Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/30/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB284 | |
| HB296 | |
| HB260 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 284 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 296 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 30, 2008
1:39 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:39:50 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Les Gara
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Mary Nelson
Representative Bill Thomas Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Richard Foster
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Mike Doogan; Mike Sica, Staff, Representative
Bob Lynn; Pat Davidson, Legislative Auditor, Legislative
Audit Division, Legislative Affairs Agency; Nicki Neal,
Director, Division of Personnel, Department of
Administration; Debbie Richter, Director, Permanent Fund
Division, Department of Revenue; Mike Stark, Vice Chair,
Alaska Board of Parole; Dwayne Peeples, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Corrections; Demian Schane, Self, Juneau;
Emily Ferry, Self, Juneau
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Robb Kulin, Student, University of San Diego; Kathy
Matsumoto, Executive Director, Alaska Board of Parole,
Anchorage; Ed Rais, Chair, Alaska Board of Parole, Anchorage
SUMMARY
HB 260 An Act relating to a State Officers Compensation
Commission and establishing how legislators, the
governor, the lieutenant governor, and executive
department heads shall be compensated; providing
for an effective date by repealing the effective
dates of certain sections of ch. 124, SLA 1986;
and providing for an effective date.
CS HB 260 (STA) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with fiscal note #1 by
the Department of Administration.
HB 284 An Act relating to participation in certain
student fellowships as an allowable absence from
the state for purposes of eligibility for
permanent fund dividends; and providing for an
effective date.
CS HB 284 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with zero note #1
by the Department of Revenue.
HB 296 An Act extending the termination date of the Board
of Parole; and providing for an effective date.
HB 296 was reported out Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and a new fiscal note by the House
Finance Committee.
1:41:16 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 284
An Act relating to participation in certain student
fellowships as an allowable absence from the state for
purposes of eligibility for permanent fund dividends;
and providing for an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, SPONSOR, explained that HB 284
would correct an inequity in the statutes regarding
allowable absences for Permanent Fund Dividends (PFD).
Current law provides for an allowable absence for students
who are "receiving vocational, professional, or other
specific education on a full-time basis for which, as
determined by the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education, a comparable program is not reasonably available
in the State." He pointed out that for some reason, the
above statutory language has been interpreted by regulation
to exclude students who are participating in an
international educational exchange under a U.S. Fulbright
Scholarship.
Representative Hawker continued, the Fulbright Scholar
Program, which was signed into law by President Truman in
1946, is sponsored by the United States Department of State,
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Each year, the
program sends 800 scholars and professionals, chosen for
their academic merit and leadership potential to more than
150 countries, where they lecture or conduct research in a
wide variety of fields. Those chosen for the Fulbright
program represent Alaska and the United States in foreign
countries all over the world. Grants are typically for
three months to one year.
Representative Hawker urged the Committee's support of the
bill to correct the inequity in current law.
1:46:20 PM
DEMAIN SCHANE, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of the
bill. He indicated he currently works for the National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration in Juneau. He pointed
out that the proposed amendment adds one more excusable
absence, which he thought worthy. Mr. Schane noted he had
spent 10 months in Iceland on a U.S. Fulbright grant,
studying the European Union's mechanism for regulating
escapes from farm fishing operations.
Mr. Schane continued, the Fulbright Program is funded
through the U.S. Department of State and promotes a cultural
and educational exchange program in numerous foreign
countries. The program offers U.S. citizens an opportunity
to further their understanding of issues and policies of
international significance and experience and how other
cultures endeavor to resolve the issues. He urged that the
Legislature recognize and support Alaskans' efforts to
pursue those opportunities by allowing them to do so without
losing their residential status and eligibility for a PFD
dividend disbursement.
1:48:26 PM
EMILY FERRY, SELF, JUNEAU, echoed sentiments of the previous
testifier, voicing support for adoption of the legislation &
the amendment. She stated that she and her husband had the
intent to return to the State and indeed did return to start
their family. She reiterated her support that Amendment 1
be passed as it makes the dividend retroactive.
1:49:58 PM
ROBB KULIN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STUDENT,
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO, testified in support of the
proposed legislation and the attached amendment. He pointed
out he currently is in a doctorate program at the University
of California and prior to that, he had participated in 2004
in the Fulbright scholar program. He reiterated his support
1:54:41 PM
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED.
1:55:21 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked the number of students that would be
eligible recipients. Representative Hawker understood that
for Alaskans, it would be less than ten per year and that
only three were affected in the last two years.
Vice-Chair Stoltze recalled that one of his constituents had
been a recipient of the Fulbright scholarship.
1:56:26 PM
Representative Gara noted support for the legislation,
however, pointed out other exceptions of concern to the
receipt of the PFD, including the Peace Corp and Ameri-Corp
[National Peace Corp] volunteers.
Representative Hawker observed that volunteers in the Peace
Corp are included, indicated in language on Page 2, Line 27.
Representative Gara reiterated that Ameri-Corp participants
should also be included. Representative Hawker responded
that issue had not yet been addressed.
1:57:47 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, #25-
LS1142\A.1, Cook, 1/24/08. (Copy on File). Co-Chair Meyer
OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Representative Hawker explained the amendment. When the
bill was originally drafted, an effective date of January 1,
2009, was included for the prospective application. He had
spoken with Legislative Legal regarding persons in the past
two years and their efforts to get the regulation changed.
Legislative Legal proposed the language of the amendment to
address the concern. He believed that the proposed language
"rights a wrong".
Representative Gara revisited the retroactive issue. He
explained that the Courts normally interpret retroactive
language such that, they have concerns retroactively
removing rights. No one can change criminal law
retroactively and that important legal rights can not be
taken away.
Co-Chair Meyer asked how an amount could be determined if
the number of students is not known; he questioned where the
dollars would come from. Representative Hawker admitted
that the State does not have an accurate account of the
number of students that would be involved. He believed the
diluting effect would be insignificant to the PFD. He was
certain it would be a small number of students affected.
2:01:19 PM
The funds would be taken from the earning reserve of the
Permanent Fund.
Representative Thomas commented on the retroactive provision
and the relationship to other applicants. Representative
Hawker understood that there are statutory requirements
clarifying application dates. If the student anticipates a
dividend, they must submit an application indicating intent
to return and remain in Alaska. Otherwise, they would not
qualify.
2:02:20 PM
Co-Chair Meyer referenced testimony from Mr. Kulin, in San
Diego. Representative Hawker responded that Mr. Kulin fully
intends to return to Alaska to practice his profession.
Representative Kelly asked if the student would be required
to return to Alaska in order to receive the dividend.
Representative Hawker deferred that response to the
Department of Revenue. At present time, the language
specifies only the intent to return.
2:03:44 PM
DEBBIE RICHTER, DIRECTOR, PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, explained that the funds from which
the dividends would be paid, are funds held back each year.
The money is there; the Division does not anticipate a large
number of requests.
2:04:34 PM
Representative Kelly reiterated his question, whether, the
student would be required to return to Alaska in order to
actually receive the PFD. Ms. Richter explained currently,
the dividends are paid when the application is received;
students who are out of State, fill out a form from the
school, indicating enrollment. Those students certify with
the application that they intent to return to Alaska. She
acknowledged that "intent" is a difficult matter to
determine. With regard to the amendment, the Division most
likely has those applications on file, since they were
originally denied.
Representative Kelly worried about the growing number of
applications. He suggested that students actually be
required to return to the State before receiving the
dividend. Ms. Richter was not aware of a requirement ever
written into the language, stipulating that students
actually return before receiving their dividend.
Representative Hawker mentioned escrowing dividends until
the student returns. He provided a brief history of such an
occurrence. He believed that as a policy call, there would
be merits to having that discussion.
Representative Kelly addressed the idea of retroactive
claims. Ms. Richter had no previous history with those
circumstances.
Representative Hawker explained his motive, stating if there
was a new policy change, it should be prospectively applied.
He believed that the exception in the statutory language,
should not have applied to the Fulbright scholars since it
does not apply to post secondary students. In the specific
case at hand, the retroactively language provides dividends
to that class of student. He believed that the amendment
clarifies the original intent.
2:09:34 PM
Representative Kelly questioned how the determination of the
length of the retroactivity was made; he inquired the number
of applicants expected. He agreed anyone having received
the Fulbright scholarship should be eligible.
Representative Hawker explained that his office had
discussions with some of the students and then decided to
prepare the legislation. He offered to entertain an
amendment to Amendment 1. Representative Kelly thought that
having the language on record, would clarify intent.
2:11:29 PM
Representative Gara proposed inclusion of a memorandum from
the Legislative Legal Services. He believed if Section 2
was retroactive, it would provide for every allowable
absence. He did not think that was the intention of the
bill's sponsor. He recommended making Section 1 retroactive
rather than Section 2. Representative Hawker pointed out
that Amendment 1 had been drafted by Tam Cook, Attorney and
Director of Legislative Legal. He added that he would
request a reply to the amendment by Ms. Cook for
Representative Gara.
2:13:54 PM
Co-Chair Chenault mentioned the numerous PFD issues that had
come to his office, while indicating his appreciation to the
Division for their willingness and work on the concerns.
In response to issues suggested by Representative Gara,
Representative Hawker stated it would be effective only if
exceptions were indicated in items 1-16 and had been put
into place after January 1, 2005. The two affected would be
Peace Corp and the Olympic Teams. Representative Gara
understood that it would also apply to Lines 1-14. He
reiterated that everything in Section 2 would become
retroactive. Representative Hawker agreed that was accurate
but would have no consequence because items 1-14 have been
in place since before 2005, when the retroactivity would
apply. Co-Chair Meyer recommended a letter from Ms. Cook
would satisfy Representative Gara's concerns.
2:15:59 PM
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment 1. There
being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:16:22 PM
Representative Thomas commented on members of the National
Guard being sent to Iraq and denial of their PFD
applications when submitted late. He asked the number of
National Guard members who have received denials.
Additionally, he worried about the elders, who suffer from
Alzheimer's and forget to file.
2:18:13 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS HB 284 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 284 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero note #1 by the Department
of Revenue.
2:19:05 PM
#HB296
HOUSE BILL NO. 296
An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Parole; and providing for an effective date.
MIKE SICA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, explained that HB
296 would extend the termination date of the Board of Parole
until June 30, 2016.
The Board of parole serves as the parole authority for the
State. As such, the Board fulfills the Alaska Constitution
requirement that the State establish a parole system. The
Board's primary responsibilities include determining a
prisoner's suitability for discretionary parole and setting
conditions for individuals receiving parole. Another major
responsibility of the Board is offering parole revocation
hearings. The Legislative Audit Division recently
concluded, there is a demonstrated need for the Board of
Parole and that the terminated date be extended until June
30, 2016. He urged support of the bill.
2:21:28 PM
Representative Gara suggested that since there was no
controversy on the bill, the Committee should pass it out.
Co-Chair Meyer responded that the Committee would hear
public testimony.
2:22:22 PM
MIKE STARK, VICE CHAIR, ALASKA BOARD OF PAROLE, introduced
Dwayne Peeples, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Corrections. Mr. Stark pointed out that the Alaska
Constitution calls for a parole system. Legislative
implementation of that has been through the creation of a
Parole Board. The Parole Board is the most active board or
commission in the State. There are five members on the
board, which works more than 180 days per year to address
risk and release issues and provide protection of the
public. He urged that the Board sunset be extended.
2:23:59 PM
KATHY MATSUMOTO, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ALASKA BOARD OF PAROLE, ANCHORAGE, spoke in
support of the legislation. She emphasized that the Parole
Board provides a valuable service to the citizens of Alaska
and work closely with the Department of Corrections. She
highlighted the roll of the Board in performing basic
information gathering to help prisoners as they move out of
the system. She pointed out recommendations for treatment
programs to help address recidivism. She indicated the
Board's support of the requests made by the Department of
Corrections to fund treatment programs for offenders.
2:26:01 PM
ED RAIS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CHAIR, ALASKA BOARD
OF PAROLE, ANCHORAGE, testified in support for the extension
of the Parole Board. He spoke to the key challenges of the
Board based on the number of people coming out of prison.
Discretionary hearings are driven by statute. Mr. Rais
urged passage of the sunset audit, reiterating that the work
of the Parole Board is extensive.
Mr. Rais discussed the diligence of the Board to insure
public safety. He hoped in the future, the Board would be
able to evaluate & implement statistics for information to
increase appropriations and be funded like other nationwide
parole boards. He indicated that re-entry programs are
important aspects for the future, especially in programs for
substance abuse & sex offender treatment. Currently, there
are 2.3 million people incarcerated throughout the U.S.
2:30:23 PM
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED.
2:30:58 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if parole had been addressed in the
Alaska Constitution. He indicated his support for passage
of the bill.
2:32:27 PM
Representative Kelly expounded that the average member of
the public does not see the accomplishments of the Board but
rather the failures of the Board when something bad happens
by a parolee. He inquired if there had been an audit
determination to measure how well the Board is doing.
PAT DAVIDSON, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, LEGISLATIVE AUDIT
DIVISION, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, advised that during
the course of the audit, the Division evaluated the
effectiveness of the discretionary parole decisions made by
the Board. The Board takes a risk-based approach. The
number of potential parolees with the lowest risk is given
the highest rate of paroles. That group will have the
lowest rate of the parole revoked, compared to the other end
of the spectrum, having the highest risk group of
individuals with only a 24% granted parole. Revocation is
at about 43%. During the course of the audit, parole
revocation was used as the measure of effectiveness for the
Board's decision making. She maintained that the risk
assessment model is working.
2:35:31 PM
Representative Kelly addressed audit recommendations for
public meetings with the parolees. He worried that
revocation of parole is different from someone being injured
and he wanted to determine a way to keep track of the number
of felons. Ms. Davidson replied that would not be possible.
She suggested that by providing more opportunities for the
general public by holding public meetings could help to
develop missions and measures, putting the information and
annual reports in place. The audit attempted to compare
discretionary parole rates against offenders who did not get
parole but were released from jail. There was not enough
data to make the comparison.
2:38:02 PM
Representative Kelly requested criteria measuring how well
the job was being done. In the current system, victims are
not protected; he thought that public meetings could help
measure how well the Board is actually doing their work.
2:39:33 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the Office of Victim's Rights
had been contacted before the audit was done to help
determine certain aspects. Ms. Davidson said yes that
office had been included as well as the victim notification
process. Previously, the process included only the Board of
Parole, however, a division within the Department of
Corrections has taken up the issues. Legislative Audit has
recommended that the Department provide a formal
communication system between those organizations to insure
that victim notification does occur.
2:40:57 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze recommended that the Ombudsman Office
also be included.
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out a new fiscal note dated 1/30/08,
indicating the funding in the Governor's proposed FY09
budget.
2:41:55 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT HB 296 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and with the accompanying
new fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
HB 296 was reported out Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and a new fiscal note by the House Finance
Committee.
HOUSE BILL NO. 260
An Act relating to a State Officers Compensation
Commission and establishing how legislators, the
governor, the lieutenant governor, and executive
department heads shall be compensated; providing for an
effective date by repealing the effective dates of
certain sections of ch. 124, SLA 1986; and providing
for an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN, SPONSOR, spoke in support of HB
260, based on the only successful salary commission in the
State of Alaska. The Commission was active in 1977 & 1979,
when citizen members of the Alaska Salary Commission
released reports on how much certain public officials should
be paid. The original Commission had a broader scope than
the one presented in HB 260.
Since 1979, there has not been a comprehensive look at
compensation of members above a certain level. HB 260 would
establish a compensation commission consisting of five
members appointed by the Governor. Former legislators would
be prevented from serving on the commission until they had
been out of office for four years. Members would serve
staggered terms and would be assigned to reconsider
compensation every two years.
Representative Doogan explained that the decisions of the
Commission would become law unless specifically disapproved
by the legislature within 60-days of receipt. The effective
date of the actions would be tied to the legislature
appropriating funds.
2:46:14 PM
Representative Doogan pointed out that in the House State
Affairs (STA) Committee, Representative Coghill voiced
confusion if the vehicle for enacting the findings should be
a resolution or a bill. He pointed out the memo from Legal
Services explaining the decision to place it in bill form.
Vice-Chair Stoltze questioned if the task of the Commission
would be similar to that of the task force recommendation
for passing gambling. Representative Doogan thought if the
issue was left to legislators, there would never be
consideration for fear of constituent disapproval. In the
past, it was determined that a citizen commission could
work.
Vice-Chair Stoltze informed that the Gaming Commission had
attempted to insulate members from the political pressures.
Representative Doogan responded that legislators are never
insulted from political pressures; however, the bill
attempts to provide an "even-handed" look at the process.
It is political at every stage of the process. Co-Chair
Meyer said that the Anchorage Assembly does use a Commission
as proposed and that it works well.
2:50:04 PM
Representative Hawker addressed the philosophical component
of the legislation. Previous testimony indicates that there
had been intent, resulting in action to raise the salaries
of the Legislature. He wondered if the legislature should
be a choice for public service without receiving
compensation, acting more like a volunteer service.
Representative Doogan stated the bill was not proposing a
plan to do anything particular with legislative salaries but
rather proposes creating a commission of citizens to look at
the question in a more even way. There are a number of
ideas the commission could determine such as a system paying
for longevity of members. He emphasized his intent in
sponsoring the legislation is to create a discussion and
reviewing arena.
2:53:06 PM
Representative Hawker understood that the intent of the
legislation was to increase legislative compensation. He
asked if that was true.
Representative Doogan explained that in order to have a
legislature reflecting the population's age balance, the
State would have to offer higher compensation. He pointed
out that legislators in their 50's & 60's are
overrepresented and that those in their 20's & 30's are not
adequately represented. He discussed that if salaries are
increased, there would be a change in the age and make-up of
the legislature.
2:54:55 PM
Representative Hawker commented if that was the intent or if
rather more of an exploratory outcome. Representative Doogan
believed the discussion is about what might happen through
passage of the legislation.
Representative Hawker referred to Page 5, regarding a
recommendation that the Commission "may not" have the effect
of reducing compensation or benefits of someone who is in
office; he asked if that would apply to legislative
salaries. Representative Doogan advised that he had
attempted to keep the Legislature out of the bill as much as
possible.
Representative Hawker referenced Line 17, Page 5, the
"policy of legislature that the commission recommends an
equitable rate for legislators." He asked what "equitable"
meant. Representative Doogan replied the definition was not
attempting to determine compensation. Representative Hawker
suggested it should be equal treatment under the law.
Representative Doogan said yes. Representative Hawker
advised that the language is stating exactly what it is
intended.
2:57:40 PM
In response to a query by Representative Gara,
Representative Doogan expected that if the bill were to pass
that there would be compensation determined by longevity of
legislators.
Co-Chair Meyer clarified if the intent of the Commission was
to look at how other States handle the issue.
Representative Doogan informed that the handout addresses
other state's policies and procedures.
3:00:43 PM
Representative Nelson made clear that to offer no
compensation for the legislative positions would be a
disincentive to people considering whether to run for office
or not. She thought that there would be a disproportionate
number of wealthy and retired people holding office. She
hoped to encourage more variety of candidates to step
forward. She thought that the 90 day session makes it more
appealing, providing more time for other employment. She
mentioned that the legislation to move the capital was also
being put forward as an opportunity for better public
participation while serving in the Legislature. She stated
she did not support that legislation.
Representative Nelson reiterated that it is wrong to have
more rich and retired people doing the work for the State
and that it is better for the legislative body to have more
variety in who serves. Representative Doogan wholeheartedly
agreed. He added that many people are kept from public
office because of their obligations in life versus the
compensation offered.
3:03:03 PM
Representative Thomas commented on his determination to run
for public office and the losses incurred personally because
of the number of special sessions, affecting his livelihood.
He noted that it actually him approximately $70 to $80
thousand dollars per year. He hoped the process would be
better controlled through a public commission.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed that it is out of the hands of the
legislators. He noted in California, legislators are
salaried at $110 thousand dollars per year but that they are
not allowed to hold any other job.
Vice-Chair Stoltze agreed that the ideas presented have been
intriguing. The founders of the Constitution did not
establish criteria for legislator's salaries.
3:08:08 PM
NICKI NEAL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, offered to answer questions of the
Committee.
3:08:41 PM
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED.
Representative Kelly believed that there is no easy solution
to the issue of a citizen versus professional legislature.
He personally leaned toward a citizen's legislature. He
remembered a previous salary proposal of $94 thousand
dollars per year. He encouraged the natural & healthy
tension remains in place. He believed that moving toward a
higher salary, determines a decision to have a professional
legislature in place. He hoped that whichever decision was
made, it would work well & fluid.
3:13:09 PM
Co-Chair Meyer agreed that the current system is working.
He hoped that when the Commission does looks at other states
of a similar size & issues, they would be able to determine
that Alaska does not offer or need a full time job.
Representative Crawford acknowledged there is no accounting
for who the public chooses to represent them. He agreed
that the compensation issues should be determined from non
legislative persons. He indicated his support for the
legislation.
Representative Hawker voiced confusion on the issue, which
raises philosophical concerns on both sides of the argument.
If the desired outcome is to increase legislative salaries,
the legislation is the way to accomplish that; however,
handing the responsibility off to a public Commission could
provide too much legislative authority to that group. He
recommended it be discussed through the legislative process.
He noted that the recommendations of the Commission could
take the effect of law unless a bill is introduced and
objection made by the Legislature. Representative Doogen
understood that the recommendations would be a bill, which
would have to be disapproved by the Legislature within 60-
days.
Representative Hawker stated that was not clear in the bill.
Representative Doogan agreed. He added that the central
fact is that if the Commission determines a higher salary,
the effective date of that recommendation would be when the
appropriation passes. The dollars would not be available
until an appropriation passes. Ultimately, it is the
Legislature's responsibility to fund it.
Representative Hawker stated it is "complex effectiveness"
and thought that as a Commission, they should make
recommendations so that the elected policy body can make the
decision.
3:18:49 PM
Representative Doogan said that had been discussed. He
believed it puts it back in the hands of the legislature and
then they would determine the need to pass or not pass the
bill.
Representative Nelson commented that the current method used
is that of the federal rate of per diem. Whenever that
amount is increased, the press broadcasts it; however, when
it decreases, it is never publicized. She agreed with
Representative Doogan and doubted if the issue would ever be
addressed up by the Legislature. She remembered when the
per diem actually increased and how that affected the
public's perspective. She maintained that the present pay
rate for legislators is good and that compared to jobs in
most districts, it pays well.
3:22:11 PM
Representative Thomas assumed that the bill intended to keep
a citizen's legislature. Representative Doogan responded
that the idea was not to debate whether it would remain a
citizen's legislature.
Representative Thomas added that if the public does not
think their legislator is doing a good job, they will not
re-elect them.
3:24:06 PM
Co-Chair Meyer noted the back-up materials indicating how
other states determine compensation, pointing out that most
do have a commission. He reiterated that he had been
involved is a similar system when working on the Anchorage
City Council and was comfortable with the approach proposed
in the legislation.
Co-Chair Meyer referenced the fiscal note. Representative
Doogan explained that the request in the amount of $7.5
thousand dollars would cover travel and per diem costs; the
salary is zero.
3:26:50 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS HB 260 (STA) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 260 (STA) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with fiscal note #1 by the Department of
Administration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:27 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|