Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/25/2014 07:00 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR18 | |
| HCR15 | |
| HB210 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 25, 2014
7:04 p.m.
7:04:26 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 7:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Daniel George, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze; Darrell
Breese, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze; Representative
Shelley Hughes, Sponsor; Michael Hanley, Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development.
SUMMARY
HB 210 STUDENT RESTRAINT, SECLUSION, PSYC DRUGS
CSHB 210(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1
(EED).
HCR 15 TASK FORCE ON UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
CSHCR 15(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note from the Legislature.
HJR 18 CONST. AM: ELECTED ATTORNEY GENERAL
CSHJR 18(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
"no recommendation" and with one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1 (LEG); and one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN2
(GOV).
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to the office of attorney general.
7:05:01 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the meeting agenda.
Representative Costello MOVED to ADOPT the proposed
committee substitute for HJR 18, Work Draft 28-LS1216\N
(Bullard, 3/19/14).
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained the changes in the CS. Page 1, line 16 through
page 2, line 1 added the following sentence: "the attorney
general shall be a citizen of the United States, a
qualified voter of the State, and a resident of Alaska."
The language "to meet the qualifications of a superior
court judge" had been removed from page 2, line 2; the
sentence had been changed to the following: "A person is
not eligible to serve as attorney general unless the person
is an active member of the organized state bar." Subsection
(c) had been added to the bill on page 2, lines 9 through
19. He detailed that the subsection included the same
election procedures for filling a vacancy in the U.S. House
and Senate.
7:06:36 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the subsection pertained to
special elections and included identical language that had
been approved by voters in 2004.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Workdraft 28-LS1216\N was ADOPTED.
Representative Holmes wondered if it was appropriate to
insert the language "in good standing" following the new
sentence "A person is not eligible to serve as attorney
general unless the person is an active member of the
organized state bar" (page 2, lines 1 through 3).
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed that the intent was to determine
if there was support to address the bill on the House
floor.
Representative Gara noted that currently the attorney
general (AG) represented the governor and state agencies.
He understood the intent was to have the AG represent the
people of Alaska. He wondered if another attorney would be
appointed to represent the governor and agencies.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that it was a possibility. He
determined that there may be an AG and governor with a
concomitance of opinion. However, he believed it was likely
that the governor may want his/her own attorney. He noted
that the U.S. president had at least one special attorney.
He surmised that the governor had sufficient funds to
figure out a solution.
Representative Gara wondered whether the elected AG would
represent state agencies. He supposed the legislature would
determine funding for the AG's staff. He pointed to
situations where the AG and legislature were of a different
political persuasion.
Co-Chair Stoltze answered that the legislature would
determine funding for the AG's staff much like it did
currently. He believed the AG would work for the people and
would have the same interest for state agencies. He could
not predict whether conflicts may emerge. He remarked that
there would be independence. He opined that there would
always be politics in any appointed or elected position. He
added that the change would be "new ground."
7:10:35 PM
Representative Holmes noted that many states had elected
AGs. She wondered how other states handled the issue. She
believed approximately half the states had an elected AG
versus an appointed AG.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that 43 states had elected AG's.
Currently Alaska, New Jersey, and several other states had
governor appointed AG's.
DARRELL BREESE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
responded to Representative Gara's questions. He explained
that AG duties were listed in statute and could be adjusted
by the legislature at any time. He detailed that if the
constitutional amendment became law, the legislature could
change the AG duties with future legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze added that the AG would still take the
same constitutional oath.
Mr. Breese replied to Representative Holmes's question and
relayed that 43 states had elected AG's. He elaborated that
some states had a general counsel position that solely
represented the governor and state agencies (e.g.
Pennsylvania and Virginia); the AG in these states
represented the people and the legislative body. Structures
varied widely by state. For example, in New Mexico it was
up to the governor to hire special representation.
Representative Wilson spoke in support of the bill. She
believed the change would make the AG the people's
attorney. She stated that currently the public had to go
through a legislator's office or the governor.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the bill represented one
step. He stressed that the constitutional amendment was not
about a specific AG or governor; it represented a permanent
systemic change.
Representative Wilson commented that the majority of people
thought the AG was a representative of the people.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the issue was about what was
best for Alaska.
7:14:25 PM
Representative Costello asked if AG candidates would
campaign, receive contributions, file with the Alaska
Public Offices Commission, and follow the same rules as
legislative candidates.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied in the affirmative. He relayed
that the AG would be elected in the same manner as the
other two constitutional officers (i.e. governor and
lieutenant governor). There could be other statutory
changes related to the AG.
Representative Costello asked if there would be any
conflict of interest related to individuals trying to
influence the actions of the AG by way of monetary
contributions in an election.
Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that it would be the same
morality as having a governor who would deliver the AG
vote. He believed the state had been fortunate in its
political process yielding honorable people. There had been
some "black spots" on the way, but he believed the average
person did not seek to get wealthy in the office and most
were not successful at it.
Representative Costello could foresee a different type of
individual wanting to fill the position if the
constitutional amendment passed. The individual would need
to self-select and run for office. She believed the change
would be significant; currently the governor and lieutenant
governor positions were the two positions elected
statewide. She wondered how many AGs ran for governor in
states with elected AGs.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented that some people jokingly
referred to the National Association of Attorneys General
as the National Association of Aspiring Governors.
Mr. Breese answered that the University of Virginia, Center
of Politics had done a study in 2010 looking back over the
prior 25 years. During the period of study 28 of the 250
AGs had become governors (11 percent); whereas, 22.4
percent of the lieutenant governors had succeeded in
running for governor.
Representative Costello appreciated the information, but
noted that it was not indicative of the number of AGs who
had actually run for governor.
Representative Munoz referred to information on Alaska's
constitutional convention included in member's packets
(copy on file). She asked about the constitutional
convention debate that had centered on the issue.
Mr. Breese replied that the debate had been whether to have
a strong executive. The executive committee had considered
an amendment that would have made the AG an elected
position, but it had not received adequate votes from the
convention as a whole. The executive committee had been
under the impression that they wanted a strong executive in
leadership. He noted that prior to the convention all of
the AGs from the territorial government had been elected
positions. He continued that territorial Senator Bill Egan
had wanted a strong executive with the exception of an
elected AG; he did not want the state to have a governor
that ran amuck.
Co-Chair Stoltze added that the information [related to
Senator Bill Egan] had been included in a November 7, 1955
article.
7:19:28 PM
Representative Munoz asked if making the AG an elected
position weakened the governor's office.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether it weakened the governor or
strengthened the people. He believed the change would
strengthen the public's confidence in the process. He
surmised that the office would be weakened in the sense
that the governor would no longer have the ability to
direct the AG to make an executive act. He stated that
unlike a regulatory ruling, the AG's opinion had the force
of law. The AG would have power to set aside statutes on
behalf of the people of Alaska if she/he felt it was
appropriate. He believed the people would be fortified. He
recalled visiting with constitutional delegate Yule Kilcher
in the past. He noted that there had been a strong Bar
Association presence at the constitutional convention. He
relayed that prior to statehood Alaska had elected AGs. At
the time of the convention Attorneys had communicated that
hardly anyone ran for the AG seat because there were not
enough lawyers in Alaska; the average AG tenure had been 10
or 11 years. The delegation had thought that an appointed
AG would be more stable. He hoped to move the bill out of
committee, but understood if members voted against it. He
noted that it may not make it to a floor vote.
7:22:43 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman wondered when the committee would vote on
the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze believed the dialogue was important. The
only immediate financial ramification was a $1,500 fiscal
note related to the cost of printing [the information on
the Division of Elections ballot].
Representative Gara would not object to reporting the bill
out. He spoke to merits on both sides of the issue. First
he spoke to a potential benefit of the amendment. He had
worked under two former AGs including Charlie Cole and Doug
Bailey; neither of the individuals had political
aspirations and he believed they had run their office
professionally. He stated that historically there had been
pressure in the AG's office to issue opinions that the
governor wanted. The general view had taken hold that the
AG was the governor's attorney; under the current structure
there would always be a question about the objectivity of
an AG opinion. Second he spoke to concerns: he wondered
which outside Citizens United interests would insert
themselves in the state's AG races. He spoke against the
Citizens United opinion and believed it had been a pox on
the country's elections. Additionally, he believed the
governor would want his/her own attorney and staff;
therefore, at some point there would be a fiscal note
reflecting the salaries of a modest number of attorneys and
staff. He guessed it could be $1 million to $2 million.
Co-Chair Stoltze believed the responsibility was on his
side to convince the whole body collectively. He asked if
there were any amendments.
Representative Costello discussed the fiscal notes
including one zero fiscal note from the Alaska Legislature
and one fiscal impact note from the Office of the Governor
totaling $1,500 in FY 15 and zero impact in FY 16 through
FY 20.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the $1,500 was for the cost of
printing the information on the Division of Elections
ballot.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHJR 18(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHJR 18(FIN) was REPORTED out of
committee with "no recommendation" and with one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1 (LEG); and one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN2 (GOV).
7:27:48 PM
AT EASE
7:30:36 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Relating to the continuation of the Task Force on
Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
7:30:41 PM
Representative Costello MOVED to ADOPT the proposed
committee substitute for HCR 15, Work Draft 28-LS1190\C
(Strasbaugh, 3/25/14).
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained that the only change in the CS was located on
page 2, lines 25 through 28. The bill originally designated
that the task force would include three public members; the
language had been changed to include one public member and
two industry representatives.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked the sponsor to clarify that the
change did not reduce the public members, but reflected the
bill's intent. REPRESENTATIVE SHELLEY HUGHES, SPONSOR
agreed.
Co-Chair Stoltze explained that there was no diminution of
the public members. The bill had always included one public
member, which was clarified in the change.
7:32:14 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Workdraft 28-LS1190\C was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the sponsor had any discussions
with the Legislative Affairs Agency. Representative Hughes
replied in the affirmative. She elaborated that the bill
specified that one of the public hearings would be held at
the University of Alaska test site in Fairbanks. She noted
that a cost was associated with travel to Fairbanks, which
was clearly indicated in the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the fiscal note did not
increase, but accurately reflected what would happen.
Representative Hughes agreed.
Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 1:
Page 3, line 8:
Following "privacy" insert "and public safety"
Representative Costello OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara pointed to page 3, line 8 and specified
that the amendment would add the identification of public
safety concerns following language pertaining to the
identification of potential privacy concerns. He elaborated
that drones crashed and sometimes crashed into populated
areas. He wanted to ensure that the task force could
recommend law changes to the legislature in the event that
contracted drones were being used in highly populated
areas, which could be dangerous. He used the hypothetical
example of the use of drones over highways by state
troopers to detect speeders. He wanted the task force to
have the ability to make recommendations on a state level
to the legislature and on a federal level to the Federal
Aviation Administration.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered why the bill used the word
"problems" instead of "concerns." He opined that the word
problem had a negative connotation; whereas, a concern was
something to be attentive to. Representative Hughes was
fine with the change.
7:36:05 PM
AT EASE
7:36:39 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1. He explained
that the intent was to replace the word "problems" with the
word "concerns" following the words "privacy and public
safety."
There being NO OBJECTION, the amendment to Amendment 1 was
ADOPTED.
Representative Costello WITHDREW her OBJECTION to Amendment
1. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was
ADOPTED as amended.
7:37:21 PM
Representative Costello discussed that the fiscal impact
note from the Legislature included a cost of $8,900 in FY
15 through FY 17 and zero impact in FY 18 through FY 20.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHCR 15(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHCR 15(FIN) was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note from the Legislature.
7:39:00 PM
AT EASE
7:40:47 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 210
"An Act relating to the administration of psychiatric
medication to a student; relating to crisis
intervention training for school personnel; and
relating to restraint, escort, and seclusion of
students in public and private schools."
7:40:51 PM
Representative Costello MOVED to ADOPT the proposed
committee substitute for HB 210, Work Draft 28-LS0852\D
(Mischel, 3/25/14).
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
explained the changes in the CS. The language "not later
than 24 hours after" had been removed from page 2, line 23.
The updated sentence read:
A school shall, on the same day as the incident,
provide to the parent or legal guardian of an affected
student information relating to an incident involving
disruptive or violent behavior by the student that
resulted in restraint or seclusion of the student by
school personnel.
Mr. George discussed that the second change appeared on
page 3, line 31 where the words "on request" had been
deleted from the end of the following sentence: "A school
shall provide a copy of the report to the student's parents
or legal guardians."
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Workdraft 28-LS0852\D was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if there were any amendments.
Representative Costello discussed that the one fiscal
impact note from the Department of Education and Early
Development included a cost of $14,000 in FY 15 through FY
20.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the Legislative Finance
Division had cautioned that the program could cost more
than indicated. He asked for any comments from the
department related to the bill changes.
MICHAEL HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, answered that the department recognized
the value of early notification to parents. He shared that
conversations with the sponsor early on had centered on the
process and whether 24 hours was too quick. He fully
understood that the impacts on students who had been
physically restrained or secluded played out quickly. The
department saw the value in the change.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that educators and others
involved had testified that the process outlined in the
bill was what generally took place. He stated that the
change would not be radical.
Representative Thompson thought a conceptual amendment was
needed to insert the words "legal guardians" on page 1,
line [11] in order to align the language with page 2, lines
23 and 24.
7:45:17 PM
AT EASE
7:48:45 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Thompson MOVED a conceptual amendment to
insert the words "legal guardians," following the word
"parents," on page 1, line [11]. There being NO OBJECTION,
the conceptual amendment was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 210(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 210(FIN) was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1 (EED).
Co-Chair Stoltze canceled the meeting scheduled for the
following morning. He thanked members for their work.
ADJOURNMENT
7:50:57 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 210 CS WORKDRAFT FIN D version.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2014 7:00:00 PM |
HB 210 |
| CS for HCR 15(FIN) - Ver C - 3.25.14.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2014 7:00:00 PM |
HCR 15 |
| HCR 15 DFG Response to HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2014 7:00:00 PM |
HCR 15 |
| HCR 15 Amendment -1 Gara.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2014 7:00:00 PM |
HCR 15 |