussion of the issue. He observed that an advisory
vote is a snap shot of public opinion in one point in time.
He maintained that the advisory vote is likely to be affect
by the most recent news headline. He emphasized that it is
a complicated issue that should not be resolved by a yes or
no vote. He noted that the legislation would need to be
amended to include a reference to the Alaska State
Constitution.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr.
Guaneli observed that the cost of instituting capital
punishment is difficult. He noted that the costs are spread
over a number of years. Trial and investigation costs occur
early. Appeals at the state and federal level would be
extended to a number of years.
Representative Parnell noted that the Department of Law's
fiscal note reflects the belief that an affirmative advisory
vote would result in the institution of the death penalty.
RACHEL KING, ALASKANS AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY spoke in
opposition to SB 52. She noted that the addition of the
fiscal notes reflect a cost of $5.0 million dollars before
the first execution takes place. She observed that it has
been difficult to testify in regards to the legislation.
She gave examples of hearings in Senate Judiciary where
individuals were unable to testify. She recounted
experiences as a public defender in Ketchikan. She stated
that she had a client convicted that she knew was innocent.
The person's conviction was later reversed. She observed
that as a public defender in Kotzebue she had an annual
caseload of 225 cases. She alleged that the justice system
in rural Alaska will be overwhelmed. She observed that
since 1970, 59 innocent people have been released from death
row.
Representative Kohring spoke in support of SB 52. He MOVED
to report CSSB 52 (JUD) out of Committee with individual
recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Martin OBJECTED. He MOVED to TABLE CSSB 52
(JUD). Representative Kohring OBJECTED. A roll call vote
was taken on the MOTION to Table SB 52.
IN FAVOR: Martin, Navarre, Therriault, Brown
OPPOSED: Mulder, Parnell, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring,
Hanley
Co-Chair Foster was absent for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-6).
Representative Martin maintained that the advisory vote
should be established through a resolution. Co-Chair Hanley
explained that the legislation was in order.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to report CSSB 52
(JUD) from Committee.
IN FAVOR: Mulder, Parnell, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring,
Hanley
OPPOSED: Navarre, Therriault, Brown, Martin
Co-Chair Foster was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-4).
Representative Martin MOVED to RESCIND the Committee's
action in reporting CSSB 52 (JUD) out of Committee.
Representative Kohring OBJECTED. He spoke in support of
capital punishment. He WITHDREW his objection.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to move CSSB 52
(JUD) out of Committee.
IN FAVOR: Parnell, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring, Hanley
OPPOSED: Navarre, Therriault, Brown, Martin
Co-Chair Foster and Representative Mulder were absent for
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (5-4).
CSSB 54 (JUD) FAILED to pass from Committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 191
An Act relating to election campaigns, election
campaign financing, the oversight and regulation of
election campaigns by the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, the activities of lobbyists that relate to
election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses of
campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective
date."
(Tape Change, HFC 96-161, Side 2)
SENATE BILL NO. 191
An Act relating to election campaigns, election
campaign financing, the oversight and regulation of
election campaigns by the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, the activities of lobbyists that relate to
election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses of
campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective
date."
SENATOR TIM KELLY testified in support of SB 191. He noted
that SB 191 would replace the ballot initiative. He
acknowledged that the legislation needs changes. He
compared the initiative to SB 191. He noted that the
initiative prohibits non-resident contributions, personal,
office or other use of campaign funds, and carry forward of
campaign funds. The legislation allows limited non-resident
contributions, some transfers of campaign funds to office
use and limited carry forward.
Senator Kelly reviewed provisions identical in both the
legislation and initiative. Both prohibit lobbyists from
making contributions outside their district. He noted that
this section will be disputed in court. Candidate to
candidate campaign fund donations are prohibited. Personal
candidate contributions are not prohibited. Corporations,
partnerships, unions and companies are prohibited from
making contributions. He noted that the legislation was
passed unanimously by the Senate.
Senator Kelly provided members with a number of technical
amendments (copies on file).
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN noted that Amendments 1 - 5
are supported by the Sponsor, the imitative committee and
Representative Finkelstein.
Representative Martin MOVED to adopt Amendment 1 (copy on
file). Representative Finkelstein noted that Amendment 1
states that groups organized on ballot propositions would
not have to adhere to the lower limits included in the
imitative. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Martin MOVED to adopt Amendment 2 (copy on
file). Representative Finkelstein explained that Amendment
2 clarifies that there are no limits on independent
expenditures. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Finkelstein discussed that Amendment 3 (copy
on file). Amendment 3 inserts "or group" on page 5 line 18.
Representative Navarre MOVED to adopt Amendment 3. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to adopt Amendment 4 (copy
on file). Amendment 4 increases the office account for the
House amount to $10 thousand dollars. The legislation would
allow $10 thousand dollars to be transferred from the
campaign account to the House office account.
Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of Amendment 4.
Representative Finkelstein noted that the transfer is
limited and must be disclosed to the Alaska Public Officials
Commission (APOC). Representative Finkelstein discussed the
disclosure requirements.
Representative Brown OBJECTED to the adoption of Amendment
4. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Navarre, Kelly, Kohring, Martin,
Mulder, Therriault, Foster, Hanley
OPPOSED: Brown
Co-Chair Foster and Representative Parnell were absent for
the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (8-1).
Representative Finkelstein discussed Amendment 5 (copy on
file). He noted that fund raising time frames vary in the
legislation. The amendment clarifies that if any of the
time restraints are struck down that campaign funds could be
raised 18 months prior to the general election. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Parnell MOVED to adopt Amendment 6 (copy on
file). Amendment 6 would delete "and files a copy of the
receipt with the commission" on page 12, line 28. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Mulder maintained that complaints should be
held confidential while under investigation. Representative
Finkelstein questioned the penalty for releasing
confidential information. Representative Mulder asked if
complaints are prohibited within 60 days of an election.
Representative Finkelstein noted that the concern is
legitimate but emphasized the difficulty of legislating a
solution.
In response to a question by Representative Martin,
Representative Finkelstein discussed section 2 (3). He
stated that proceeds of charitable gaming activities, except
the proceeds of a raffle or lottery, cannot be used for
campaigning. He further explained that no municipality can
use funds to support or oppose a candidate. Ballot
propositions can only be supported or opposed by ordinance.
In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf,
Representative Finkelstein noted that campaign funds can be
given to a party, non-profit, be returned to contributors,
set aside for future campaigns or up to $10 thousand dollars
can be transferred to an office account.
Senator Kelly noted that there is a one time carry over for
1998.
Representative Brown referred to page 17, lines 15 and 16.
Representative Finkelstein clarified that a House member
could transfer $10 thousand dollars to an office account and
$5 thousand dollars to a future campaign. Any funds
remaining after the allowed distribution would be returned
to the General Fund. She noted that some candidates have
large balances.
Representative Finkelstein spoke in support of the
legislation. He noted that there are earlier effective
dates in the legislation than in the initiative.
Representative Therriault provided members with Amendment 7
(copy on file). Representative Finkelstein noted that the
legislation was amended by Representative Bunde to prohibit
personal use of campaign funds after July 1, 1996. He did
not think the amendment was needed.
JACK CHENOWETH, LEGAL COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY
explained that the amendment would cut off the opportunity
to take campaign account money as personal income. He
explained that section 20 would supercede section 19.
Representative Finkelstein spoke against the amendment.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-162, Side 1).
Representative Mulder spoke against the amendment. He
thought that adoption would "unravel" support for the
initiative.
Representative Therriault MOVED TO WITHDRAW Amendment #7.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
Senator Kelly advised that next year on January 1st, if
campaign finance reform and if the ethics bill passes, there
will be changes in the way the political system works.
Whether or not the bill passes, an initiative will pass in
the fall. He recommended that legislators should take more
time to fully understand the repercussions of choices made.
Senator Kelly preferred passage of a bill over an
initiative.
Representative Therriault asked the effective date on HB
307. Co-Chair Hanley replied it would take effect after the
election. Representative Finkelstein added, legislators
will not be able to access those funds until after January
1st. Representative Martin pointed out that HB 307 provided
an earlier implementation date and that it would not impact
this year.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report HCS CS SB 191 (FIN)
with individual recommendations and with the accompanying
fiscal notes. Representative Navarre asked if there had
been testimony regarding the office account. Representative
Finkelstein replied that a municipal office account had been
added, although there had been no input regarding that
concern. There being NO OBJECTION to moving the bill from
Committee, it was so ordered.
HCS CS SB 191 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with fiscal notes by the (2) Department
of Administration dated 4/9/96, the Department of Law dated
3/25/96, (2) zero fiscal notes by the Office of the Governor
dated 3/20/96 and Legislative Affairs Agency dated 3/25/96.
SENATE BILL 265
"An Act relating to the definition of program receipts;
and providing for an effective date."
GORDY WILLIAMS, STAFF, SENATOR FRED ZHAROFF, spoke in
support of SB 265. SB 265 was introduced to enhance the
ability of the Department of Fish and Game to successfully
manage the complex fisheries. An important tool in the
management regime would be the utilization of private sector
vessels and expertise to conduct test fisheries. The
fisheries provide valuable information on such things as the
health of fish stocks, compositions of stocks, timing of
fish runs, and the economic condition of our resources.
Mr. Williams pointed out that the Department of Fish and
Game is limited with regard to vessels and field staff in
many areas of the State. As budget constraints continue, it
is increasingly difficult for the Department to maintain or
enhance their management capabilities without a significant
cooperative effort with the private sector.
SB 265 would not affect the legislature's role in making
appropriations to the test fisheries program or the other
programs that are identified as utilizing restricted program
receipts. The bill recognizes the special relationship of
these funds and clarifies their treatment in the budget
process.
NANCY SLAGLE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BUDGET REVIEW, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, stated that
the legislation would not restrict the authority of the
Legislature in reviewing or appropriating funds. It would
take those specific items received by the State by contract
and would identify them as restricted program receipts. Ms.
Slagle noted that attached to the fiscal note was a list of
agencies affected by the legislation.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CS SB 265 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS SB 265 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Office of
Management and Budget dated 5/1/96.
SENATE BILL 98
"An Act making changes related to the aid to families
with dependent children program, the Medicaid program,
the general relief assistance program, and the adult
public assistance program; directing the Department of
Health and Social Services to apply to the federal
government for waivers to implement the changes where
necessary; relating to eligibility for permanent fund
dividends of certain individuals who receive state
assistance, to notice requirements applicable to the
dividend program; and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Hanley explained Amendment #1, 9-LS0692\L.9,
Lauterback, 5/2/96. [Copy on file]. Amendment #1 would
remove crew members licenses from the list. He noted that
those licenses could be purchased at locations such as Fred
Meyers and that it would be unreasonable to require those
types business to provide a Child Support Enforcement Agency
(CSEA) check before a license was issued. The amendment had
been submitted by Representative Phillips.
KEVIN BROOKS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, advised that the Department has
approximately 400 vendors who sell crew licenses throughout
the State and that approximately four thousand licenses are
sold throughout the year.
Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Copy on
file]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2 which would
allow victims of domestic violence to seek public assistance
to aid them to establish a life free of violence whenever
necessary. [Copy on file]. She maintained that assistance
should be available whenever needed in a time of "crisis"
regardless of the time limits.
JIM NORDLUND, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, stated that the
amendment would amend two sections of the bill. The first
one would adjust the two year time limit within the waiver
section. Under federal law, that would be an option
available to individual states.
Representative Brown noted that one of the reasons that
abused women stay in abusive situations, is that they lack
adequate financial resources to leave. She suggested that
there should be a "showing" that the need existed in order
to qualify for the funding. Co-Chair Hanley expressed
concern that a woman could try to use a circumstance from an
"old" abusive situation. He suggested that a time limit be
placed on the matter.
Representative Brown suggested amending the language
following "believe", deleting "has been" and inserting "is
or recently has been" on line 4 and line 13 of Amendment #2.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was changed. There being NO
OBJECTION to the amended amendment, it was adopted.
Representative Brown spoke to Amendment #3. [Copy on file].
The amendment would address the confidentiality section and
a fraud inquiry based on information received by a
legislator on a person. The attempt would more clearly
target the kinds of information which would appropriately
disclose that situation.
Mr. Nordlund explained that the legislator could not report
back to the person who made the complaint with the
information received from the Department. That is how the
bill is currently constructed and would not be affected by
the amendment.
In response to Representative Parnell, Mr. Nordlund spoke to
the portion of the amendment on line 11 & 12.
Representative Parnell MOVED to divide the question. Co-
Chair Hanley pointed out that the amendment had not yet been
moved. Representative Parnell WITHDREW the MOTION.
Representative Brown MOVED to delete lines 11 - 13 of the
amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, it was deleted.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #3.
SENATOR LYDA GREEN spoke to the frustration on the part of
legislators trying to seek information for constituents on
inquires concerning persons who are eligible for public
assistance. That constituent would not be assured that
there had been a follow-up. The original language could
achieve that.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-162, Side 2).
Senator Green commented that not every inquiry would have a
fraud basis and that the amendment would narrow it. She did
not think that the amendment was broad enough to get the
information needed and that the standard would be "very"
high for a legislator who had the information.
Mr. Nordlund understood the language of the amendment to be
limited to potential violations. Co-Chair Hanley added, it
would allow the legislator to request a fraud inquiry.
Representative Brown questioned other circumstances.
Co-Chair Hanley reiterated that the legislature would not
require a fraud investigation. It is stated that
regulations must provide that the results of a fraud inquiry
shall be disclosed. Mr. Nordlund responded that if any
person suspected fraud, the Department would then be
required to investigate.
CURTIS LOMAS, WELFARE REFORM OFFICER, DIVISION OF PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, stated
under current law, the standard response as to whether
someone is or is not on public assistance would be protected
information. Under current law, that would be the response
that a legislator would receive. Whenever there is a claim
that someone is suspected of receiving benefits
fraudulently, the Division receives that information as a
signal to do a fraud report.
Co-Chair Hanley stated that information regarding a person
being or not being on public assistance should not be
confidential. Representative Therriault suggested adding
language "the results of an inquiry or investigation".
Representative Brown recommended substituting that language
with "the results of inquiry based on a possible fraud".
Senator Green thought that language could limit the scope.
Representative Therriault disagreed. He thought that all
information would be available from the results of a tip-
off, thus providing legislators information regarding
investigations to base public policy calls on.
Representative Brown stated that it was not appropriate for
a legislator have access to confidential information without
a purpose to be served by it. She asked if a person on
public assistance had the power to include their legislator
in access to their own records. Mr. Lomas agreed they
could.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt the amended Amendment
inquiry regarding possible fraud, based on information
received by a legislator, based on a particular person".
Representative Mulder OBJECTED.
A roll call was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Navarre, Therriault.
OPPOSED: Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Hanley.
Representatives Kelly, Kohring and Foster were not present
for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-4).
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #4. [Copy on
file]. Mr. Nordlund stated that the amendment would make
the bill in line with federal law. Co-Chair Hanley
OBJECTED.
Senator Green advised that the wording of the referenced
section had been drafted carefully and she requested that it
not be adjusted. Representative Brown refuted, the new
language would only be used if there was a high unemployment
rate. The proposed language would provide for a rateable
reduction to recipients benefits.
A roll call was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Navarre, Grussendorf, Brown.
OPPOSED: Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault,
Kelly, Hanley.
Representatives Kohring and Foster were not present for the
vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-6).
Representative Brown spoke to Amendment #5 to page 25 of the
HESS version. [Copy on file]. The change would be to line
28, section (b), which would allow Native organizations to
authorize the transfer of the State's share of funds
appropriated for that purpose.
Co-Chair Hanley questioned if federal law provided the
authority to Native organizations to take control of the
JOBS program. Representative Brown pointed out that the
Legislature would still need to appropriate funds for that
purpose. Mr. Lomas explained that section of the bill is
the comprehensive reform section, and that it presumes
passage of the reform legislation. It is modeled from
language within federal law. The $944 thousand dollars was
requested in the budget, currently is a fiscal note to be
used for the Native JOBS program. Under federal reform, the
JOBS program will no longer exist. It has been replaced
with the new block grant program.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that he wanted the language to be
tight enough in order to address the specific funding
purposes. Mr. Nordlund countered that the language in
reference is not about the JOBS program; it is about state
matching of a Native organization providing the entire
program. That language was proposed by the Tanana Chiefs
Council in a statement of intent. The Department would like
the Native program and the federal program to run comparable
benefits.
Co-Chair Hanley reiterated his concern with the flexibility
of the language and the implications it would provide.
Senator Green stated that the main purpose of the original
language was to give the Department authority to plan with
the Native organizations. Following implementation of the
new programs, it would be in the State's best interest to
have a consistent program.
Co-Chair Hanley suggested that language was not necessary.
He recommended adding a Letter of Intent. Representative
Brown noted that she would not move the amendment if there
would be a letter of intent.
Representative Therriault MOVED Amendment 6, on page 9, line
30, deleting "or emotional". Senator Green noted that
federal language addresses a persons physical health and
safety and also emotional and mental health conditions. She
recommended that language remain in the bill.
Mr. Lomas added, that provision had been included in the
Governor's legislation and was included in HB 78 last year.
The entire section addresses minor parents living with
family or in some other appropriate setting. There have
been times when the minor claims that the home is not
suitable or safe either for physical or psychological
reasons because of a history of abuse. He added, the
Department will not allow a frivolous claim of emotional
harm. There will need to be documentation of problems
existing at that home to allow for the exemption.
Representative Therriault thought if problems did exist,
they would jeopardize the youths physical health also. Mr.
Nordlund elaborated, situations exist where there is serious
psychological stress for minors. The Division of Family and
Youth Services (DFYS) should be able to take these
circumstances into consideration.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-163, Side 1)
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that emotional stress
can have a serious affect on the minor.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to delete
"emotional," Amendment 6.
IN FAVOR: Mulder, Therriault, Kelly, Hanley
OPPOSED: Martin, Navarre, Parnell, Brown, Grussendorf
Co-Chair Foster and Representative Kohring were absent for
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-5).
Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to adopt Amendment 7 (copy on file).
He noted that the amendment would delete "day care
assistance and" from the title. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Hanley referred to the fiscal notes. He noted that
there are two fiscal note sets, one set each for the
comprehensive and waiver provisions. The fiscal notes for
the waiver provisions would not take effect if federal
reform takes place. He explained that the net general fund
match in the comprehensive set is $3.170 million dollars.
The net general fund match is $3 million dollars for the
waiver provision. Some program receipts would be collected
to offset costs.
Representative Brown asked what the impact would be if the
legislation passed without adoption of the fiscal notes.
Mr. Lomas stated that the Department would have a great
amount of difficulty if fiscal notes were not adopted.
Caseload reductions would be in danger without day care and
work assistance funds. He explained that areas noted by
asterisks are not currently in the budget. He emphasized
that the Department requests that funding be restored. He
noted that the Department needs $2 million dollars in
federal authorization, $1 million unrestricted general fund
dollars and $2 million dollars in increased child support
enforcement program receipts for a total of $5 million
dollars.
Mr. Nordlund added that the two sets of fiscal notes are
very close.
Co-Chair Hanley summarized that the Department realized a
savings in FY 96. The Department wished to reinvest the FY
96 savings in FY 97.
Mr. Lomas explained that reinvestment funds from FY 97 is
the requested funding source for the $2 million dollars
shown in both provisions. He observed that child support
collections in FY 97 were underestimated. He noted that
some provisions do not require either a waiver or federal
law change. He emphasized that 13 data processing positions
would be lost without the reinvestment funds. He maintained
that additional money for work programs and child care is
necessary to put additional people into work activities.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that the Governor may not support the
legislation without funding for the fiscal notes.
Mr. Nordlund emphasized the need for the child care and job
training funding.
Representative Martin MOVED to report HCS CSSB 98 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CSSB 98 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with nine Department of Health & Social
Services fiscal impact notes for the Comprehensive Plan; and
with ten fiscal impact notes pertaining to the Comprehensive
Plan; one by the Department of Revenue, 4/22/96, one by the
Department of Education, 4/22/96, two by the Department of
Labor, 4/22/96, one by the Department of Public Safety,
4/22/96, three by the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, 4/22/96, and two by the Department of Fish and
Game, 4/22/96; and with a zero fiscal note by the Department
of Health & Social Services; or with eight fiscal impact
notes pertaining to the Waiver Plan from the Department of
Health & Social Services.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m. on May 4, 1996.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|