Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/18/1997 01:43 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
February 18, 1997
1:43 P.M.
TAPE HFC 97-31, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97-31, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97-32, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97-32, Side 2, #000 - 298.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:43 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Grussendorf
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter; Representative Alan Austerman;
Representative Norman Rokeberg; Dean Guaneli, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Jayne
Andreen, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault;
Paul Fuhs, Alaska ARDOR Association; Mary Stadum, Anchorage;
Patricia Demarco, Anchorage; Ike Waits, Anchorage; Alice
Ruby, Dillingham; Donna Tollman, Glennallen; James Elson,
Kenai; Sherry Biggs, Kenai; James Winchester, Prince William
Sound Economic Development Council; Berne Miller, Southeast
Conference; Barbara Brink, Director, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration;
SUMMARY
HB 9 "An Act relating to the right of crime victims and
victims of juvenile offenses to be present at
court proceedings; and amending Rule 615, Alaska
Rules of Evidence."
CSHB 9 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact
note by the Department of Administration; and with
five zero fiscal notes, one by the Department of
Law, one by the Department of Administration, one
1
by the Department of Public Safety (dated
1/27/97), one by the Alaska Court System (dated
1/27/97), and one by the Department of Health &
Social Services (dated 1/27/97).
HB 35 "An Act extending the termination date of the
Alaska regional economic assistance program; and
providing for an effective date."
HB 35 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note
by the Department of Community and Regional
Affairs, dated 2/5/97.
HB 51 "An Act relating to the Department of
Environmental Conservation."
HB 51 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 9
"An Act relating to the right of crime victims and
victims of juvenile offenses to be present at court
proceedings; and amending Rule 615, Alaska Rules of
Evidence."
BARBARA BRINK, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER'S AGENCY observed
that the bill has metamorphosed since she last testified.
She stated that current rules operate to assure an accurate
fact finding process. She emphasized that the reason a
witness is excluded from a trial is to assure that their
testimony or recollection of events is not modified or
tainted by something they subsequently learn during the
proceedings. Under current rules, the crime victim that is
not actually a witness to a case would not be excluded. She
asserted that, if a victim is also a witness, the judge is
in the best position to balance the interest of the victim
against assuring that the jury has the true facts before
them. She emphasized that the human brain is not a true
recorder of events and can be influenced by other factors.
She stated that a prosecutor can solve the problem by
calling the victim as the first witness. She spoke against
removal of the Exclusionary Rule from a criminal case. She
reiterated that if the victim is not a witness they will not
be excluded from proceedings.
Ms. Brink expressed concern with section 13. Section 13
limits the court's ability to grant an order requiring a
victim to undergo a psychiatric or psychological examination
to cases where the victim's psychiatric condition is an
element of the offense charged. She alleged that the bill
2
ignores the fact that people do not have perfect recall.
She stated that witnesses may have conditions relating to
their mental health that affect their ability to tell the
truth or remember accurately. She stressed that there is
already a burden on a criminal defendant to obtain an
evaluation. She maintained that psychological examinations
are rarely granted. She emphasized that due process
requires that the jury be informed if there is a mental
condition that affects the credibility of a witness. She
stressed that the jury is the finder of fact.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Ms.
Brink discussed section 18. Section 18 amends Alaska
Evidence Rule 404(b) to allow, in the prosecution of a crime
involving domestic violence or interfering with a report of
domestic violence, evidence to be introduced that the
defendant has committed other crimes involving domestic
violence or interfering with the report of a crime involving
domestic violence against the same or another victim. She
emphasized that a person cannot be convicted because they
are unlikable or have been bad in the past. The prosecution
is required to prove that the person actually committed the
crime in which they are charged. She noted that a person's
prior misdeeds can be admissable under a broad variety of
circumstances. If the misdeed is relative to prove intent
or motive, opportunity, common plan or scheme, or lack of
mistake or accident it is admissible. She maintained that
this section has constitutional concerns. Co-Chair
Therriault observed that section 18 is not limited to
previous convictions.
Co-Chair Therriault referred to section 8. Section 8 adds a
new provision to the criminal code making it a class A
misdemeanor to interfere with a person who is reporting or
attempting to report a domestic violence crime to the
police. These kinds of instances happen when someone who is
a victim of domestic violence decides to report. Ms. Brink
asserted that "interfere" is a broad word. She noted that
there is no legal connotation.
JAYNE ANDREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT testified in support of the
committee substitute. She observed that Alaskan voters
passed a constitutional amendment supporting victims access
to criminal proceedings. She stressed that the legislation
goes a long way in ensuring that victims will have the
access that they are granted by the state constitution.
Ms. Andreen referred to section 7. Section 7 amends the
definition of "incapacitated" in the sexual assault
statutes. "Incapacitated" means that a victim was
temporarily unable to appraise the nature of his or her
3
conduct, or that the victim was temporarily unable to
express unwillingness to act. She expressed concern that
the level of proof can be damaging to victims. She observed
that someone who is developmentally delayed and may not know
or be able to appraise the nature of the act, but is able to
communicate a willingness or unwillingness, would not fit
under the definition. Victims under the influence of the
rape drug, rohypnol, would not fit the definition.
Ms. Andreen discussed section 8, the crime of interfering
with a person who is reporting or attempting to report a
domestic violence crime to the police. She recounted that
numerous victims have reported that they were prevented from
making a report when the perpetrator ripped the phone out of
the wall. She expressed concern that this relays a long
term message that it is futile for the victim to try to do
anything to protect themselves.
Ms. Andreen observed that it is now mandatory in domestic
violence cases for the court and corrections systems to look
at and incorporate the safety needs of the victim. She
emphasized that the legislation expands this to all victims
of violent crimes.
Ms. Andreen referred to section 13, psychological
examinations of a victim. She observed that a psychological
examination of the victim indicates to the victim that they
are responsible or at fault, or could be held accountable
for the fact that the crime occurred.
Ms. Andreen observed that domestic violence is a cyclical
offense. Domestic violence continues over a period of time
and gradually escalates. She stressed that the State is
working to develop a policy and process that is not as
dependent on victims, to make or break a criminal case.
Representative G. Davis suggested that in a case where a
phone is pulled out of the wall that "it appears that the
anger level is so high, would be so high, that this is
really a small thing. It's like going into a jewelry store
and robbing a whole box of watches, and on the way out
grabbing a $.25 cent candy bar." Ms. Andreen replied that
it is difficult to comprehend that domestic violence is
unlike other crimes, in that you cannot take a single
episode or incident and break it down. The on-going erosion
of a person's ability to be responsible for themselves must
be considered.
Co-Chair Therriault referred to section 8. He expressed
concern that "interfering" is a little "wide open".
Representative Kelly noted that AS 18.66.990 is cited on
4
page 3, line 20. He expressed concern that federal laws
that remove the right to keep and bear arms if a person is
associated with the crime of domestic violence could apply.
He stated that "some of the definitions they have on
domestic violence are pretty absurd to give up a
constitutional right." He maintained that because
definitions of "domestic violence" under AS 18.66.990
collaterally references "harassment" that a person could
lose the right to keep and bear arms because they have
insulted, taunted or challenged someone to provoke an
immediate, violent response. He did not feel that the
provision should be in the legislation. He expressed
concern that the provision is too broad.
Representative Grussendorf questioned if there have been
situations where an in-law, trying to promote harmony, has
prevented a woman from filing a report. Ms. Andreen noted
that in-laws may provide emotional pressure to the victim to
not report. She recounted two instances where brothers of
the alleged perpetrator applied physical pressure to prevent
a victim from reporting.
Representative Kelly reiterated his questions regarding
references to the definition of domestic violence in AS
18.66.990. He maintained that this "is a fairly weak crime
to go ahead and include in this list, which could end up
causing one to lose their constitutional right to keep and
bear arms." He pointed out that police and military forces
are going to have family problems, and that they aren't
going to have to do physical harm. All they are going to
have to do, is insult, taunt or challenge in a manner likely
to provoke an immediate violent response to be out of a job.
He reiterated that it is a low threshold.
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
clarified that the portions of the state harassment statute
that are incorporated within the definition of domestic
violence are fairly narrow. References include telephoning,
making repeated telephone calls, and making anonymous
obscene calls. He stressed that the federal prohibition
from carrying a fire arm would not automatically be invoked.
He stated that the federal prohibition refers to domestic
violence that involves using physical force or a weapon
against a person. The federal law would only be triggered
if the state conviction contains those elements.
Representative Davies reiterated that a person must be
convicted under the state statute for federal prohibitions
to take effect. Mr. Guaneli clarified that the physical
restraint of a person could form the basis for an assault
charge under state statute. He acknowledged that a
conviction pertaining to a single instance of physical
5
restraint is rare.
Representative Grussendorf noted that the legislation refers
to the "alleged victim". Mr. Guaneli observed that the
language acknowledges that there is an assumption of
innocence until guilt is proven.
Co-Chair Hanley referred to section 8. He asked the
definition of "interfering". Mr. Guaneli pointed out that
the perpetrator has to know that they are interfering with
someone that is reporting or attempting to report a crime to
a law enforcement agency. He emphasized that the jury is
left to decide if there is actual interference. He observed
that the provision is similar to statutes pertaining to
interfering with or resisting an arrest by a law enforcement
agency. He noted that this law has been on the books
without specific definition of "interference". He clarified
that the perpetrator must know that they are interfering and
that they must have some suspicion that the woman was
attempting to report to a law enforcement agency for a
conviction to occur. He emphasized that the most common
occurrence is the phone being removed while a victim is
attempting to call 911 or telling a child to call 911, or
during an actual call to 911. He summarized that it is a
more aggravated offense that is reflected by an additional
charge.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Guaneli
discussed section 18. He agreed that "the law, as expressed
in this rule of court, wants to base a conviction on the
conduct that occurred at that particular instance". There
are exceptions where prior bad conduct can also come into
evidence as a way of explaining or putting into context what
happen on that particular instance. The change reflects
that domestic violence is the type of thing that happens
over and over again, and tends to escalate in violence. He
observed that the Legislature has amended this statute to
allow into evidence prior child sexual abuse. He noted that
there is a similarity in the offense patterns of child
sexual abuse and domestic violence. He did not think that
the provision would be found unconstitutional.
Representative Davies asked why the back pattern cannot be
allowed under existing law.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-31, Side 2)
Mr. Guaneli noted that different judges apply the rule in
different ways. The specific exceptions under this rule to
allow in prior bad acts are applied very literally by some
judges.
6
Representative Grussendorf summarized that a pattern of
physical abuse as demonstrated by doctor records would be
admissable. Mr. Guaneli agreed and added that evidence from
the victim that the abuse has happened on previous occasions
could be admissible.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that prior evidence, not just
convictions, would be admissible. He suggested that the
evidence is being presented as fact. Mr. Guaneli agreed
that the evidence is brought in as fact. He stressed that
the jury must decide how the evidence relates to the new
event. Judges generally instruct juries to consider the
prior evidence, not merely for the fact that the person is a
bad person, but in order to help explain why something
occurred on another occasion. He maintained that the
restriction to prior convictions would defeat one of the
purposes of the provision. He noted that domestic violence
often is not reported until well into the cycle of violence.
The action of the abuser has discouraged the victim from
reporting to the police.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Guaneli
discussed the Exclusionary Rule. He agreed that actual fact
finding is needed in any judicial system. He maintained
that the current practice of automatic exclusion of every
witness, including every victim, goes beyond what is
necessary to assure accurate fact finding. He stressed that
there must be a balance between the rights of the accused
and the victim. He observed that there is now a
constitutional right that gives victims the right to be in
the courtroom every time that the defendant is present. He
stressed that victims of certain types of crimes feel that
they are victimized by the proceedings in the court room.
They feel that they are being attacked by the arguments that
are being made. Their conduct and credibility are being
attacked. Most victims feel that they have a right to be
present when they are being attacked. He emphasized that
the judge continues to have the right to exclude someone
from the court room if their presence will prejudice the
jury or the accused's rights. He maintained that there
ought to be a factual basis for the exclusion.
Representative Kelly expressed concern that defendants may
accept the charge of domestic violence because they do not
have money to fight the charge. He reiterated concerns
relating to the collateral reference to "harassment".
Representative Porter pointed out that all defendants are
provided counsel by the State if they cannot afford private
representation. He spoke against changing the fundamental
definition of domestic violence. He emphasized that the
scope of "harassment" is a very narrow application within
7
the domestic violence definition.
Representative Davies referred to section 13. Mr. Guaneli
disagreed that section 13 would present constitutional
concerns. He observed that the defense commonly challenges
the victim's credibility through the use of psychological
examinations by expert witnesses. He agreed that a mental
exam would be appropriate if the victim's mental condition
is a direct element of the defense. He observed that
polygraph evidence is not allowed.
Representative Davies questioned if instructions from the
court that mental examinations cannot be for the purpose of
harassment or embarrassment have been effective in
preventing abuse. Mr. Guaneli replied that the standard has
been low. He did not think that the current standards are
adequate to protect against abuse.
Representative Davies quoted Ms. Brink as saying that the
Court of Appeals has cautioned that, "care must be taken to
assure that requests for evaluation will in fact yield
relevant evidence." Mr. Guaneli expressed belief that a
number of judges have found it easier to approve the order
for an exam. When the case goes to trial the judge decides
if the evidence will be allowed. He pointed out that by
trial time the harm has been done. "The victim has been
revictimized."
Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to adopt Work Draft #O-LS008\H, dated
2/12/97 (copy on file). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Representative Davies provided members with Amendment 1
(copy on file). OBJECTED for purposes of discussion.
Representative Davies explained that Amendment 1 would amend
the Exclusionary Rule. He maintained that the amendment
would balance the rights of the victim and the defendant.
The amendment would allow the victim to be present unless;
"(i) the testimony concerns the subject about which the
victim is expected to testify; and (ii) the victim is likely
to be called as a witness and has not, at the time of the
testimony, testified." He spoke in support of Amendment 1.
Representative Porter spoke against the amendment. He
disagreed that the amendment would balance the rights of the
victim and defendant. He observed that the defendant may
stay throughout the trial even though they are about to
testify, but the victim cannot. He reiterated that victims
should receive the same rights as defendants.
In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf,
Representative Porter noted that the wording of the
8
constitutional amendment states that "crime victims as
defined by law, shall have the following rights as provided
by law". Some judges have interpreted this to mean that if
the specific enumeration is not provided in the statute it
is not provided by law. Mr. Guaneli added that the
Exclusionary Rule has been a court rule for a long time and
a lot of judges are use to operating in this manner. The
legislation will implement changes provided by the
constitutional amendment.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr.
Guaneli emphasized that the judge always has the power and
obligation to take whatever steps are necessary to assure a
fair trial.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Moses
OPPOSED: Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Hanley,
Therriault
Representative Foster was absent from the vote.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 9 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 9 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Administration; and with five zero fiscal
notes, one by the Department of Law, one by the Department
of Administration, one by the Department of Public Safety
(dated 1/27/97), one by the Alaska Court System (dated
1/27/97), and one by the Department of Health & Social
Services (dated 1/27/97).
HOUSE BILL NO. 35
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska
regional economic assistance program; and providing for
an effective date."
Representative Austerman provided members with a sponsor
statement. He observed that the Alaska Regional Development
Organizations program was created in statute in 1988.
Commonly referred to as ARDOR's, they are private, nonprofit
corporations formed by local initiative to promote private
sector economic development within their designated regions.
The ARDOR program has led to the formation of 11 regional
development organizations such as the Southwest Alaska
9
Municipal Conference, the Southeast Conference, the Lower
Kuskokwim Economic Development Council and the Anchorage
Economic Development Corporation. He maintained that the
nearly two hundred representatives of local political,
social and economic interests, who serve on ARDOR boards of
directors, are working together to lead their regions to
greater economic self-sufficiency.
The original legislation had a sunset clause that ended the
program in 1993, but was extended until the end of fiscal
year 1997. He stated that it is in the best interest of the
State of Alaska to continue the ARDOR program to ensure the
ongoing economic viability of Alaska's various regions.
Representative Austerman provided members with the Alaska
Regional Development Organizations' Annual Report, March
1996 (copy on file). He noted that the last page shows
funding sources generated by program. State funding was a
little more than $600 thousand dollars in FY 97. The
addition of private funds resulted in a total budget of
$6,585 million dollars in FY 97.
PAUL FUHS, ALASKA ARDOR ASSOCIATION spoke in behalf of HB
35. He pointed to the ARDOR program as an example of a
successful private/public partnership. He emphasized the
importance of local implementation and coordination of
projects. He observed that state funding comes through
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA)
program receipts. The Governor has proposed $620 thousand
dollars for the ARDOR program in FY 98. He observed that a
local match is required.
Representative Martin expressed his opposition to HB 35. He
questioned what the ARDOR's do that cannot be done by local
Chambers of Commerce and Rotary Clubs.
Mr. Fuhs emphasized that ARDOR's provide a private/public
cooperative effort to look for infrastructure on a regional
level. He gave examples of ARDOR programs. He maintained
that Chambers of Commerce would not provide coordinated
services. He stated that the Alaska ARDOR Association would
welcome a legislative audit.
MARY STADUM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHWEST ALASKA MUNICIPAL
CONFERENCE testified via the teleconference network in
support of HB 35. She observed that the Conference was
founded before the ARDOR program was established. She
reviewed services provided by the Conference. She stressed
that ARDOR's bring local Chambers of Commerce together with
other organizations.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-32, Side 1)
10
Ms. Stadum emphasized that ARDOR's allow people to work
together and share resources. She noted that leaders in
small communities wear many hats. She noted that the
Conference passed two resolutions in expressing support for
the ARDOR program.
ALICE RUBY, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF DILLINGHAM testified via
the teleconference network in support of HB 35. She
maintained that the program has allowed them to work on a
grass roots level to provide information, networking,
technical assistance and to serve as a catalyst for economic
development and diversification. She gave examples of ARDOR
activities.
DONNA TOLLMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COPPER VALLEY ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, GLENNALLEN testified via the
teleconference network. She urged support of HB 35. She
observed the affects of reductions to the ARDOR program.
She stressed that the Council, through a contract for
welfare to work programs, helps to develop self efficiency
plans for residents. The Council also helps small
businesses to create development plans. She noted that the
Council is involved in tourism and child care.
Representative Martin maintained that activities performed
by the Council should be done by government. Ms. Tollman
emphasized the distance of the region from the Palmer
office.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Ms. Tollman
noted that the Council received its contract for the welfare
to work program through the Department of Community and
Regional Affairs.
JAMES ELSON, CHAIRMAN, KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, KENAI testified via the teleconference
network. He spoke in support of HB 35. He observed that he
has served as a volunteer of the local ARDOR organization.
He stressed that state funding has allowed them to obtain
good professional staff. He pointed out that ARDOR's also
receive private funding. He stressed that jobs have been
created through economic development efforts. He recounted
accomplishments of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic
Development District.
SHERRY BIGGS, KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, KENAI testified via the teleconference network in
support of HB 35. She emphasized that Kenai has a very
diversified economy. She stressed that there needs to be a
regional approach. She maintained that ARDOR provides a
bridge between government and private enterprise.
11
Mr. Elson observed that ARDOR's can contract directly with
the State without going through the competitive bid process.
JAMES WINCHESTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, testified via the
teleconference network in support of HB 35. He maintained
that the Council is about providing jobs. The Council has
three main areas of activities, small business development,
infrastructure development projects, and economic recovery
projects. The Council has a $3.0 million dollar budget and
2 and half full time staff positions.
PATRICIA DEMARCO, PRESIDENT, ANCHORAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION testified via the teleconference network in
support of HB 35. She emphasized the importance of the
ARDOR program as an integrating force across the State.
She stressed efforts to provide year-round jobs. She noted
that planning functions are not easily funded by private
sector initiatives. She reviewed ARDOR projects implemented
by the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation.
IKE WAITS, ARDOR PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
REGIONAL AFFAIRS observed that the program is a way to
stretch state funds for regional economic development. He
spoke in support of the ARDOR Program.
BERNE MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE
testified in support of HB 35. He provided members with
written testimony (copy on file). He stressed that the
program relies on local and regional decision making about
what is important. In response to a question by Co-Chair
Hanley, Mr. Miller acknowledged that the Conference existed
before it received state ARDOR funding. The Southeast
Conference's total FY 97 budget is approximately $225
thousand dollars.
Representative Kohring expressed concern with the State's
participation.
Mr. Miller stated that the Conference helps show
organizations how to execute projects as quickly and
economically as possible.
Co-Chair Hanley clarified that ARDOR's are non-profit
groups. Individual regional organizations administer the
program.
Co-Chair Hanley acknowledged the benefit of the ARDOR
program. He pointed out that many of the regional
organizations would continue to exist without state funding.
12
He emphasized that funding may be reduced. He clarified
that each ARDOR receives $55.0 thousand dollars. He asked
why all ARDOR's receive the same funding.
Mr. Fuhs noted that the original appropriation to the ARDOR
program was $1.6 million dollars. The Governor's FY 98
request is $620 thousand dollars. He maintained that equal
funding is the most fair. The required local match varies
based on capability.
Representative Martin pointed out that $55.0 thousand
dollars pays for one position per ARDOR. He spoke against
continuing the program.
Mr. Fuhs observed that private business does not want to be
over regulated. He added that government working with
business for economic development "makes all the difference
in the world."
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 35 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and with the accompanying
fiscal note. Representative Martin OBJECTED. He stated
that the ARDOR program should undergo an audit to determine
if all eleven ARDOR's should be funded. A roll call vote
was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Davis, Foster, Grussendorf, Kohring,
Mulder, Therriault, Hanley
OPPOSED: Martin
Representative Kelly was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (9-1).
HB 35 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Community and Regional Affairs, dated 2/5/97.
HOUSE BILL NO. 51
"An Act relating to the Department of Environmental
Conservation."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG provided members with a committee
substitute, Work Draft #O-LS0091\T, dated 2/17/97 (copy on
file). Representative Foster MOVED to adopt Work Draft #O-
LS0091\T, dated 2/17/97. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
Representative Rokeberg maintained that the committee
substitute simplifies the legislation. He explained that
the committee substitute more closely follows HB 342 which
was passed by the Nineteenth Alaska State Legislature.
13
House Bill 342 was vetoed by the Governor.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-32, Side 2)
Representative Rokeberg reviewed changes incorporated in the
committee substitute. The committee substitute revises the
title. It also adds a findings and intent section which
states: "The people of Alaska express their will through
the legislature and regulations implement legislative
action." He maintained that it is the legislature that
determines the policy of state government. Section 2
deletes language relating to the definition of background
conditions, page 1, lines 10 - 12, version T. Section 3
deletes "shall" and inserts "may" on page 2, line 7. He
observed that the prior language resulted in a $3.2 million
dollar fiscal note. This language relates to state takeover
of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). The original legislation added authority for the
state takeover of this program, at the request of the
Department of Environmental Conservation. "Natural" was
changed to "background" on page 2, lines 27, 28, 30 and 31.
New language was added on page 3, lines 10 - 15, to clarify
that an applicant is allowed to request a change in state
regulation for water quality standards when there is a
deviation from federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
standards. New regulations would be promulgated as required
by the statute. This statutory language does accept the
petitioning language as found in the Administrative
Procedures Act. "Hydrologic" was changed to "biological,
chemical, and physical".
HB 51 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:06 p.m.
14
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|