Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/02/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB281 | |
| SB57 | |
| SB209 | |
| SB254 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 209 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 254 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 2, 2008
1:46 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:46:14 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 Mike Kelly
Representative Mary Nelson
Representative Bill Thomas Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Richard Foster
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn; Representative Jay Ramras;
Representative Kyle Johansen; Jesse Kiehl, Staff, Senator
Kim Elton; James King, Director, Division of Parks,
Department of Natural Resources; Tom Obermeyer, Staff,
Senator Bettye Davis; Denise Daniello, Executive Director,
Alaska Commission on Aging; Marie Darlin, Alaska Associated
Retired People Task Force; Jody Simpson, Staff, Senator
Charlie Huggins
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Ivan Moore; Marc Hennenthal; Chris Ellingson, Acting
Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission,
Anchorage; Michael Hanzuk, Development Specialist, Ardor
Program, Office Economic Development, Ardor program,
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development;
Michael Catsi, Executive Director, Southwest Alaska
Municipal Conference
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.
CS HB 281 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"individual" recommendations and with a new zero
note by the Legislative Affairs Agency, a new
fiscal notes by the Department of Law and the
Department of Administration.
CS SB 57(RES)
An Act relating to fishing, hunting, and trapping
in marine park units of the Alaska state park
system, amending the area within designated marine
park units of the Alaska state park system, and
adding marine park units to the Alaska state park
system.
CS SB 57 (RES) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with fiscal note #2 by
the Department of Natural Resources and zero note
#3 by the Department of Fish and Game.
SB 209 An Act extending the termination date of the
Alaska Commission on Aging; and providing for an
effective date.
SB 209 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes #1 & #2
by the Department of Health and Social Services.
SB 254 An Act extending the termination date of the
Alaska regional economic assistance program; and
providing for an effective date.
SB 254 was HEARD & HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
1:47:17 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.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that Amendments 1 & 2 had been
WITHDRAWN at a prior meeting.
1:49:08 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 25-
LS1115\T.4, Bullard, 4/2/08. Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara addressed his comments to the amendment:
Page 1, Line 7, following "Code;", inserting
"requiring the disclosure of the identity of
certain candidates, groups, non group entities,
and persons paying for certain polls mentioning
the name of a political party or the names of
certain candidates for state or municipal
office;".
Page 1, following Line 9: Insert a new bill
section to read: "Section 1. AS 15.13 is amended
by adding a new section to read: Sec. 15.13.092.
Identification of certain polls. All opinion
polls that mention a candidate in an election
occurring under this chapter or that mention a
political party in the 60 days preceding an
election, must clearly identify the name of any
candidate, group, or non-group entity paying for
the poll and any person paying more than $2,000
for the poll, followed by the words "contributed
money to pay for this poll."
Page 1, line 10, deleting "Section 1" and
inserting "Sec. 2".
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, Line 3, deleting "sec. 2", inserting "sec.
3". Page 5, Line 6, deleting "sec. 2", inserting
"sec. 3". Page 5, Line 7, deleting "sec. 2",
inserting "sec. 3". Page 5, Line 8, deleting
"sec. 1" & inserting "sec. 2". Page 5, Line 9,
deleting "sec. 1", inserting "sec. 2".
On Page 5, Lines 10, 11 & 12, deleting "sec. 3"
and inserting "sec. 4". Page 5, Lines 12 & 13,
deleting "sec. 6" and inserting "sec. 7". Page 5,
Lines 15, 17 & 18, deleting "sec. 7" and inserting
"sec. 8". Page 5, Lines 19 & 20, deleting "sec.
8" and inserting "sec. 9". Page 5, Line 20,
delete "sec. 8" and insert "sec. 9". Page 5, Lines
22 & 23, delete "sec. 9" and insert "sec. 10".
Page 5, Line 25, delete "sec. 10" and insert "sec.
11". Page 5, Line 27, delete "sec. 11" and insert
"sec. 12".
Page 6, Line 6, deleting "Section 13" and
inserting "Section 14". Page 6, Line 7, deleting
"sec. 14" and inserting "sec. 15".
Representative Hawker was not aware that his name was going
to be included on the amendment.
Representative Gara explained the intent of the amendment to
address attack polls, certain polls in which, the public
never knows who are behind. There are situations the public
might like to know about:
· If there is a candidate behind a poll;
· If there is a Political Action Committee (PAC)
behind the poll; and
· If there is any person [business, labor group,
organization] who is paying more than $2,000 dollars
for the poll.
1:51:35 PM
Co-Chair Meyer thought it would apply to all political
opinion polls. Vice-Chair Stoltze did not know if there was
a legal definition of "polling". He understood the intent
but pointed out that sometimes, there is something that
resembles a poll but in actuality, distributes only factual
or non factual information. The body of law is complicated.
Representative Gara appreciated the question, noting two
solutions. Regardless of the kind of poll, people should
know who is paying for the poll and who is attempting to
affect the outcome of that election. If Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC) needed to define the word
"polling", they could do it by regulation. He did not
believe that "poll" needs to be defined any further than it
currently is. Vice-Chair Stoltze wondered if it should be
defined regulatoraly.
1:54:25 PM
Co-Chair Meyer supported the intent of Amendment 3, however,
worried that the change might taint the outcome of the poll.
He asked if disclosure could be placed at the end.
Representative Gara said yes, the amendment provides the
discretion to determine where to insert the information to
the voter.
IVAN MOORE testified via teleconference, spoke in opposition
to Amendment 3. He stated that in principle, he did not
have an issue with the requirement. He but worried about
the mandatory disclosure during the course of the poll,
creating a bias. When the pollster conducts the poll, they
do not know who the client is that is paying for it. When a
surveyor requests to know who is offering the poll, Mr.
Moore's phone number is provided and he can be called
directly. He was worried with his interviewers knowing who
the funder of the poll is because that can introduce a bias.
He suggested amending it to require that a pollster disclose
when asked, instead of it being a requirement that it is
disclosed in every interview. Co-Chair Meyer understood
that.
Mr. Moore reiterated that knowing who the funder is creates
a tendency to do things that make people happy, which the
interviewer could subconsciously segue the information.
2:00:21 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze referenced the professional pollsters
versus those that offer "push-polls". Mr. Moore was
uncomfortable with the suggestion that there are many of the
push polls about and that pollsters routinely engaged in
polls that are intended to influence the outcome of an
election. That has never been his intent during his 20
years in business. Vice-Chair Stoltze asked clarification
regarding the types of polls & the negative tactics used.
2:02:21 PM
Representative Gara was not concerned about who pays for the
candidates but rather worried about "shadow groups"
influencing elections. Mr. Moore argued that he does not
tell his interviewers who pays for the polls but rather has
them call him directly. Representative Gara thought that
Mr. Moore could hire people that would not be influenced.
Mr. Moore disagreed. Representative Gara maintained the
need to disclose to the voters is more important and that
pollsters could find a way to work around their bias.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if it would apply to out of State
pollsters as well. Representative Gara affirmed. He
disclosed that Mr. Moore had worked for him in the past and
that they never did a push poll.
2:04:01 PM
Representative Crawford questioned what happens when there
is an unknown group requesting a poll. Co-Chair Meyer
responded that they would have the option to call Mr. Moore.
Representative Crawford pointed out that the amendment does
not clarify that.
Representative Gara pointed out that if a candidate was
paying, their name would be required; if a political party
was paying, then that would have to be disclosed. He
acknowledged that some of the group/non group entities can
come up with misleading names that the legislation will not
be able to address. The last line clarifies that if there
is any contributor that has placed more than $2,000 dollars
into the poll, their name must be revealed.
2:05:39 PM
Representative Hawker addressed root names that are
intentionally misleading and in which a pollster could ask
an offensive series of poll questions, paid for by a certain
party. He noted that the comments made by Representative
Gara had assuaged his concerns.
Co-Chair Chenault questioned that certain parties would be
responsible for disclosing to Alaska Public Office
Commission (APOC). Representative Gara believed that the
bulk of citizens who receive the polling information would
not research the APOC records and that those records are not
always available until the end of the summer before an
election.
Co-Chair Chenault referenced the language: "Must clearly
identify the name of any group or non group", asking what
difference that could make. Representative Gara agreed it
would be difficult to do everything right. If the candidate
was paying or the political party or corporation or labor
union was paying, it will important to find out that
information. Under those circumstances, it is important to
know the party that is behind it. Co-Chair Chenault
indicated concern with those offering polls for deceptive
motives, yet did not think the amendment addressed the real
concerns.
2:09:28 PM
Representative Hawker responded that from personal
experience, he had utilized a professional pollster and
those dollars were filed with APOC. He attempted to find
out who has been polling with the many calls he receives.
Polling in and of itself is not disclosable; disclosure is
only required when the group and entity requirements that
the Legislature subjects to disclosure. He emphasized that
the need is full disclosure.
2:11:24 PM
MARC HENNENTHAL, testified via teleconference, agreed with
the comments made by Mr. Moore regarding disclosure by the
interviewers regarding who pays for a poll. He mentioned
the published information available regarding interviewer
bias. Providing polls is the business of measuring
behavior, opinions and the like, not advertising or
advocating for a position. He maintained that push polls
are not truly polls and by law, they are required to
indicate who is offering the service.
Mr. Hennenthal pointed out that outside of the political
arena, anyone that polls usually do not want anyone else to
know that they are polling as it provides information to
their competitors. He spoke against projecting the rules of
advertising to the pollsters.
Co-Chair Meyer asked when the pollsters reveal the name of
the requester. Mr. Hennenthal explained that the pollsters
can only provide his phone number as the name for
information on the poll.
2:15:42 PM
Representative Gara disclosed that he had sold a car to Mr.
Hennenthal's son. He asked if legally Mr. Hennenthal would
be required to indicate "paid for by". Mr. Hennenthal
replied that push poll require that but he added that a push
poll is not a real poll. APOC requires a "paid for by"
indication on that type poll.
Representative Gara asked what occurs if it was not a push
poll "paid for" poll & offered by a legislator; APOC
stipulates that information should be made available. Mr.
Hennenthal stated they do not provide that information and
are not required to so and that it could bias the
interviewers on the results of the poll.
Representative Gara thought that if he paid for a poll, it
should be considered a campaign expense and should be
included. He worried that requiring the information for a
push poll could indicate a name not recognized by the person
being polled. Mr. Hennenthal maintained that not every poll
is required to register who pays with APOC.
Representative Gara pointed out that is what the amendment
addresses. He asked what happens if he pays for the poll.
Representative Gara advised that Mr. Hennenthal would have
to provide his own name and that no one would really know
who requested the poll. He added that under the amendment,
the name would need to reveal the information. Mr.
Hennenthal commented that would be reselling it.
Representative Gara said in that case, he was not being
regulated by it and that if it becomes a "real campaign
poll", the poll should not happen unless the money is
provided up front.
2:19:00 PM
Representative Hawker followed the distinction between
advertising and measuring. He agreed that there is an
extreme on each end of the spectrum and worried about
playing around those margins. The amendment clarifies that
it must be disclosed and closes the loophole. Mr.
Hennenthal asked about the confidentiality of the company
that has interest in their opponents. Representative Hawker
clarified that was the point of the amendment and that he
thought it was a good idea. Mr. Hennenthal maintained that
language would discourage anyone adding anything political
to their polls.
2:21:30 PM
Representative Kelly accessed that the conversation affects
poll information. He worried that the action could change
the confidence level on a poll; however, agreed that it is
nice for politicians to know.
2:22:38 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze referenced comments made by
Representative Hawker that opposing candidates do receive
the information and that information does not show-up on the
APOC records, would the amendment change that, making easier
to enforce. Representative Hawker refuted that it would be
an alleged violation. A corporation or some other
organization, polling with political motives, can make the
information public without it being a violation. Vice-Chair
Stoltze acknowledged that he had not indicated his thought
"artfully"; he expected that every poll was on the "level".
2:24:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, SPONSOR, acknowledged that all
polls are inaccurate & bias, admitting the area is of
concern. He requested the amendment be a separate piece of
legislation and offered to work with Committee members
during the interim. He preferred not to incorporate it.
2:26:11 PM
Co-Chair Meyer agreed that the amendment should be
considered on the House Floor. Representative Gara offered
an idea to scale back the amendment to solve those concerns.
He directed his comments to the two pollsters on-line. If
at the end of the polls, the interviewer comments that:
"This poll is paid for by persons interested in the outcome
of this election". The language could add a requirement to
provide a local or toll free phone number, which should not
bias the interviewers and providing the information to
people that are willing to make the call. Mr. Moore agreed
that could resolve his concerns and supported the approach.
Mr. Hennenthal also agreed that it does address the
interviewer bias but that he would maintain his objection to
the change. Government should not be intruding, especially
when 90% of the polling is on sensitive areas. He thought
the change could open a "can of worms".
2:30:30 PM
Representative Gara stressed that the amendment only applies
to a poll that mentions a candidate or political party. Mr.
Hennenthal thought that it could drive up costs. He pointed
out that the poll charges by the length and is measured
accurately, which means certain entities could not be
offering polls as it would be prohibitively expensive.
Representative Gara pointed out that it does resolve the
concern of interviewer bias. Mr. Hennenthal agreed.
2:31:54 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked for an estimate on a typical
political poll. Mr. Hennenthal responded anywhere from $100
dollars on up. The highest he knew of cost $20,000 dollars
that is rare. Mr. Hennenthal said $5,000 was reasonable;
however, tracking polls are cheaper. Mr. Moore commented
that he does not go as low as $100 dollars, usually charging
between $250 to $500 dollars for only adding a name to a
statewide poll.
2:34:40 PM
Co-Chair Chenault questioned where $2 thousand dollars had
originated and wondered about a group of PAC's presenting a
poll. He asked if a push poll could be considered
influencing an election.
CHRIS ELLINGSON, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PUBLIC
OFFICES COMMISSION, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference,
stated that the statute carries a provision alluding to a
push poll and is called "false statements, telephone
polling, and calls to convince". She added that APOC does
not receive many calls on push polls.
2:36:55 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked if a poll attempting influence an
election was required to be registered by APOC. Ms.
Ellingson stated that they do not have to be registered.
She understood that sometimes polls are not designed for a
candidate or a ballot issue. Sometimes other questions are
added, peripheral to the issue.
Co-Chair Chenault worried about the issue of influencing an
election, which he believed that under the APOC rules, they
are required to be registered. Ms. Ellingson suggested that
the Chairman was addressing communications. There are
definitions in the law about the different types of
communications and depending on how they are structured,
determine if an entity would need to be registered and
identified.
2:39:36 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked for APOC's comments on Amendment 3.
Ms. Ellingson said they had not received that amendment yet.
Vice-Chair Stoltze requested commentary on how the law is
enforced & disclosed for polling procedures and
requirements. Ms. Ellingson responded that polls are
difficult to specifically address because for many years,
they have never been addressed in statute. Between 2002-
2003, there was some definition put into the statutes.
Prior to Campaign Finance Reform, any poll was considered a
contribution. In 1997 with passage of the campaign finance
laws, poll costs became costly and over the limit factor for
contribution. Enforcing is difficult & APOC is usually the
last to find out about the polling. The polls are done
outside the realm of campaign disclosure area; it would be
difficult to administer and get a handle on. The Commission
has addressed how to get something created for determining
the guidelines. She worried about the outside polling
industry.
2:43:53 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze supported the intent of the amendment but
worried about the effect on the bill and the obligations
placed upon APOC.
Representative Gara addressed questions previously asked by
the Committee. He pointed out that the $2 thousand dollar
limit would not apply in most cases. He maintained that
people should know how much the poll costs. He understood
that there could be more demand on the resources but no
monitoring unless someone files a complaint.
2:46:06 PM
Co-Chair Meyer responded that he could accomplish a poll by
hiring an out of state pollster. He asked if the change
would adversely affect the Alaskan polling business.
Representative Gara maintained that if you were a candidate
paying for it, the name would have to be revealed. He did
not know if the law could be enforced on the out of state
pollsters.
Ms. Ellingson noted that if someone does make an independent
expenditure to purchase a poll, there are identification
requirements if related to an Alaskan candidate. If an
individual is paying, they are allowed ten days to file the
expenditure report.
Representative Hawker recommended removing the dollar limit
and making it an absolute full disclosure.
Co-Chair Chenault asked if a Political Action Committee
(PAC) paid for a poll, would the reporting requirements
indicate that. Ms. Ellingson said yes. She pointed out
that PAC and group are used interchangeably in the law.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual amendment,
changing the words at the end of Amendment #3 (Copy on
File). The amendment would be to Page 1, Line 13, deleting
"contributed money to pay for this poll" and inserting, "
'this poll is paid for by persons interested in the outcome
of this election.' The person conducting the poll must
provide a toll free or local phone number that can be called
to obtain the information in this section."
There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
2:51:16 PM
Representative Hawker acknowledged that the conceptual
amendment makes it better. The intent is to have people
disclose their participation in the campaigning.
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 2
to Amendment #3, removing the $2,000 dollar requirement and
stating that "any person paying for such a poll, would be
wrapped into this web". Representative Gara OBJECTED for
purposes of discussion.
Representative Gara wanted to avoid the pollster's phone
call going on for a long time. He recommended adding
between "$500 - $700 dollars".
Co-Chair Chenault did not think those numbers would make the
call longer or shorter. He thought it would only cost the
person offering the poll extra money.
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment #3
was adopted.
2:54:39 PM
Representative Lynn commented on the changes made,
suggesting they would be better placed in another piece of
legislation. He stated the important aspect of the bill is
inclusion of the statute of limitations.
Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the amended
Amendment #3. Co-Chair Chenault OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thomas, Crawford, Gara, Hawker, Joule, Kelly,
Meyer
OPPOSED: Stoltze, Nelson, Chenault
Representative Foster was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-3).
2:58:33 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS HB 281(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 281 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"individual" recommendations and with a new zero note by the
Legislative Affairs Agency, a two new fiscal notes by the
Department of Law and the Department of Administration.
3:00:33 PM
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 57(RES)
An Act relating to fishing, hunting, and trapping in
marine park units of the Alaska state park system,
amending the area within designated marine park units
of the Alaska state park system, and adding marine park
units to the Alaska state park system.
JESSE KIEHL, STAFF, SENATOR KIM ELTON, explained the
legislation, which adds 14 islands to an existing marine
park parcel. The islands are heavily used by both local
residents as well as visitors from out of State for hunting,
fishing, recreation and tourism. The waters off the islands
are productive fishing grounds.
Mr. Kiehl stated that the bill was developed jointly with
the Division of Parks. It is supported by the City &
Borough of Juneau (CBJ), the local tourism companies, urban
Native corporations, fishing charter companies as well as
outdoor groups including the Territorial Sportsmen.
Mr. Kiehl noted that one of the primary purposes for adding
the lands and water to the State Marine Park system is to
begin to develop amenities on the islands such as cabins and
boat launches in partnership with local groups to a reduced
cost to the State. The bill explicitly excludes private
land holdings in the areas described. All those land
holdings have water access and will not be impeded by the
bill. SB 57 clarifies that whatever rules the Department of
Fish and Game implements for hunting and trapping would
apply to these areas as well.
3:04:49 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the fishing reference referred
to both sport and commercial. Mr. Kiehl clarified that the
bill was deliberately crafted to be broad and does refer to
sport, commercial and subsistence use and gathering.
Vice-Chair Stoltze noted that he did not care about the
legislation since it was not close to the area he
represents. He opined that one does not know what they are
inviting when the Parks Division and their management come
into that area. He wanted to know that it was approved with
informed consent.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if there was commercial value to the
land for mining or timber interests. Mr. Kiehl was not
aware of significant commercial value. He deferred to the
Department of Natural Resources. There is one possible
commercial use - the beaches might be suitable for shellfish
farming, which the bill would not impact.
Representative Gara asked where the Copper River meridian
was in Southeast Alaska.
JAMES KING, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, did not know the answer to that.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED.
3:09:07 PM
Representative Thomas commented that over the years, there
has never been a problem with compatibility in the areas.
He thought the areas were also important to the Anchorage
commercial fishermen. He did not oppose the bill.
Representative Hawker commented that there is a "body of
testimony" included from hearings in the Senate Resources
and Senate Finance Committees. He indicated his support of
the bill, which has been endorsed by adjacent land owners,
the fisheries community and the park. He applauded the work
done by the sponsor.
Co-Chair Meyer noted the small fiscal note.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS SB 57 (RES) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS SB 57 (RES) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with fiscal note #2 by the Department of
Natural Resources and zero note #3 by the Department of Fish
and Game.
SENATE BILL NO. 209
An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska
Commission on Aging; and providing for an effective
date.
3:12:22 PM
TOM OBERMEYER, STAFF, SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS, explained that
under AS 44.21.200, a number of the Alaska boards and
commissions have an expiration date. SB 209 is an act
extending the termination date of the Alaska Commission on
Aging and providing for an effective date. In accordance
with the Alaska Statutes as part of the legislative
oversight responsibility, the Division of Legislative Budget
and Audit (LBA) conducted a sunset review of the Commission
in 2007. The purpose of that review was to access the
demonstrated public need for the continuation of the
Commission. As a result, LBA determined that the Commission
on Aging is helping older Alaskans. The audit recommended
that the Legislature adopt legislation extending the
commission's termination date to June 30, 2016. SB 209
makes that amendment.
3:14:53 PM
DENISE DANIELLO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON
AGING, voiced support for SB 209. The Alaska Commission on
Aging was established in 1982 to be a voice for older
Alaskans. The Commission satisfies a federal requirement of
the Older Americans Act, Section 306(AD), requiring a
commission council compromised of individuals of senior
status and funded by Older Americans Act. The Commission
satisfies that State requirement and the State is able to
bring forth $4.7 million federal dollars to support senior
services.
3:16:19 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked for reflections on the audit
regarding the mission of the Commission. Ms. Daniello
responded that the audit contained a requirement taken up
under SB 243 to update the statutes to reflect current
practice. In 2003, under previous Governor Murkowski's
Administration, there was a change in the way grants for
senior services were administered. Under Executive Order
(EO) 103, established a new division called Division of
Senior and Disability Services, which assumed the grant
making authority from the Alaska Commission on Aging. The
statues were never updated to reflect that change.
Vice-Chair Stoltze corrected that the Executive Order was EO
108 not EO 103. He pointed out that was the only question
the audit raised.
3:18:22 PM
MARIE DARLIN, AARP TASK FORCE, testified on behalf of over
90,000 members in AARP in Alaska, who voice support for SB
209. She reiterated that it had been the recommendation of
a recent audit. She commented on the work of the
Commission, which helps determine the important issues and
vision for the best interest for the State. She urged
support for the bill.
3:20:38 PM
Representative Gara applauded the work done by Ms. Darlin
and the members of AARP.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
Representative Thomas inquired the age restriction. Ms.
Daniello responded that for the Alaska on Aging, it is 60
years of age or older as defined by the Older Americans Act.
Co-Chair Meyer referenced the fiscal notes.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT SB 209 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and with the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 209 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with fiscal notes #1 & #2 by the
Department of Health and Social Services.
3:23:23 PM
SENATE BILL NO. 254
An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska
regional economic assistance program; and providing for
an effective date.
JODY SIMPSON, STAFF, SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS, said that the
Alaska Regional Economic Assistance Program was created by
the Legislature in 1988 to promote the economic development
of Alaska's urban and rural areas. The program enables the
creation of Alaska Regional Development Organization
(ARDOR). To carry out the mission of each ARDOR, the State
provides funding in the form of grants. In turn, the
ARDOR's use that money to leverage, on the average eight
times the State's investment in private, federal and other
funds.
The intent for the statewide ARDOR's is:
· Enable local officials and business to pool
resources and work together on economic development;
· Develop partnerships among public, private and other
organizations; and
· Provide technical assistance via direct links with
local citizens.
3:26:02 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed out that SB 254 is a companion
bill to HB 272, which he had sponsored.
3:27:00 PM
MICHAEL HANZUK, DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST, ARDOR PROGRAM,
OFFICE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ARDOR PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT testified via
teleconference, offered to answer questions of the
Committee.
3:27:40 PM
MICHAEL CATSI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHWEST ALASKA
MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE testified via teleconference, offered
to answer questions of the Committee. He noted support for
the bill.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
3:28:53 PM
Co-Chair Meyer stated that SB 254 would be HELD in Committee
for further consideration.
3:29:28 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:29 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|