Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/11/2006 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB93 | |
| HB485 | |
| HB447 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 308 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 447 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 470 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 475 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 485 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 11, 2006
1:42 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:42:25 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Heath Hilyard, Staff, Representative Tom Anderson; Rick
Urion, Director, Occupational Licensing, Department of
Community and Economic Development; David Logan, DMD, Alaska
Dental Society; Mila Cosgrove, Director, Division of
Personnel, Department of Administration; Art Chance,
Director, Labor Relations, Department of Administration; Jim
Duncan, Alaska State Employee Association; Craig Johnson,
Staff, Representative Lesil McGuire; Jeff Prather, Gaming
Group, Tax Division, Department of Revenue
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Robert Robertson, DMD, Alaska Dental Society; Jim Towle,
Executive Director, Alaska Dental Society, Anchorage; George
Shaffer, DMD, Alaska Dental Society, Ketchikan; Ric Schmidt,
General Manager, KNOM-AM/FM, Nome; Dennis Bookey, Morris
Communications, Anchorage; Stuart Whyte, KFMJ Radio,
Ketchikan; Vicki Muzik, KRMJ Radio, Ketchikan
SUMMARY
HB 93 "An Act relating to dentists and dental hygienists
and the Board of Dental Examiners; establishing
certain committees for the discipline and peer
review of dentists; excluding the adjudicatory
proceedings of the Board of Dental Examiners and
its committees from the Administrative Procedure
Act and from the jurisdiction of the office of
administrative hearings; and providing for an
effective date."
CSHB 93 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a
"no recommendation" and with fiscal note #1 by the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development.
HB 485 "An Act amending the State Personnel Act to place
in the exempt service pharmacists and physicians
employed in the Department of Health and Social
Services or in the Department of Corrections and
corporate income tax forensic auditors employed by
the division of the Department of Revenue
principally responsible for the collection and
enforcement of state taxes who specialize in
apportionment analysis and tax shelters of
multistate corporate taxpayers; and providing for
an effective date."
HB 485 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with zero fiscal note #1 by
the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development, fiscal note #3 by the Department of
Corrections, three new indeterminate fiscal notes
by the Department of Health and Social Services,
and a new indeterminate fiscal note by the
Department of Revenue.
HB 447 "An Act relating to the use of broadcasting to
promote raffles and lotteries."
CSHB 447 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal note #1
by the Department of Revenue.
HB 475 "An Act describing contributions to the health
reimbursement arrangement plan for certain
teachers and public employees; clarifying
eligibility for membership in that health
reimbursement arrangement plan; relating to the
'administrator' of the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Alaska; and providing for an
effective date."
HB 475 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 470 "An Act relating to the mandatory use of motor
vehicle headlights."
HB 470 was POSTPONED to a later date.
HB 308 "An Act relating to false caller identification."
HB 470 was WAIVED out of Committee.
1:42:40 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to dentists and dental hygienists and
the Board of Dental Examiners; establishing certain
committees for the discipline and peer review of
dentists; excluding the adjudicatory proceedings of the
Board of Dental Examiners and its committees from the
Administrative Procedure Act and from the jurisdiction
of the office of administrative hearings; and providing
for an effective date."
HEATH HILYARD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TOM ANDERSON, noted that
he went over the adopted work draft, Version C, at the
previous meeting.
Co-Chair Meyer opened public testimony.
1:44:41 PM
DR. ROBERT ROBERTSON, DMD, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY, offered to
answer questions.
DR. GEORGE SHAFFER, DMD, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY, KETCHIKAN,
spoke to the purpose of the bill. The bill strengthens the
action of the Board of Dental Examiners allowing them to
deal with discipline in a more-timely manner, ensuring that
all of the testimony and records that are included in a
complaint are viewed. The bill would also allow the board
to enter the process at an earlier stage when complaints
from patients are more benign. He offered to answer
questions.
1:47:16 PM
JIM TOWLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY,
ANCHORAGE, offered to answer questions.
1:48:53 PM
DAVID LOGAN, DMD, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY, echoed Dr.
Shaffer's comments. He related that the bill would
establish peer review, a feature currently not available.
It will allow the board to collectively use its expertise on
dental matters. Currently, the board is limited in that
only one board member is allowed to review a case. HB 93
would allow the public to bring more cases to the board. It
would allow for earlier intervention for impaired
practitioners.
1:50:31 PM
RICK URION, DIRECTOR, OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, testified that the Board
of Dental Examiners met last month and 7 out of 8 opposed
the bill. He read an email from a board member, which
implied that attorneys want dentists to think that the bill
will rid them of occupational licensing. He related that in
the past ten years there have been 195 cases, 40 of which
were brought against two dentists, and 95 that were
dismissed without action. He discussed how the current peer
review operates, referring to a Dental Complaint Flow Chart
(copy on file.) He stated that the purpose of licensure is
for public safety. He strongly opposed the bill.
Representative Kelly asked Mr. Urion if he wrote the fiscal
note. Mr. Urion replied that he did not. Co-Chair Meyer
noted that it has changed considerably. Mr. Urion pointed
out that the bill has changed considerably.
Representative Kelly asked how the bill differs from how
physicians self regulate. Mr. Urion said that doctors do
exactly what the dentists are doing now.
1:56:58 PM
Co-Chair Chenault referred to the new fiscal note and the
expense for travel, which is the same as in the old fiscal
note. He wondered where the funds would come from to pay
for those costs. Mr. Urion said that the law requires those
costs to be paid by dentists.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if they are receipt paid. Mr. Urion
said yes. All costs are paid by the dentists.
1:58:24 PM
Mr. Hilyard addressed Mr. Urion's concerns. He mentioned
the sponsor's work with the Division throughout the process
of re-writing the bill. He noted that it is a difference of
philosophy.
Co-Chair Meyer asked why the bill's approach is better than
the status quo. Mr. Hilyard stated that the bill provides
for a better public process.
2:00:39 PM
Representative Kelly asked for more information about the
various models. Mr. Hilyard said he is not familiar enough
to speak about them. Representative Kelly asked why the
board is so opposed to this bill. Mr. Hilyard referred to
an email from a dental board member from North Pole, which
says the board takes no official position on the bill.
Representative Kelly asked if there is a split in the dental
society. Mr. Hilyard deferred to Mr. Towle to address that
issue.
2:03:08 PM
Mr. Towle reported that there is no division within the
Alaska Dental Society regarding this bill. He referred to
an email, which states that the board takes no position on
the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer asked Dr. Logan to comment. Dr. Logan opined
that all board members he talked to spoke in support of the
legislature. He noted that dentists do not feel that the
board is out to get them. Speaking as a board member, he
stated that the board takes a balanced view. He cited
problems with the board not getting information regarding
investigations. He addressed the peer review for organized
dentistry, a panel of board members that hears a case
itself, usually regarding minor matters.
2:07:39 PM
Representative Kelly asked for comments on why dentists are
moving in a different direction than doctors. Dr. Logan
could only speak from the dentists' perspective. The
largest change is that peer review would be opened up. The
board would now hear cases earlier in the process and direct
them to a peer review or disciplinary committee or full
investigative process. The investigators now are well
trained, but not qualified to assess dental matters.
2:09:47 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked if the current ruling is that the
finding has to come back to the board after 120 days. Dr.
Logan said that is correct. Co-Chair Chenault asked if the
concern is that board members don't know what has been going
on. Dr. Logan explained the current system. Investigators
present the findings and recommendations and the board
votes, having never heard about the case previously. The
new program is that the board would be aware of the case
from the beginning and direct it to the best place to be
dealt with, then the case would come back to the board for
approval of the decision. Co-Chair Chenault summarized that
currently the board is not given much information and the
bill would allow for access to more information.
2:12:48 PM
Representative Kerttula asked if a due process problem is
created because some on the board may investigate and then
vote. Dr. Logan deferred to Dr. Shaffer.
Dr. Shaffer related that under the present system the board
operates under the Administrator Procedures Act (APA). This
gives the board the ability to look at evidence early on in
the process or to refer it to an investigator. In the
present system, there is a problem with reserving the
board's independence. Currently, the board cannot see any
evidence. The board does not sit as an appeals body. The
appeals body goes to the Superior Court. That was the
driving force behind the bill. The present system does not
allow the board to participate earlier in order to protect
the public. The bill would allow for the process to be
defined outside of the Administrative Procedures Act.
2:17:30 PM
Representative Kerttula asked if currently the board makes
decisions that can be appealed. Dr. Shaffer said according
to the APA, the appeal is to the Superior Court. The
Department says the appeal is back to the Department. This
is a difference of opinion.
Representative Kerttula asked if the board is the original
decision maker regarding suspended licenses. Dr. Shaffer
said that is correct, but for many years the board has not
been allowed to see evidence. Representative Kerttula
recalled that the AG's office would bring the evidence to
the board after an investigation was complete, and a
decision would be made. She asked if the new system would
create due process problems. Dr. Shaffer replied that under
the bill, there would be a single person, the board
president, who would do a triage, and who could be recused
from the process. The rest of the board members would have
the evidence and then make the decision. The Department
maintains that the board cannot see the evidence.
Dr. Shaffer explained that in the bill there are two
committees, the peer review committee and a disciplinary
committee, both of which can be made up of members of the
board. The board can also call on other dentists to help
them with the process. Then the board would make the final
decision.
Representative Kerttula summarized Dr. Shaffer's concern
about lack of information to the board. Dr. Shaffer
concurred.
Representative Kelly asked how other states deal with this
issue. Dr. Logan reported that there is a huge variation.
Most states have a peer review process.
2:22:49 PM
Co-Chair Chenault thought that the board might have a
variety of opinions on the bill. Mr. Logan said the board
is not allowed to take a position on legislation.
Representative Weyhrauch asked if the committee could
request the board to take an opinion. Co-Chair Chenault
thought it would be a personal opinion.
2:24:33 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 93 (FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Hawker OBJECTED. He spoke to reservations
related to the Division of Occupational Licensing. He
opined that something in Alaska about licensing is not
working. He wondered what the root of the problem is.
Representative Stoltze also spoke of a concern about
licensing and the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer said there is no reason to hold the bill
over.
Representative Weyhrauch said he does not know what the bill
does, either. Representative Kerttula related that her
experience with occupation licensing is that they do have
all of the information at their hearings. She also voiced
concerned about the bill.
2:28:02 PM
Representative Hawker WITHDREW his objection to moving CSHB
93 from committee.
CSHB 93 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with fiscal note #1 by the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
2:28:42 PM
At-ease.
2:30:35 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 485
"An Act amending the State Personnel Act to place in
the exempt service pharmacists and physicians employed
in the Department of Health and Social Services or in
the Department of Corrections and corporate income tax
forensic auditors employed by the division of the
Department of Revenue principally responsible for the
collection and enforcement of state taxes who
specialize in apportionment analysis and tax shelters
of multistate corporate taxpayers; and providing for an
effective date."
Co-Chair Meyer noted the seven fiscal notes that would be
addressed.
JIM DUNCAN, ALASKA STATE EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, responded to
a question from Co-Chair Meyer, Mr. Duncan commented on a
letter sent to the administration. He noted that he had
only a brief opportunity to review the administration's
response. He related that the April 6 letter by Art Chance,
Director, Labor Relations, Department of Administration,
complimented his testimony on the bill.
Mr. Duncan stated that he did not believe that removing
these jobs from the classification system was
unconstitutional. He also clarified his understanding that
legislators maintained the right to move positions from
classified service to exempt service. He maintained,
however, that passing a statute during a contract period
moving positions from classified to exempt status would
impair the contract status. He recalled that positions had
been moved in the past.
Mr. Duncan questioned the policy reason for moving the
positions. He asked if the issue was rate of pay rather
than policy. He spoke in support of raising salaries. He
suggested that to impair a contract was in conflict with the
Alaska Constitution. He suggested that there should be a
systematic way of amending a job class.
2:37:30 PM
Representative Weyhrauch asked what the legal problem was
with this method. Mr. Duncan pointed to the process in the
contract, which allows for positions to be moved within a
class, but to do the move by statute is prohibited.
Representative Weyhrauch followed by asking if the main
issue from a management view was to hire positions quickly
and if the process was otherwise too cumbersome. Mr. Duncan
again asked if the goal was to pay more money. He suggested
that there was a process that could be started to reclassify
and amend the pay plan. He maintained that the situation
was not so critical as to impair the contract process.
Representative Weyhrauch asked if it was possible to open
one segment to address this issue. Mr. Duncan commented
that in discussions with Mr. Chance, he had suggested adding
three additional levels of salary and to pay the same amount
as in exempt service.
2:40:16 PM
Representative Hawker asked if to open a pay plan could be
restricted to certain jobs, or if it would set a precedent
for others seeking to raise their pay scale. Mr. Duncan
responded that the pay plan would only be opened to add
three ranges. That would give latitude to reexamine pay
scale. He referred to reclassification within job families.
He noted that there should be care given to which jobs were
compared.
Representative Hawker commented on the level of belligerence
on the part of the administration, but expressed concern
over raising the level of pay scale for all job classes.
Mr. Duncan noted that paying a higher rate in exempt service
was also possible in classified service, as long as the
proper process is followed.
Representative Hawker reiterated his offense at the tenor of
the letter from the administration, and again expressed
concern over opening up a job classification.
2:43:41 PM
Representative Kerttula observed that even if the entire job
family were raised, jobs still needed to be considered case
by case. Mr. Duncan concurred, and added that he did not
negotiate ranges, but rather overall percentage increases.
He also noted that it would not open the way to moving other
positions into Ranges 28, 29,30.
2:45:11 PM
Representative Weyhrauch observed that the policy choice was
whether to create a new classification range, or to simply
move positions into exempt service. He asked if another
bill is needed to accomplish the new ranges. Mr. Duncan
replied that that is bargainable and a letter of agreement
could be signed. Representative Weyhrauch questioned if it
was a good public policy decision to bump specialized jobs
or high demand positions out of exempt classification. Mr.
Duncan agreed that this was the central question, and
maintained he had not been satisfied with the argument for
creating the exempt status.
2:46:51 PM
Representative Hawker asked if anything prevented crafting a
law to allow additional salary ranges in only certain job
classifications. Mr. Duncan observed that this was the
affect of creating exempt positions. He noted that it was
not appropriate for the legislature to change the pay plan,
as it was subject to collective bargaining. He again
cautioned that the policy decision to move the positions to
exempt service would set a difficult precedent.
2:48:40 PM
Representative Kelly asked for clarification about whether
the Attorney General agreed with Mr. Duncan's definition of
the contract process, and whether it was within the right of
management to change the pay scale.
Mr. Duncan stated that he would advocate adding three ranges
to the pay scale for all bargaining units. He noted that it
would require using the process available to challenge the
statute. He stressed that he did not wish to challenge it,
but felt clearly compelled by the Constitution as it
pertains to contracts.
2:51:20 PM
MILA COSGROVE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION and ART CHANCE, DIRECT, LABOR RELATIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, testified regarding the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer asked whether time was critical in this
matter. Mr. Chance responded that public policy decisions
were made in the Department of Revenue, and stated that he
was not concerned with the time, but the manner of the
process.
Ms. Cosgrove verified that the Department was not able to
recruit the personnel needed within the existing pay plan to
accomplish the work forthcoming.
2:53:41 PM
Representative Hawker asked whether pharmacists and high-
grade accountants, since they shared a high level of
independence, could be recruited privately. Ms. Cosgrove
stated her understanding that pharmacists must be hired by
the Department, although she conceded that they were
occasionally hired on a contract basis. She maintained that
hiring on a contract basis was not a good business practice
in the state.
Representative Hawker asked if it was possible as an
immediate solution, to hire on a contract basis while
bargaining representatives sought a long-term solution. Mr.
Chance commented that many disputes resulted in the
contracting out of employees. He conceded that it may
result in a cost savings, but questioned whether it could be
done within correct public policy. He emphasized the need
for a public policy decision.
2:57:00 PM
Representative Kelly reiterated his question over whether it
was a management right to decide and if it could be done
immediately. Mr. Chance responded that, in the past,
positions had been moved to exempt service, and that there
was language allowing for it. He gave the example of a
vacancy, and noted that the right existed within a contract
to move a position. He admitted that they would oppose
moving the positions within a job classification after they
had become exempt, since they would become a different body
with different legal rights. He noted that this question
had not been answered by any court, although there had been
disputes in past years. He stated that it was unclear
whether a "contract bar" existed to prevent moving positions
from classified to exempt.
2:59:52 PM
Representative Kelly summarized that a management right
existed and that it could occur immediately. Mr. Chance
stated that the management right existed with legislators.
He conceded that since the positions were vacant, a debate
could ensue.
3:00:56 PM
Representative Kerttula asked if the wage increase were
accomplished, whether it would solve the problem. Ms.
Cosgrove noted that the issue was more complicated. She
pointed out the need to compete with the private market for
these types of positions. She also noted that pharmacists
are primarily in the supervisory unit and not represented by
Mr. Duncan's union. She pointed out that classified
employees are subject to various criterion, and that by
applying these criterion to pharmacists, they were currently
accurately classified at their salary rate. She noted that
to move a position by seven salary ranges creates a
precedent problem, rather than seeking other medical
professions to create a new precedent for paying a higher
salary. She stated that she does not believe this could be
accomplished in the classified service.
3:03:29 PM
Representative Weyhrauch observed that if these positions
were moved to exempt status, many of the same issues would
still be in play. Ms. Cosgrove agreed that to some extent
that is correct.
Ms. Cosgrove spoke to good qualifications and licensing.
Representative Weyhrauch said they would not be encumbered
by the collective bargaining agreement. Ms. Cosgrove said
correct.
3:05:22 PM
Representative Joule wondered if exempts run the risk of
being left out by a new administration. Mr. Chance
addressed the mythology about exempt status. Teachers are
exempt because of rights under Title 14. Alaska Marine
Highway employees are exempt because they were originally
hired out of Seattle. Most exempts are so far removed from
ranges 5-30, that they can't be paid without distorting the
scale. Addressing the status of being released by a new
administration, Mr. Chance reported that almost no "at will"
employees exist. Division directors, special assistants,
and some partially exempt employees can be dismissed - the
rest have to have probable cause.
Representative Kelly asked if exempt people could organize.
Mr. Chance said they could. Representative Joule asked how
many people it takes to organize. Mr. Chance reported that
there is no numerical limit. A community of interest must
be demonstrated.
3:09:04 PM
Co-Chair Meyer addressed the fiscal notes: zero fiscal note
#1 by the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development, fiscal note #3 by the Department of
Corrections, three new indeterminate fiscal notes by the
Department of Health and Social Services, and a new
indeterminate fiscal note by the Department of Revenue.
3:10:47 PM
Co-Chair Chenault commented on the fiscal notes: all are
zero for this year, but indeterminate for next year. He
pointed out the certainty of costs in the future.
Co-Chair Meyer said the bill was set aside in hopes of
organizing a collective bargaining process, but that didn't
happen. The legislature needs to take action soon on the
bill, but it needs additional discussion.
3:13:06 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HB 485 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Hawker OBJECTED. Representative Hawker
maintained that he has heard no solution for this issue and
that there would be litigation. He said he is not
comfortable with this bill. He suggested that raising
classifications could accomplish the same goal without
litigation. He said he is not endorsing labor's side, but
taking the least risky route.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to REPORT HB 485
out of committee.
IN FAVOR: Holm, Kelly, Stoltze, Foster, Chenault, Meyer
OPPOSED: Hawker, Joule, Kerttula, Moses, Weyhrauch
The MOTION PASSED (6-5).
HB 485 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with zero fiscal note #1 by the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development,
fiscal note #3 by the Department of Corrections, three new
indeterminate fiscal notes by the Department of Health and
Social Services, and a new indeterminate fiscal note by the
Department of Revenue.
Representative Weyhrauch concurred with Co-Chair Chenault's
concerns about future costs related to this bill.
3:17:44 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 447
"An Act relating to the use of broadcasting to promote
raffles and lotteries."
CRAIG JOHNSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LESIL MCGUIRE,
explained the bill. The bill levels the playing field
between broadcast advertising and the print media regarding
the advertising of lawful "charitable gaming activity". He
referred to examples of newspaper advertisements in members'
packets. Currently, an FCC rule does not allow for those
types of activities to be advertised on radio or television.
The FCC states that local communities can dictate whether or
not they can be advertised on broadcast media. He
emphasized that the bill will not increase gaming.
3:19:49 PM
Representative Weyhrauch asked why the words "other than
animal classics" are needed in this bill. Mr. Johnson
replied that it was an amendment added by a member of the
Labor and Commerce Committee.
Representative Stoltze clarified that the animal classic
bill did not provide for advertising.
Mr. Johnson said he was referring to previous legislation.
3:21:24 PM
At-ease.
3:24:19 PM
VICKI MUZIK, KRMJ RADIO, KETCHIKAN, concurred with Mr.
Johnson's statements. She related that the bill is a
platform to level the playing field. The non-profits that
are seeking to raise money are not gambling institutions.
She testified in favor of the bill.
RIC SCHMIDT, GENERAL MANAGER, KNOM-AM/FM, NOME, reported
that his hands are tied when it comes to helping
organizations raise funds for charity. He testified in
support of the bill. He asked the legislators to "help us
help them", referring to the non-profits.
Representative Foster noted that there are many raffles for
the needy, which can't be aired.
Representative Stoltze asked if the bill could be used as a
revenue source. Mr. Schmidt said it could be used for that,
especially for non-profits. He said he is not talking about
a lot of money. He spoke of the Rotary Duck Race and the
scholarships it supports.
3:31:01 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked if Mr. Schmidt does public service
announcements. Mr. Schmidt said if there is a raffle they
can't mention it.
3:32:16 PM
DENNIS BOOKEY, MORRIS COMMUNICATIONS, ANCHORAGE, agreed with
the previous testimony and spoke in support of the bill. He
pointed out that some of the gaming events are part of a
bigger event. Broadcasters are not asking to change gaming,
just the promotion of it.
Representative Stoltze asked if advertising to increase
participation would increase gambling. Mr. Bookey replied
that it could help increase the funds going to non-profit
organizations. Representative Stoltze inferred that Mr.
Bookey is also talking about bingo halls.
3:34:28 PM
STUART WHYTE, KFMJ RADIO, KETCHIKAN, testified in support of
the bill. He emphasized that radio is looking for a level
playing field. Right now, raffles not allowed to be
advertised. The bill would allow charitable events to run
at good times during the day.
Representative Foster asked if there are only two radio
stations in Nome. One can accept paid advertising and one
can't. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Schmidt said that
is correct. The stations are very competitive on the
commercial side, but very cooperative when it comes to
public interest.
3:37:38 PM
Representative Stoltze asked if the expense limitation comes
out of the 30 percent amount that charities receive.
JEFF PRATHER, GAMING GROUP, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, said it would have no effect on the expense
limitation.
Representative Stoltze asked if the bill would allow
interactive gaming. Mr. Prather replied that the bill would
allow raffles to be promoted over broadcast media.
Representative Stoltze repeated the question. Mr. Prather
said he did not see that happening.
3:39:53 PM
Representative Kerttula asked if there is any analysis of
inequities between broadcast and print media. Mr. Prather
said no.
Representative Stoltze noted sympathy for fund-raisers, but
cautioned about gambling and gaming. He voiced concern
about politics in gaming.
Representative Hawker spoke in support of the bill. He
offered Conceptual Amendment 1, to remove on page 1, line 7,
the section on "other than animal classics". There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Stoltze MOVED to adopt Conceptual Amendment
2, on page 1, line 8, to add the words "if the broadcasting
is limited to public service announcements provided free of
charge by a broadcaster to a permittee" following
"broadcasting".
3:46:15 PM
At-ease.
3:51:55 PM
Representative Hawker OBJECTED.
Representative Stoltze spoke to his amendment. He addressed
a concern. Representative Stoltze WITHDREW Conceptual
Amendment 2.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 447 (FIN) out of
Committee, as amended, with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Weyhrauch OBJECTED. He questioned why the
bill is necessary. He WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 447 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with zero fiscal note #1 by the
Department of Revenue.
3:56:30 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 475
"An Act describing contributions to the health
reimbursement arrangement plan for certain teachers and
public employees; clarifying eligibility for membership
in that health reimbursement arrangement plan; relating
to the 'administrator' of the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Alaska; and providing for an
effective date."
HB 475 was scheduled but not heard.
HOUSE BILL NO. 470
"An Act relating to the mandatory use of motor vehicle
headlights."
HB 470 was POSTPONED to a later date.
HOUSE BILL NO. 308
"An Act relating to false caller identification."
HB 308 was WAIVED out of Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was recessed at 3:56 PM until 8:30 tomorrow
morning.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|