Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/31/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB368 | |
| HB281 | |
| 1 - KEEPING THE BEVERAGE RECEIPTS || 2 – THE ISSUE OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS | |
| HB366 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 368 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 31, 2008
1:45 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:45:39 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 Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Nelson
Representative Bill Thomas Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
Representative Mike Kelly
ALSO PRESENT
Mike Sica, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn; Joyce Anderson,
Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics; Jerry
Burnett, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Revenue; Chris Birdsall, Staff, Representative
Harry Crawford
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Chris Ellingson, Acting Executive Director, Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC), Anchorage; Jan DeYoung, Assistant
Attorney General, Labor and State Affairs Division, Civil
Section, Department of Law, Anchorage; Tamara Cook,
Director, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency, Juneau
SUMMARY
HB 281 An Act extending the statute of limitations for
the filing of complaints with the Alaska Public
Offices Commission involving state election
campaigns.
HB 218 was HEARD & HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 366 An Act relating to an exemption from public
disclosure of certain appropriations from the
dividend fund; and providing for an effective
date.
HB 366 was HEARD & HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 368 An Act modifying the limitations on political fund
raising during legislative sessions by candidates
for governor or for lieutenant governor, and
amending the Legislative Ethics Act to modify the
limitation on political fund raising by
legislators and legislative employees during
legislative sessions, to allow legislators and
legislative employees to accept certain gifts from
lobbyists within their immediate families, to
clarify the Legislative Ethics Act as it relates
to legislative volunteers and educational
trainees, to reduce the frequency of publication
of summaries by the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, to revise procedures and
penalties related to the late filing of
disclosures required by the Legislative Ethics
Act, and to add a definition to that Act.
HB 368 was HEARD & HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
1:47:10 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 368
An Act modifying the limitations on political fund
raising during legislative sessions by candidates for
governor or for lieutenant governor, and amending the
Legislative Ethics Act to modify the limitation on
political fund raising by legislators and legislative
employees during legislative sessions, to allow
legislators and legislative employees to accept certain
gifts from lobbyists within their immediate families,
to clarify the Legislative Ethics Act as it relates to
legislative volunteers and educational trainees, to
reduce the frequency of publication of summaries by the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, to revise
procedures and penalties related to the late filing of
disclosures required by the Legislative Ethics Act, and
to add a definition to that Act.
MIKE SICA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, introduced the
legislation & Ms. Joyce Anderson from the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics.
JOYCE ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATOR, SELECT COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATIVE ETHICS, advised that the State Ethics Committee
had recommended and requested that the House State Affairs
Committee bring the bill forward. The legislation contains
recommendations by the Committee & provides a clean-up
measure from HB 109, the major ethics bill last year.
· Section 1
Section 1 addresses campaigning while in a municipality
where the session is being convened, presently, stating the
"capital city". She noted that following discussion, the
Ethics Committee determined that there should be no
campaigning in the place where the legislative session is
being held.
1:49:10 PM
Co-Chair Chenault addressed the issue of whether campaigning
comes into play within 90-days of a special session or only
the primary general election. Ms. Anderson explained during
a regular session, legislators are prohibited from
campaigning and that 90-days of a primary election, becomes
the start point for the 90-days. Within that period,
legislators are allowed to send solicitation letters & hold
fund raisers but not the legislators living in the
municipality, where special session is to be held.
Co-Chair Chenault asked if any legislator would be allowed
to have a fund raiser while in the capital city. Ms.
Anderson said yes as long as it is not convened in the place
of that session.
1:51:29 PM
· Section 2
Ms. Anderson explained that Section 2 addresses the gift
statute, which the Select Committee recommends to be
relaxed. Last year a section was inserted, prohibiting any
gifts from lobbyists unless it fits into certain exceptions.
She pointed out that statute affects some spouses of
lobbyists. The language proposed in Section 2 provides
clean-up language allowing gift exchange for that class of
employee. She pointed out that legislators are not allowed
to have spouses that are registered lobbyists.
Ms. Anderson continued, language was added to Page 2, Line
30, "a contribution to a charity event", attempting to place
all exceptions regarding lobbyists into one area.
Additional language was added to (d) & (e) from other parts
of statute, loosening gift restrictions from lobbyists,
placing all other restrictions into that section as well.
1:53:37 PM
Representative Joule referenced Section 1, reiterating
concerns about fundraising in the capital city. Ms.
Anderson stressed that would not be okay. Representative
Joule stressed that the three legislators from Juneau would
not have a level playing field with other legislators. Ms.
Anderson agreed.
Representative Nelson commented that is a disservice to
those constituents. Ms. Anderson referenced the campaign
year which three special sessions happened in which many
concerns were voiced by the Juneau legislators, who were
unable to campaign during those sessions. It was an issue.
Representative Nelson worried that the proposed special
session could last up to 60-days, reiterating the challenges
to the local legislators in the area. Ms. Anderson
clarified that only those covered by the Legislative Ethics
Acts would be prohibited from campaigning.
Representative Nelson inquired if the sponsor was amenable
to amending that language. Mr. Sica requested that Ms.
Anderson explain the intent of that section. Ms. Anderson
stated that the intent was to prohibit fund raising,
preventing the appearance of impropriety. She did not know
a "good amendment" to address the concern but acknowledged
the unfair playing field.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed with the need level the playing field,
however, worried about fund raising activities.
Representative Nelson mentioned what could happen when
special sessions occur in other cities; she asked if it
would apply to Anchorage legislators when it happens there.
Ms. Anderson restated that nothing can occur in any borough
of the place where the session is being held.
1:57:59 PM
Representative Joule interjected that the issue is short
sighted. Co-Chair Chenault directed comments regarding
"any" municipality and asked if Juneau legislators could
campaign and fund raise in Douglas. Ms. Anderson read the
definition of municipality:
"A political subdivision incorporated under the laws
of the State that is a home rule or general law city,
a home rule or general law borough, or a unified
municipality".
Representative Thomas recommended considering an amendment
that if the Legislature called themselves into special
session, then any legislator would not be able to raise
money; however, if the Governor called the special session,
it would be difficult. He pointed out that most special
session issues are related to oil. Ms. Anderson commented
on past legislation, which provides an exemption for Juneau
legislators. Representative Thomas recommended language
specific to the location of the special session.
2:01:52 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed out that the Juneau legislators
have not requested the addition of changed language to the
current ethic standards.
2:04:07 PM
Representative Crawford echoed the sentiments expressed by
Representative Joule and recommended that an exemption be
made for local legislators. Co-Chair Meyer encouraged Ms.
Anderson to provide the appropriate language for an
amendment.
Mr. Sica pointed out that Representative Lynn was carrying
the bill on behalf of the House State Affairs Committee
(HSA) and that the Legislative Ethics Committee would do
whatever is advised by them.
2:05:29 PM
Representative Gara emphasized that having a rule in place
which limits three of the sixty legislators is "not the
right thing to do", maintaining that what happens during
special session should apply to all legislators. The rules
should be the same for everyone.
Co-Chair Meyer questioned if it was okay to make campaign
phone calls from a hotel room. Ms. Anderson explained the
legislator is prohibited from raising funds during a regular
session; however, during a special session, a legislator can
campaign as long as it is not in the place of the capital
city. The treasurer of each campaign would still be able to
make the phone calls or send out a fund raising solicitation
letter.
Vice-Chair Stoltze recommended the query be addressed by the
Alaska Public Office Commission (APOC) rather than the
Legislative Ethics Committee. Ms. Anderson responded that
the ethics code covers legislators with regard to
campaigning and APOC covers the filing of campaign reports.
2:09:33 PM
Representative Gara agreed with Co-Chair Meyer regarding
telephone calls, however, maintained that the playing field
would not be level and that the capital city legislators
would not be able to leave on the weekends to undertake
their campaigning. Co-Chair Meyer agreed it is a gray area.
Co-Chair Chenault realized that the bill is complex and has
unintended consequences from the one passed last year. He
mentioned the APOC disclosure issues. He noted concerns
brought forward from his district regarding recording
requirements, an issue which could over-step legislative
bounds. He agreed that ethics concerns should be tightened.
2:12:11 PM
Ms. Anderson continued:
· Section 3
Ms. Anderson stated there was no change in Section 3, except
that it splits the statute. The split language was moved
into the next section.
· Section 4
Ms. Anderson stated that Section 4 restructures language for
the Act as it relates to legislative volunteers and
trainees.
· Section 5
Ms. Anderson pointed out that currently in statute, the
Committee is supposed to publish semiannual summaries of
complaint & advisory decisions. To date that has not been
happening. The Committee recommends that requirement be
changed to only annual reports, corresponding with current
procedures. There is a procedure in place guaranteeing that
the information does get out. The publication is a booklet
assembled by the Committee and provided to the House Clerk &
Senate Secretary.
· Section 6
Ms. Anderson noted that Section 6 speaks to the fine
structure. At present time, there are two fine; the first,
$25 dollars for the inadvertent late filing of an ethics
disclosure & the second, a $2 dollar a day fine for a
maximum of up to $100 dollars. The Committee has
recommended a third fine structure for willful late fees in
the amount of $100 dollars per day, not exceeding a maximum
of $2,500 dollars.
2:15:41 PM
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
2:16:07 PM
Co-Chair Meyer referenced Section 1, proposing amendments to
address the legislators affected by the area of where
special sessions are held. He requested that Ms. Anderson
provide the research on that concern.
Representative Gara emphasized that the language should be
worded to cover only special session and not regular session
and maintained that no legislator should fund raise during
regular session. He asked about a wedding that happened for
a staff person and if gifts less than $250 dollars should be
reported. Ms. Anderson responded that a person is allowed
to receive a gift up to $250 dollars, given their connection
to legislative status. If not connected to that, such as a
wedding, the gift could exceed the $250 dollar amount. If a
group of individuals got together to purchase a gift and the
value of that gift exceeded $250 dollars, it would be okay.
2:18:59 PM
Co-Chair Chenault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 25-LS1326\V.1,
Wayne, 3/28/08. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion.
Co-Chair Chenault explained that the amendment would
prohibit members of the Select Committee from being able to
file complaints. He stated that members from either the
Ethics Committee or APOC should not be able to file a
complaint on the complaint.
Co-Chair Meyer asked the number of members that serve on the
Ethics Committee. Ms. Anderson replied that two from the
House and two from the Senate, one minority and one from a
bi-partisan working group serve on the Committee.
Representative Gara asked if at this time, a member files a
complaint, would they then be exempt from making a decision
on that complaint. Ms. Anderson explained that the Ethics
Committee would file the complaint on behalf of the
Committee; individuals do not file complaints. She did not
understand the amendment.
Representative Gara advised that the language of the
amendment would prohibit the Committee from filing a
complaint, which he thought was contrary to the purpose of
APOC. There are essentially two types of complaints, the
first filed by a "watch-dog" committee. The amendment could
make the two committees close to "toothless".
2:22:38 PM
Co-Chair Chenault countered that under the amendment, staff
of either committee could still file a complaint. Co-Chair
Meyer asked if a member finds a violation, could another
legislator bring it forward. Co-Chair Chenault understood
that currently that could happen. Under the amendment, a
member of the Committee would not be able to file a
complaint but their staff member could.
2:23:50 PM
Representative Gara referenced Section 2, pointing out that
in current law, the Committee can initiate a complaint,
while the amendment states the opposite. Co-Chair Chenault
stated that the correct wording was "or take other
appropriate action". Ms. Anderson interjected that Section
2 only refers to the State benefit and loan program. She
agreed with Representative Gara that removing that language,
if the Committee determines unfair and improper influence,
the matter would be referred to the Attorney General's
office. The other appropriate action would be the Committee
initiating a complaint.
Ms. Anderson referenced that under Section 8, regarding a
complaint initiated by anyone other than the Committee and
pointed out that in the past couple years, fewer complaints
had been filed by the public than in the past, perhaps
because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the
federal government's involvement in some of the current
statewide issues. The Ethics Committee has initiated some
complaints in the past year.
Ms. Anderson thought to not allow the Committee to file
complaints, could tie their hands. The way the statute
reads, if proven true, there could be a violation.
2:29:26 PM
Co-Chair Chenault commented that if the Committee has the
ability to recommend and also be the "judge and jury" of
that complaint, the result could be troublesome. He
recommended reviewing the amendment for the next meeting.
Co-Chair Chenault WITHDREW Amendment 1.
2:30:33 PM
Representative Gara stated that he opposes Section 8 as
currently written, which stipulates that the committee or
APOC can not initiate a complaint. He agreed to language
indicating that if a member of that committee initiates the
proceeding, then the person should not be part of deciding
that case.
Co-Chair Chenault stated he proposed the amendment because
it is the correct action to take.
2:31:39 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, Page 5, Line 3 &
Line 5, deleting "willful" and inserting "willful". Co-
Chair Chenault OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Meyer explained that Amendment 2 would correct a
typo. Co-Chair Chenault WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Vice-Chair
Stoltze pointed out that either spelling was correct.
Ms. Anderson noted that in the rest of the Statute, it is
spelled with two "l's".
2:32:51 PM
HB 368 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
2:33:17 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 281
An Act extending the statute of limitations for the
filing of complaints with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission involving state election campaigns.
MIKE SICA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, explained that HB
381 will strengthen the oversight of Alaska's ethics laws by
allowing watchdog agencies more time to receive complaints
and properly investigate alleged violations. The bill would
establish an adequate period of time for the retention of
records related to complaints.
The act would cover the four areas of oversight assigned to
the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics:
· Campaign disclosures (AS 15.13)
· Lobbying (AS 24.45)
· Legislative financial disclosure (AS 24.60)
· Public Official financial disclosure (AS 39.50)
Mr. Sica continued, HB 281 creates a standard statute of
limitation of five years for complaints filed with APOC and
the Select Committee. It codifies a period of six years for
the retention of required records. The bill provides an
important follow-up to the recent efforts from the
Foundation of Trust between Alaskan's and the government.
2:36:45 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked if previously, it had been four years.
Mr. Sica replied yes. Co-Chair Meyer asked why the change
was proposed. Mr. Sica explained that choosing five years,
captures the longest term and twelve of the eighteen months
that a legislator is allowed to campaign before being
seated.
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if legislators then would be
required to keep their records for five years. Mr. Sica
explained that the provisions in Section 1, sub section (c),
clarifies that language and added that the records could be
electronically submitted. Co-Chair Meyer noted that most of
his own records are not electronically capable.
2:38:43 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked about the requirements for the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS). Mr. Sica pointed out that the IRS
recommendations present a sliding scale from between three
to seven years.
Representative Gara understood that the "thrust of the bill"
extends the Statute of Limitations, which he supports. He
referenced Section 1 and asked which records would need to
be saved. Mr. Sica did not know.
2:40:23 PM
CHRIS ELLINGSON, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PUBLIC
OFFICES COMMISSION, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference,
explained that the retained records would need to represent
all the necessary items each legislator was given as a
candidate when undertaking those activities.
Representative Gara asked about keeping every beverage
receipt. Ms. Ellingson stated that each legislator needs to
be able to file a disclosure report and that they must save
receipts from fund raising and the expenses associated with
that.
2:42:28 PM
Ms. Ellingson reiterated that each legislator needs to be
able to report the numbers turned in to the agency when
filing their disclosure report in case of an investigation.
Representative Gara could not believe that would mean,
keeping a receipt for every item including beverages. Ms.
Ellingson reiterated some type of receipt is required.
Representative Gara inquired about the current rules. Ms.
Ellingson explained at this time, records must be retained
for two years.
Co-Chair Meyer wanted to avoid any complication on taxes and
asked what the wisest amount of time needed to keep
receipts. Ms. Ellingson said that four years should be
sufficient. Mr. Sica echoed four years for record
retention.
Representative Gara advised there are no statutes on the
retention of records, noting that AS 111 proposes a new
provision and asked if the referenced material was instead a
regulation. Ms. Ellingson acknowledged that it is
regulation for record-keeping retention.
Representative Gara inquired if the records needing to be
kept through regulation were the same as those defined in
the bill. Ms. Ellingson said yes.
2:44:49 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the language was prospective
and could change the Statute of Limitation for record-
keeping requirements. Ms. Ellingson commented it would
within one year of the effective date and then on or after
the effective date indicated in Section 1.
Representative Thomas asked the association between the
convictions and the reporting of expenses by legislators.
Mr. Sica explained since the statewide events, there has
been trial testimony and proceedings indicating questionable
campaign contributions, beyond the current one year APOC
regulations.
Co-Chair Chenault asked how many complaints had been filed.
Ms. Ellingson thought between fifteen and twenty, which
resulted from trial information. She added, the Commission
had directed staff to look into those complaints.
2:48:31 PM
Representative Gara voiced concern with APOC investigating
items older than one year, which criminal law allows APOC to
go back five years. He asked if HB 281 allows APOC to go
back more than one year. Ms. Ellingson explained that had
been written into the applicability and date. She said
Representative Gara was correct.
Representative Gara reiterated his concerns that the law
allows APOC to go five years back to investigate a crime.
Ms. Ellingson stated the agency does not provide criminal
investigations, only civil.
Representative Gara pointed out that an agency cannot file a
civil complaint if it is more than a year old, but
definitely can be investigated.
Representative Gara asked if APOC was investigating claims
more than a year old. Ms. Ellingson said yes they were, but
they would be unable to issue civil penalties for such
issues; they would instead be referred to the Attorney
General's Office if appropriate.
2:51:16 PM
Representative Gara pointed out additional concern with
hidden evidence and asked if APOC had issued a determination
on that. Ms. Ellingson responded they had not at this time.
JOYCE ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATOR, SELECT COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATIVE ETHICS, interjected that the Legislative Ethics
Act does have a Statute of Limitation that would apply.
Representative Gara pointed out that the Ethics Committee is
allowed to do that and thought that APOC should also. Ms.
Ellingson explained that APOC does not have the same
provisions as the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
2:53:35 PM
Representative Thomas referenced survey funding and how to
eliminate electorate confusion. Ms. Ellingson said that the
statutes that APOC administers have a provision to address
such concerns; however, there is no section regarding the
polls. She added that is not within the limits of the bill,
but should be closely scrutinized.
Representative Thomas suggested that an amendment be added
requiring all public opinion surveys to indicate who is
paying.
2:56:04 PM
Ms. Ellingson did not know if that could fit into the bill.
Representative Gara offered to work with Representative
Thomas. He commented that some people form groups to cover
up their name. The language should be written to indicate
that if a candidate or party is paying, the information is
revealed.
JAN DEYOUNG, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LABOR AND STATE
AFFAIRS DIVISION, CIVIL SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference, offered to answer
questions of the Committee.
Representative Hawker asked if lawmakers had the authority
to ban the use of polling for the purposes of information
used in political campaigns. Ms. DeYoung believed that
there may be first amendment questions related to that. Not
all polling is done through a candidate or group, the areas
where APOC regulates and that there are polls done outside
the regulatory scheme of APOC. Representative Hawker wanted
to see a broader scope. Ms. DeYoung encouraged examination
of the first amendment issues.
3:00:10 PM
In response to a query by Representative Gara, Ms. DeYoung
pointed out that there is a provision where a poll would not
be considered a contribution as long as it was limited to
issues not mentioning a candidate.
Representative Gara wanted the person for whom the poll was
given, to know which group was paying for it and hoped it
would indicate the major donors.
3:02:02 PM
Representative Hawker added that corporations & unions
should be included. Ms. DeYoung responded that to narrow
the scope of the provision, the first amendment concerns
would be reduced, especially when moving into the areas of
regulation comparable to advertisement paid for by
disclosure.
Representative Gara asked if to add "or business or union"
would be acceptable. Ms. DeYoung stated that would move
into the appropriate area for an expenditure, which
currently a union or corporation already makes; there
already are restrictions on campaigns related to those
activities.
Ms. DeYoung thought that would cause no harm; however, the
question remains whether a poll would be an expenditure.
Each poll would need to be scrutinized to see if it fell
within that prohibition. She requested time to determine
the ramifications.
Representative Gara did not believe there would be
constitutional concerns making someone reveal who paid for a
poll. He reiterated that some polls hide behind other group
names. He was interested in seeing an amendment to address
the concern.
3:05:36 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze requested clarification regarding polls
mentioning candidates.
Ms. Ellingson thought that Vice-Chair Stoltze was
referencing the definition of when something was a
contribution. Vice-Chair Stoltze acknowledged polls can be
valuable tool.
Co-Chair Chenault recommended determining the issue that
arises from up-front disclosures. He said he does not
support illegal polls.
Representative Gara reiterated his concern with polls that
undermine the economic interests in the State of Alaska. He
maintained that people have the right to know who is behind
each poll.
3:09:01 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1. Representative
Gara OBJECTED. (Copy on File).
Co-Chair Meyer explained the amendment would keep the time
period consistent to four years on Page 2, Line 2, Line 10,
Line 16; Page 3, Line 27, Line 23, Line 27; Page 4, Line 8,
Line 15, Line 23, and Line 29.
Representative Gara stated that these are two separate
issues;
· #1 - Keeping the beverage receipts
· #2 - The issue of the Statutes of Limitations
Representative Gara pointed out that current law indicates
five years in the Statutes of Limitations, recommending that
be the civil time amount. He noted support for the amount
of time needed for keeping records.
Co-Chair Meyer understood that a legislator would need to
keep their records for five years. Representative Gara
stated that the violation is determining if the legislator
received an illegal campaign contribution.
Representative Hawker did not care how long the time limit
is, but recommended that it be consistent.
3:12:34 PM
Representative Joule interjected that our current system is
not broken.
Representative Gara maintained his objection, pointing out
that the criminal Statute of Limitations is five years and
that the civil should also be five years. Ms. Ellingson
advised that APOC has no criminal jurisdiction.
Representative Gara refined the statement, explaining that
the Department of Law is allowed to go after an APOC
violation for five years if it is a criminal violation. Ms.
Ellingson did not know if that was true. Ms. DeYoung
interjected that AS 15.56.130 is the criminal Statute of
Limitation.
Representative Hawker requested that the amendment be made
consistent with the five year number already in place.
3:15:15 PM
Mr. Sica clarified that on Page 4, Section 11, the current
section is repealed for the Alaska Election code. Repealing
that language would make the State default to AS 12.10.010,
the general time limitations for a complaint to APOC.
Representative Gara clarified that the five year limit is
not a criminal code and if it is a crime under APOC, it
would be a civil matter. He reiterated that it be placed at
five years.
Co-Chair Meyer asked what would constitute a criminal versus
a civil crime. Representative Gara explained that if it
does rise to the level of a crime, an illegal campaign
donation, five years should apply.
3:18:11 PM
Ms. DeYoung pointed out that currently, there is a one year
criminal Statute of Limitation. The repealler in Section
11, repeals the one year statute, defaulting back to five
years. Under HB 281, if it is adopted, there would be a
five year criminal Statute of Limitation, which is not the
current case.
Co-Chair Meyer understood that it could be repealed to four
years. Ms. DeYoung advised that in the criminal provision,
the repeal has the effect of five years, criminal statute,
which would need to be adopted. She requested that the
criminal unit of the Department of Law testify on the
particulars of how to achieve that.
Mr. Sica understood the concern voiced by Representative
Gara. A civil complaint could rise to the level of a
criminal offense. Co-Chair Meyer agreed it does not make
sense. Mr. Sica recommended that keeping records is for a
person's own protection.
3:20:32 PM
Co-Chair Chenault noted that with Amendment 1 in place, a
complaint could be filed anytime within four years. After
four years, no complaint could be filed. Mr. Sica said yes,
unless the bill is passed as is and the person intentionally
intended to violate that point in statute.
Co-Chair Chenault questioned the chances of discovering some
illegal activity in the fifth year versus the fourth year.
Mr. Sica replied that would be about a 20% possibility. He
added, Representative Lynn prefers five years.
3:22:10 PM
Mr. Sica advised in the past, these type concerns had been
addressed through regulation.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW Amendment 1.
3:23:04 PM
Co-Chair Chenault questioned the rules that affect
advertising with regard to reporting contributors. Ms.
Ellingson clarified that reference was to "issue
communications" and under the definition in statute,
communication either directly or indirectly identifies the
candidate or addresses an issue of national, state or local
political importance & does not support or oppose a
candidate for election to public office. The only
requirement is that there is a proper identifier. The
statute has three definitions concerning such types of
communications:
· Issue communication
· Electioneering communication
· Express communications
Co-Chair Chenault wondered if the statute should be amended.
3:27:01 PM
HB 281 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
3:27:44 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 366
An Act relating to an exemption from public disclosure
of certain appropriations from the dividend fund; and
providing for an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, SPONSOR, explained that
approximately 5,000 children do not receive child support
because the non-custodial parent is incarcerated and
ineligible to receive a Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). When
the non-custodial parents are ordered to pay child support,
but are unable to do so, their PFD is garnished.
Under current law, the PFD of individuals found ineligible
under AS 43.23.005(d) are appropriated to the Department of
Corrections and to the programs for the victim crimes. HB
366 allows the Department of Revenue to provide grants to
minor children of incarcerated individuals. The bill
ensures that minor children of incarcerated individuals do
not lose out on the child support they depend upon.
3:30:20 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze noted those funds are also being used by
a number of other agencies such as the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA). He asked if the
sponsor had discussed the impacted reductions the bill would
have to the Department of Public Safety.
3:31:14 PM
JERRY BURNETT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, addressed the effect on the
other departments. As the bill is written, it allows
payments to be written to Child Support Enforcement Agency
(CSEA) for children of incarcerated parents out of the PFD
fund. In the FY09 budget, there is approximately $16
million dollars allocated between the Department of Public
Safety and the Department of Corrections from the PFD felon
funds. There are approximately 5,000 incarcerated parents
in the Department of Corrections. If the program was an
equivalent program, approximately half the money would not
be available. He noted that in the Department of
Corrections, all those funds are budgeted for inmate health
and would then need to be paid through General Funds.
Vice-Chair Stoltze emphasized that the bill does carry
fiscal impact, which is not indicated in the fiscal notes.
3:33:33 PM
Mr. Burnett clarified that the bill would have no affect on
the FY09 budget, which has already passed. The effect of
the bill would be shown in FY10.
Representative Crawford agreed HB 366 does have fiscal
impact. The change was never intended to remove those funds
from the children. He maintained that the debt is owed and
should be given back to those children.
Co-Chair Chenault acknowledged that no one disagrees with
that; however, was concerned with the zero note submitted by
the Department of Corrections, stressing a fiscal impact to
the General Funds.
3:36:51 PM
Representative Hawker asked why AS 43.23.028, the public
notice section regarding the notice on the Permanent Fund
Dividend stub, had been included. He recommended that the
eligibility section be addressed. Representative Crawford
explained that Legislative Legal Services had drafted that
section and he requested they testify to it.
3:40:54 PM
TAMARA COOK, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES,
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, JUNEAU, testified via
teleconference, addressed the concerns of Representative
Hawker. She explained that the way in which the PFD program
works with respect to AS 43.23.005(d) basically identifies
individuals that will not be eligible for the dividends.
Then the Legislature has an elaborate notice requirement.
When the Legislature appropriates money from the fund for a
non dividend fund purpose, including hold-harmless, the
notice appears on the check stubs so that the State's
population knows when money is being taken from the dividend
fund and not paid directly as dividends. There is an
exception, which is being amended in HB 366. The exception
is established on Page 1, which clarifies that to the extent
that the Legislature chooses to appropriate money from the
PFD, that does not exceed the amount that would have been
paid to State residents, then the notice requirement is not
triggered. In order to avoid the trigger, there are certain
emphases to certain purposes as established on Page 1 & Page
2; the bill essentially adds another purpose.
3:43:52 PM
Representative Hawker understood that there were no
statutory provisions for the existing appropriations #1-#5
and that they were not noticed. Ms. Cook replied correct.
The Legislature makes an appropriation from the dividend
fund as long as the amount appropriated is from one of the
five listed purposes.
3:44:43 PM
Representative Hawker stated that the bill would carve out
another exception to the notice requirements and asked what
was being accomplished by not disclosing the information
through the notice requirement.
Representative Crawford pointed out that the State is not
allowed to use public funds to pay the debt of an
individual. Representative Hawker commented that to
accomplish that intent, the language should return to the
eligibility section stipulating the exception, AS 43.23.005,
Section (d), add (f), placing another waiver requirement for
the purpose of satisfying child support.
3:46:37 PM
Ms. Cook explained that the problem is that the
recommendation is to set up a program that explains there
are certain types of criminals that do not qualify for PFD's
and then single out some of those people that owe child
support. The problem becomes an equal protection concern.
The State has an interest in determining who qualifies for
the PFD; that sub-section (d) was litigated and it survived
the litigation. The State will be allowing some of these
people to qualify for another PFD. She did not know how to
justify that. The State does not have an interest in
helping criminals pay off debt.
Representative Hawker asked why under current statute and
regulation, does the Department allow payments of dividends
to a certain class of people absent from the State as
students and at the same time regulate that they will not
give the same treatment to a student on a Fulbright
scholarship.
3:49:05 PM
Ms. Cook explained that Representative Hawker was addressing
the "allowable absence" provision. The Legislature has
created a list of allowable absences deemed to be residences
for that program. She did not think that all allowable
absences had been litigated.
Representative Crawford commented that the analogy is that
to garnish a PFD check, is not on the same level as innocent
children's equal protection concerns. He did not want to
make all criminals eligible to pay off debts with their
PFD's. Representative Hawker agreed it was defending and
protecting the rights of that innocent individual.
Representative Crawford suggested it would provide benefit
in the right to satisfy part of their debt.
3:51:44 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze commented on passage of the expanded
aspect of application of felons. He did not recollect any
change to the eligibility for child support but instead
would expand the net of the number of penalized people. He
asked that the record be made clear. Mr. Burnett agreed
that the effects of making people ineligible for dividends
never changed the eligibility for the Child Support
Enforcement Agency to garnish. It only changed the number
of people.
3:54:09 PM
Representative Crawford worried about children being in line
for the garnishments.
Representative Hawker requested to see the House Letter of
Intent related to the enactment of sub-Section (b).
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
Co-Chair Chenault recommended discussion with the Department
of Corrections regarding the zero note.
HB 366 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:56 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|