Legislature(1995 - 1996)

05/03/1996 03:30 PM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
                                                                               
                     HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                   
                           May 3, 1996                                         
                            3:30 P.M.                                          
                                                                               
  TAPE HFC 96-158, Side 1, #000 - end.                                         
  TAPE HFC 96-158, Side 2, #000 - end.                                         
  TAPE HFC 96-159, Side 1, #000 - end.                                         
  TAPE HFC 96-159, Side 2, #000 - end.                                         
  TAPE HFC 96-160, Side 1, #000 - end.                                         
  TAPE HFC 96-160, Side 2, #000 - end.                                         
  TAPE HFC 96-161, Side 1, #000 - end.                                         
  TAPE HFC 96-161, Side 2, #000 - end.                                         
  TAPE HFC 96-162, Side 1, #000 - end.                                         
  TAPE HFC 96-162, Side 2, #000 - end.                                         
  TAPE HFC 96-163, Side 1, #000 - end.                                         
                                                                               
  CALL TO ORDER                                                                
                                                                               
  Co-Chair  Mark  Hanley called  the  House  Finance Committee                 
  meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.                                                
                                                                               
  PRESENT                                                                      
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley               Representative Martin                          
  Co-Chair Foster               Representative Mulder                          
  Representative Brown          Representative Navarre                         
  Representative Grussendorf    Representative Parnell                         
  Representative Kelly          Representative Therriault                      
  Representative Kohring                                                       
                                                                               
  ALSO PRESENT                                                                 
                                                                               
  Senator Lydia Green; Representative David Finkelstein; Laura                 
  Williams,  Staff,  Senator  Pearce; Anne  Ringstadt,  Staff,                 
  Senator   Sharp;   Brooke  Miles,   Alaska   Public  Offices                 
  Commission,  Department  of  Administration;  Steven  (Neal)                 
  Slotnik, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Mike                 
  McMullen,    Division    of    Personnel,   Department    of                 
  Administration;   Susie   Barnett,   Select  Commission   on                 
  Legislative   Ethics;   John  Gaguine,   Assistant  Attorney                 
  General, Department of Law; Jim Nordlund, Director, Division                 
  of   Public  Assistance,  Department   of  Health  &  Social                 
  Services; Curtis  Lomas, Welfare Reform  Program, Department                 
  of Health & Social Services; Michael Tibbles, Staff, Senator                 
  Green; Glenda  Straube, Director, Child  Support Enforcement                 
  Division, Department  of Revenue; Jack  Chenoweth, Attorney,                 
  Alaska  Legal  Services, Legislative  Affairs  Agency; Nancy                 
  Slagle, Director, Division  of Budget Review, Office  of the                 
  Management and  Budget,  Office of  the  Governor;  Virginia                 
  Lembo,  Anchorage;  Rex Lamont,  Anchorage;  Hugh Fleischer,                 
  anchorage; Scott  Davis, Anchorage; Becky  Davis, Anchorage;                 
  Gordy Williams, Staff, Senator Zharoff; Kim McGee, Anchorage                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Friends; Brant McGee, Director,  Office of Public  Advocacy,                 
  Department   of   Administration;  Anne   Wilkas,  Assistant                 
  Attorney General, Department of Law; Kevin McCoy, Anchorage;                 
  Joyce  Bamberger,  Alaska  Human  Rights Commission;  Averil                 
  Lerman, Anchorage;  Barbara Brink,  Public Defender  Agency.                 
  Anchorage;   Barbara   Hood,   Anchorage;  Susan   Orlansky,                 
  Attorney, Anchorage; Michael Lemay, Anchorage; Kathy Harris,                 
  Anchorage; John  Salemi, Director,  Public Defender  Agency,                 
  Department  of  Administration;  Rebecca  Davis,  Fairbanks;                 
  James McComas,  Alaskans Against the Death  Penalty; Charles                 
  Campbell, Juneau;  Rachel King, Alaskans  Against the  Death                 
  Penalty;  Dean Guaneli,  Chief  Assistant Attorney  General,                 
  Department of  Law;  Kevin  Brooks,  Director,  Division  of                 
  Administration, Department of Fish and Game.                                 
                                                                               
  SUMMARY                                                                      
  HB 500    An  Act making  capital and  other appropriations;                 
            and providing for an effective date."                              
                                                                               
            HB 500 was rescheduled to another time.                            
  SB 52     An Act authorizing capital punishment, classifying                 
            murder in the  first degree  as a capital  felony,                 
            and establishing sentencing procedures for capital                 
            felonies;   authorizing   an   advisory  vote   on                 
            instituting capital punishment; and  providing for                 
            an effective date.                                                 
                                                                               
            SB  52   was   HELD  in   Committee  for   further                 
            consideration.                                                     
                                                                               
  SB 98     An  Act  making  changes  related  to the  aid  to                 
            families  with  dependent  children  program,  the                 
            Medicaid  program,  the general  relief assistance                 
            program, and the  adult public assistance program;                 
            directing  the  Department  of  Health and  Social                 
            Services to  apply to  the federal  government for                 
            waivers to implement  the changes where necessary;                 
            relating   to   eligibility  for   permanent  fund                 
            dividends of certain individuals who receive state                 
            assistance, to notice  requirements applicable  to                 
            the  dividend  program;   and  providing  for   an                 
            effective date.                                                    
                                                                               
            HCS CSSB 98  (FIN) was  reported out of  Committee                 
            with "no recommendation" and with nine  Department                 
            of  Health &  Social Services fiscal  impact notes                 
            for the Comprehensive  Plan; and  with ten  fiscal                 
            impact notes pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan;                 
            one by the Department of  Revenue, 4/22/96, one by                 
            the Department  of Education, 4/22/96, two  by the                 
            Department   of  Labor,   4/22/96,   one  by   the                 
            Department of Public Safety, 4/22/96, three by the                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
            Department of Commerce  and Economic  Development,                 
            4/22/96, and  two by  the Department  of Fish  and                 
            Game, 4/22/96; and with a zero fiscal  note by the                 
            Department of  Health & Social  Services; or  with                 
            eight fiscal impact notes pertaining to the Waiver                 
            Plan  from  the  Department  of  Health  &  Social                 
            Services.                                                          
                                                                               
  SB 141    An  Act   relating  to  legislative   ethics;  and                 
            providing for an effective date.                                   
                                                                               
            SB  141   was  HELD   in  Committee   for  further                 
            consideration.                                                     
                                                                               
  SB 191    An  Act relating  to election  campaigns, election                 
            campaign financing, the  oversight and  regulation                 
            of election campaigns by the Alaska Public Offices                 
            Commission,  the  activities  of   lobbyists  that                 
            relate to election campaigns,  and the definitions                 
            of offenses of campaign misconduct; and  providing                 
            for an effective date."                                            
                                                                               
            HCS CSSB 191  was reported  out of Committee  with                 
            "no  recommendation" and  with  two fiscal  impact                 
            notes, one  by the  Department of  Administration,                 
            dated 4/9/96, and  one by  the Department of  Law,                 
            dated 3/25/96; and with two zero fiscal notes, one                 
            by the Office of the  Governor, dated 3/20/96, and                 
            one  by  the  Legislative  Affairs  Agency,  dated                 
            3/25/96.                                                           
                                                                               
  SB 265    An  Act   relating  to   receipts  of   commercial                 
            fisheries test fishing  operations; and  providing                 
            for an effective date.                                             
                                                                               
            CS SB 265 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with                 
            a  "do  pass"  recommendation  and  with a  fiscal                 
            impact  note  by  the  Office  of  Management  and                 
            Budget, 5/1/96.                                                    
  SB 270    An  Act  relating to  juveniles;  relating to  the                 
            jurisdiction of  juvenile courts; relating  to the                 
            release  of  juveniles;  and  relating to  records                 
            concerning juveniles.                                              
                                                                               
            SB 270 was rescheduled to another time.                            
  SCR 23    Relating to long range financial planning.                         
                                                                               
            SCR 23 was rescheduled to another time.                            
  SENATE BILL NO. 141                                                          
                                                                               
       "An Act  relating to legislative ethics;  and providing                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
       for an effective date."                                                 
                                                                               
  JOHN  GAGUINE,  ASSISTANT   ATTORNEY  GENERAL  commented  on                 
  sections  which  require  individuals  to  file  conflict of                 
  interest statements under AS 39.50.  He noted that there are                 
  currently approximately 600  - 800 high level  employees and                 
  boards and commission members that have  to file conflict of                 
  interest  statements.    The legislation  would  expand this                 
  number to  another 450  - 500 state  employees, including  a                 
  large number of  employees not  in policy making  positions.                 
  He  noted  that  psychiatrists  at  the  Alaska  Psychiatric                 
  Institute  (API), public  defenders, and  assistant attorney                 
  generals  would  be  among  those  required  to  file.    He                 
  questioned if the  legislation would be constitutional.   He                 
  noted  that an  employee has  privacy rights  in regards  to                 
  their finances.  He  explained that to require  a disclosure                 
  there  must be  some  nexus between  the public  interest in                 
  disclosing and the person's privacy  interest.  He suggested                 
  that  the  Court might  find  that  some  of  the  positions                 
  affected  cannot   be  required   to   disclose  under   the                 
  Constitution.    He  added  that the  Court  may  find equal                 
  protection violations.  He pointed out that the bill applies                 
  to  ranges   19  and  above  in  the  executive  branch  and                 
  legislature but not in the judiciary  branch.  He noted that                 
  classified employees do not have to disclose.                                
                                                                               
  Representative Martin asked  if the problem could  be solved                 
  with  a severability  clause.   Mr. Gaguine  replied  that a                 
  severability clause would not hurt.  He did not think that a                 
  severability  clause  was necessary.    He explained  that a                 
  ruling that  some individuals  cannot be  covered would  not                 
  affect the remaining sections of the bill.                                   
                                                                               
  Representative Martin  asked  if  employees  of  the  Alaska                 
  Housing  Finance  Corporation  (AHFC)  and  Alaska  Railroad                 
  should  be  covered.    Mr.  Gaguine  observed  that  Alaska                 
  Railroad  senior officials are  in policy  making positions.                 
  He  thought  they  could  be   included  in  the  disclosure                 
  requirements without fear of a constitutional challenge.                     
                                                                               
  Mr. Gaguine commented  on section  72 on page  42 which  was                 
  added by the Senate.  He noted that while the legislature is                 
  in session the governor and lieutenant governor may not fund                 
  raise.  He maintained that the provisions on page 9, section                 
  13  would not preclude  a senator running  for governor from                 
  fund raising during  the legislative  session.  He  observed                 
  that  the intent  was to  allow fund  raising for  statewide                 
  office  during  the legislative  session.   If  the parallel                 
  language was  drawn then the governor could  not raise money                 
  for  legislative  races.   Funds  raised during  the session                 
  could  not be  accepted by  any incumbent  in a  legislative                 
  race.                                                                        
                                                                               
  BROOK  MILES,  JUNEAU  BRANCH ADMINISTRATOR,  ALASKA  PUBLIC                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  OFFICES COMMISSION (APOC) noted that  several sections of SB                 
  141 affect APOC.  She noted  that the Commission has serious                 
  reservations concerning  sections 27  and 28,  Legal Defense                 
  and Election Challenge Funds.   She acknowledged that Senate                 
  Intent Language  would limit  the scope  of the  Fund.   She                 
  expressed concern with possibilities for  abuse of the Fund.                 
  She recommended guidelines  concerning contribution  levels,                 
  when contributions  can be made  and received  and how  much                 
  could  be  spent.   She noted  that  there are  no reporting                 
  requirements.   She observed that  APOC would be required to                 
  issue regulations.   The Legislative  Ethics Committee would                 
  administer and adjudicate cases.  She noted that they are in                 
  different branches  of government.   She  observed that  the                 
  Commission has issued a fiscal note.                                         
                                                                               
  Representative Parnell questioned why the Fund is limited to                 
  defense  of  a civil  criminal  administrative action.   Ms.                 
  Miles noted that the Commission was not consulted in regards                 
  to the legislation.                                                          
                                                                               
  Representative Brown referred to section  49, page 27.   She                 
  noted that language relating to gifts and loans was deleted.                 
  Ms. Miles noted that  the deletion is the recommendation  of                 
  the Legislative Ethics Committee.  Gifts will be reported to                 
  the  Committee.   Copies  of  disclosure of  gifts  would be                 
  forwarded to  the APOC  and contained  in each  legislator's                 
  file.                                                                        
                                                                               
  In response  to a  question by  Representative Parnell,  Ms.                 
  Miles  clarified  that  any  person  required  to  submit  a                 
  financial disclosure report under AS 39.50 or AS 24.60 could                 
  raise their own funds.  A  legislative employee has the same                 
  right.                                                                       
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVID  FINKELSTEIN stated that  under current                 
  law a legislator cannot raise funds for a legal defense fund                 
  because money that  is not  earned or given  as a  political                 
  contribution  or  a  legal  gift cannot  be  accepted.    He                 
  emphasized  that there is  no mechanism for  a legal defense                 
  fund.    Money  would have  to  be  accepted  as a  campaign                 
  contribution.  The legislation  would create a new area  for                 
  legal defense funds.                                                         
                                                                               
  Representative Brown asked for a clarification  of effective                 
  dates  in  sections 27  and 28.    Ms. Miles  explained that                 
  section 28 would  take effect if the initiative dealing with                 
  campaign finance reform is enacted by  a vote of the people.                 
  She noted that section 27 would be  effective if legislation                 
  is enacted into law and is found to be substantially similar                 
  to the initiative.                                                           
                                                                               
  Representative Brown provided members with Amendment 1 (copy                 
  on file).  She noted that the amendment incorporates changes                 
  recommended by APOC.                                                         
                                                                               
                                                                               
  MIKE MCMULLEN,  PERSONAL  MANAGER,  DIVISION  OF  PERSONNEL,                 
  DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION discussed sections 68 - 70.  He                 
  noted that a  substantial amount of  work would be moved  to                 
  the  Personnel  Board  in the  Division  of  Personnel.   He                 
  observed that the Personnel Board is a lay board.  There are                 
  three  members  on the  Board.    The three  members  of the                 
  Personnel  Board  are also  members  of the  Public Employee                 
  Retirement  System Board.   They meet several  times a year.                 
  He estimated that the legislation will require an additional                 
  monthly meeting.   He expressed concern with  the additional                 
  responsibilities of the Personnel Board.  He  noted that the                 
  Board has not been informed of the proposed changes.                         
                                                                               
  Mr. McMullen  discussed the  shift of responsibilities  from                 
  the  Legislative Ethics Committee  to the  Executive Branch.                 
  He spoke  against the addition  of language stating  that an                 
  appearance of a  conflict of  interest is a  violation.   He                 
  observed  that  the  Executive  Branch  Ethics  Act  already                 
  applies  to  public  employees.     The  bill  would  add  a                 
  subcategory called a  "state official".  He  maintained that                 
  additional  requirements that  are less  demanding  than the                 
  existing Act  will cause confusion.   He questioned  if both                 
  provisions will  apply to  state officials.   He  noted that                 
  section 69 is already covered under existing statute.                        
                                                                               
  STEVEN   (NEIL)   SLOTNIK,   ASSISTANT   ATTORNEY   GENERAL,                 
  DEPARTMENT  OF  LAW  explained that  existing  law  under AS                 
  39.52.120 is  more stringent then the proposed requirements.                 
  He  compared subsection (a)(1)  on page 37,  to current law.                 
  He observed that "personal interest" is deleted from current                 
  statue.  He asserted that the current law maintains a higher                 
  ethical standard.  He referred to section 71.  He noted that                 
  existing law prohibits  a public  official from accepting  a                 
  gift  in circumstances from which it  could be inferred that                 
  the  gift  is  intended to  influence  the  public officer's                 
  official duties.  The legislation would allow gifts of under                 
  $250 dollars.  There  is no requirement to determine  if the                 
  gift  was intended to  influence the official's  duties.  He                 
  observed that subsection (e) prohibits a state official from                 
  soliciting, accepting,  or receiving,  during a  legislative                 
  session, a gift with any monetary value from a lobbyist or a                 
  person acting on behalf of a lobbyist.  He stressed that the                 
  language implies  that a gift  could be accepted  outside of                 
  session.    He  questioned  the   need  for  the  additional                 
  language.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Mr. Slotnik acknowledged his confusion in regards to section                 
  71.   He stated that it is  unclear how the original statute                 
  would be affected.  He noted  that currently gifts under $50                 
  dollars are presumed  not to be meant  to influence official                 
  duties.  He stressed that he is unclear how to interface the                 
  language of the old act with SB 141.                                         
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Mr. Slotnik noted that there is  a new definition of "family                 
  member"  in  section  102,  page 52.    The  new  definition                 
  requires that the child or  parent live with the  individual                 
  and be financially dependent.  The current law covers  blood                 
  relation  regardless  of whether  they  are living  with and                 
  financially dependent on the state official.                                 
                                                                               
  Mr. Slotnik observed that the  legislation creates two tiers                 
  of  public  employees.   He  referred  to  section  69.   He                 
  observed that section  69 is in addition to the prohibitions                 
  under AS 39.52.120.  He stated  that the implication is that                 
  AS 39.52.120 does not reach to the  additional provisions of                 
  AS 39.52.125 as contained in SB 141.  He  suggested that the                 
  prohibitions in section 69 would only  apply to the top tier                 
  of state employees, but not to the remainder of employees in                 
  the classified  service.   Before  the legislation,  current                 
  statute was interpreted to prohibit the use of  state funds,                 
  equipment  or  services in  campaigning.   He  stressed that                 
  since  the  provisions  are  not  contained in  the  current                 
  statute they  would no  longer be  implied to  pertain.   He                 
  maintained  that  there  should  not  be  two tiers  in  the                 
  executive branch.  He emphasized that  it would be easier to                 
  maintain compliance to  a single  high ethical standard  and                 
  educate employees if  there is one executive  branch ethical                 
  act.                                                                         
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Mr. Slotnik noted  that disclosure  requirements are not  in                 
  the Executive Branch Ethics Act.  He acknowledged that there                 
  are currently two tiers in reporting requirements.                           
                                                                               
  Representative  Brown questioned  the  point of  having  two                 
  tiers in the Executive Branch Ethics Act.  Mr. Slotnik noted                 
  that  he  was  not  consulted  in regards  to  drafting  the                 
  legislation.                                                                 
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 96-158, Side 2)                                            
                                                                               
  In  response  to  a question  by  Representative  Brown, Mr.                 
  Slotnik stressed that he is comfortable with the rule in the                 
  existing Executive  Branch Ethics  Act,  which prohibits  an                 
  executive branch employee  from taking  a gift if  it is  in                 
  circumstances that could be inferred that it was intended to                 
  influence their performance of official duties.                              
                                                                               
  Mr.  Slotnik  reiterated  that  the  new statutes  would  be                 
  applied in addition to  the current statute.  He  added that                 
  the transfer  of responsibility  for  advisory opinions  and                 
  investigation of  ethic complaints  from the  Office of  the                 
  Attorney General  to the Personnel Board is problematic.  He                 
  observed that the Personnel  Board is a lay board  that does                 
  not  meet  regularly.   He  pointed  out  that the  Attorney                 
  General's office is equipped to advise agencies.   There are                 
  people  on staff  who are  knowledgeable  in regards  to the                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Ethics Act and the operation of the agencies.                                
                                                                               
  Representative  Parnell questioned  if  the Personnel  Board                 
  would  be  more  independent.    Mr. Slotnik  questioned  if                 
  independence is  of concern.   He  noted  that opinions  are                 
  available  for  review.   He did  not  think the  quality of                 
  advise would improve by the transfer.  Mr. McMullen reviewed                 
  new requirements of the Personnel Board in sections  70, 71,                 
  and 90 - 100.                                                                
                                                                               
  Representative  Mulder  stressed  that  the  issue  is   the                 
  perception  of independence  and impartiality.   He  thought                 
  that public confidence  would be raised  by the transfer  to                 
  the Personnel Board.   Mr. Slotnik noted that there  are two                 
  issues,  advice and  investigation  of  complaints.    Under                 
  current law,  complaints  are investigated  by the  Attorney                 
  General.  If probable cause is determined then an accusation                 
  is  filed with  the Personnel  Board.   The  Personnel Board                 
  hears  the  case  and  makes  a  decision as  to  whether  a                 
  violation did  occur.   If a  complaint is  filed against  a                 
  attorney general, governor  or lieutenant governor then  the                 
  Personnel     Board     appoints     independent    counsel.                 
  Representative  Mulder stressed that  the perception is that                 
  complaints are  not going  to receive  an impartial  hearing                 
  under current law.                                                           
                                                                               
  Mr. McMullen  noted that  the legislation  would direct  the                 
  Personnel  Board  to  give  the  complaint to  the  Attorney                 
  General to  serve notice and  prosecute the case  before the                 
  Board.                                                                       
                                                                               
  In  response  to  a question  by  Representative  Brown, Mr.                 
  McMullen  explained   that  the  Attorney   General's  staff                 
  counsels  the  Board.   Representative  Brown  asked  if the                 
  current system is broken or if  there is a specific problem.                 
  Mr. McMullen  and Mr.  Slotnik did  not know  of a  specific                 
  problem.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  questioned the affect  of not adopting                 
  the  Department  of  Administration's   fiscal  note.    Mr.                 
  McMullen stressed that  there would be standstill  in ethics                 
  investigations.    He emphasized  that  there is  not enough                 
  staff for the existing workload.                                             
                                                                               
  LAURA  WILLIAMS, STAFF,  SENATOR  PEARCE  observed that  the                 
  closest thing in the executive branch to an ethics committee                 
  is the  Personnel Board.   She observed that  Senator Pearce                 
  felt that the Board would be more removed.                                   
                                                                               
  Representative Brown questioned why the section  prohibiting                 
  gifts during session was inserted  into the Executive Branch                 
  Ethics  Act  for  year  around   employees.    Ms.  Williams                 
  explained  that the second tier was  created to more closely                 
  reflect the Legislative  Ethics Act.    She  noted that  the                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  intent is to make it clear  that state officials should have                 
  the  same  prohibitions as  legislators.    It was  not  the                 
  Senator's intent to weaken the  Executive Branch Ethics Act.                 
  She maintained that the current law would apply to the state                 
  offices.     Representative  Brown  pointed  out   that  the                 
  standards  in  the legislation  would  not pertain  to these                 
  employees.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Mr.  McMullen  provided members  with  Amendment 2  (copy on                 
  file).    He  explained  that  the  amendment  would  delete                 
  "compensated" and insert  "appointed" on  page 35, line  16;                 
  and add "in the exempt services" on  line 17.  The amendment                 
  would also make this change on page  53, lines 6 and 7.   He                 
  noted that the amendment would cover exempt service.                         
                                                                               
  Representative Brown discussed Amendment 1.   She noted that                 
  the  amendment  was  offered  by  the Administration.    Mr.                 
  Slotnik explained that  the amendment deletes almost  all of                 
  the changes  to the  Executive Branch  Ethics Act.   If  the                 
  amendment is  adopted there  would no  longer be  two tiers.                 
  All state employees would be subject to the Executive Branch                 
  Ethics Act.  The disclosure changes would remain.                            
                                                                               
  Representative Brown MOVED to adopt  Amendment 1.  She noted                 
  that  the  amendment  would  delete   the  transfer  to  the                 
  Personnel  Board  and  the  two  tier  structure  for  state                 
  officials and other public officers.   It would leave in the                 
  bill the changes  in disclosure  reporting for employees  at                 
  range 21 and above.  She noted that it is not the  intent to                 
  weaken the Executive Branch Ethics Act.                                      
                                                                               
  Representative Parnell spoke in opposition to the amendment.                 
  He suggested  that both  new and  old prohibitions  would be                 
  enforced.  He spoke in support of the investigation function                 
  being transferred to  the Personnel  Board.   Representative                 
  Brown WITHDREW Amendment 1.                                                  
                                                                               
  Mr.  Slotnik   clarified  that   current  law   pertains  to                 
  commissioners, directors, board members and other high level                 
  policy  makers.   He  observed  that the  two  branches have                 
  similar ethic regulations.                                                   
                                                                               
  Mr. McMullen discussed Amendment  2.  He explained  that the                 
  same 800 individuals would  be affected.  He noted  that the                 
  amendment clarifies  that the requirements would  pertain to                 
  persons that  occupy a  position at  range 21  or higher  as                 
  opposed to receiving pay equal to range 21.  He noted that a                 
  lower  range with  a higher step  could have pay  equal to a                 
  range 21A.  He  explained that every hire is  technically an                 
  appointment  to the  position.    All  range  21  and  above                 
  employees would be covered, not just political appointees.                   
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Mr. Slotnik observed  that the compensation level  was added                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  to  cover exempt employees that  are not scheduled by range.                 
  He questioned the status of  University of Alaska employees.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative   Brown   MOVED   to   adopt   Amendment   2.                 
  Representative Kelly  OBJECTED.  Representative  Brown noted                 
  that  the  amendment would  make  the disclosure  cut-off at                 
  range 21.                                                                    
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 96-159, Side 1)                                            
                                                                               
  Mr. McMullen further explained that the range level would be                 
  the cut-off point rather than the compensation amount.                       
                                                                               
  Representative Kelly  WITHDREW his objection to Amendment 2.                 
  There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                 
                                                                               
  Representative Brown amended Amendment 3 to add "limited" on                 
  page 4, line  29 after  "C" (copy  on file).   She MOVED  to                 
  adopt Amendment 3.  Representative Mulder OBJECTED.                          
                                                                               
  Representative Mulder disclosed that his wife is a lobbyist.                 
  Representative Brown disclosed that her husband has filed as                 
  a lobbyist.  She noted that  all legislators are affected by                 
  the legislation.                                                             
                                                                               
  Representative  Brown explained  that  Amendment 3  restores                 
  current  law.    She  noted  that  the  intent  is  that  an                 
  occasional or incidental letter or call not related to their                 
  office which  is  handled by  a  legislator in  their  state                 
  office is permitted.  She argued that without the  amendment                 
  there would  be unlimited use of telephones and fax machines                 
  for non-governmental purposes.                                               
                                                                               
  Representative  Finkelstein  clarified that  "limited" would                 
  prevent the running of a campaign  or mailing house from the                 
  office.  Representative Parnell questioned the affect on the                 
  legislator's staff.  Representative Kelly asked if "limited"                 
  is defined.  Representative Mulder stressed that there is no                 
  definition  of  "limited".     He  argued  that   there  are                 
  protections built in to the  current system.  Representative                 
  Martin spoke in opposition to the amendment.                                 
                                                                               
  Representative   Finkelstein   noted  that   the  supervisor                 
  interprets  the  use  of "limited".    Representative  Kelly                 
  expressed concern with the lack of definition.                               
                                                                               
  Representative  Finkelstein  stressed  that   the  amendment                 
  requires  that  employees  comply  with  the policy  of  the                 
  supervisor.                                                                  
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to  adopt Amendment                 
  3.                                                                           
                                                                               
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Therriault, Brown, Kelly                                           
  OPPOSED:  Martin, Mulder, Kohring, Foster                                    
                                                                               
  Co-Chair  Hanley  and Representatives  Navarre,  Parnell and                 
  Grussendorf were absent from the vote.                                       
                                                                               
  The MOTION FAILED (3-4).                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  MOVED to  adopt Amendment  4 (copy  on                 
  file).  Amendment  4 would delete on  page 3, lines  23 -30.                 
  She reiterated  that her  husband has  filed as  a lobbyist.                 
  She explained  that the  amendment would  delete section  3,                 
  which  bans  legislative spouses  from  being employed  as a                 
  lobbyist.   Representative Martin OBJECTED.   Representative                 
  Brown maintained that spouses should be required to disclose                 
  their  lobbying activities.   She stressed  that legislators                 
  are not prevented  from contracting with or  receiving gifts                 
  from lobbyists.  She  noted that spouses may be  employed in                 
  the  other  body.   She  emphasized  that the  ban  would be                 
  inconsistent.  She stressed that Alaska is a small state and                 
  there are limited things that spouses can do in Juneau.                      
                                                                               
  Representative   Mulder  reiterated  that   his  wife  is  a                 
  lobbyist.     Representative   Martin   spoke  against   the                 
  amendment.    He  stressed  the  poor public  perception  of                 
  allowing  legislative  spouses  to  lobby  the  legislature.                 
  Representative Kelly maintained  that legislators vote their                 
  conscience.  He added that they will have to answer to their                 
  constituents.                                                                
                                                                               
  A  roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment                 
  4.                                                                           
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Mulder, Therriault, Brown, Kelly, Kohring, Foster                  
  OPPOSED:  Martin                                                             
                                                                               
  Co-Chair  Hanley  and Representatives  Navarre,  Parnell and                 
  Grussendorf were absent from the vote.                                       
                                                                               
  The MOTION PASSED (6-1).                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  MOVED to  adopt Amendment  5 (copy  on                 
  file).  She explained that the  amendment would clarify that                 
  legislator's offices are considered public areas and are not                 
  appropriate  areas   for  display  of   campaign  materials.                 
  Representative  Mulder  OBJECTED.   He  asked if  a campaign                 
  button on a legislator's  jacket in their office would  be a                 
  violation.                                                                   
                                                                               
  SUSIE BARNETT,  SELECT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE ETHICS noted                 
  that  legislative  employees  cannot wear  campaign  buttons                 
  while performing legislative duties.                                         
                                                                               
  Representative Martin  indicated that a  legislator's office                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  becomes their home  away from home.   Ms. Barnett  indicated                 
  that a division  could be made between  a legislator's inner                 
  and outer office.                                                            
                                                                               
  Representative  Therriault  maintained   that  no   campaign                 
  material should  be distributed  or  posted in  legislator's                 
  offices.  He added that a brochure or pin inadvertently worn                 
  or  carried into  the  office should  not  be considered  as                 
  distributing  or posting.   Representative Brown  noted that                 
  campaign buttons could be excluded.                                          
                                                                               
  Representative Mulder  spoke in  support of  maintaining the                 
  privacy of legislator's  inner offices.  He  maintained that                 
  legislators are not  campaigning from  their inner  offices.                 
  Representative  Parnell  suggested  that  "distributing  and                 
  posting" be further defined.  He agreed that the inadvertent                 
  position  of  campaign  brochures  or  pins  should  not  be                 
  considered as distributing or posting.  He expressed concern                 
  with the  proposal  to  exempt the  inner  office  from  the                 
  prohibitions.                                                                
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  summarized that  "distribute or  post"                 
  means  to   deliberately  put  something   out,  proactively                 
  distributing or posting for view.                                            
                                                                               
  A roll  call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment                 
  5.                                                                           
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Parnell, Therriault, Brown, Kelly, Kohring                         
  OPPOSED:  Martin, Mulder, Foster                                             
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley and Representatives Navarre and  Grussendorf                 
  were absent from the vote.                                                   
                                                                               
  The MOTION PASSED (5-3).                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  MOVED to  adopt Amendment  6 (copy  on                 
  file).     She  explained   that  the   amendment  prohibits                 
  legislators from  receiving more  than $100  dollars in  any                 
  form.    The legislation  would  raise this  amount  to $250                 
  dollars.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Finkelstein explained that  the intent is  to                 
  raise  the  threshold  to  $250  for  gifts  outside of  the                 
  legislature, from  friends or  families.   Legislative gifts                 
  would still  be held at  $100 dollars.   He  noted that  the                 
  federal level is $50 dollars.                                                
                                                                               
  Representative Martin spoke in support  of reducing the gift                 
  level  to $50.   Representative  Brown noted that  there are                 
  exemptions  for   gifts  that   are  not   connected  to   a                 
  legislator's status.                                                         
                                                                               
  Representative  Therriault noted  that  food  consumed at  a                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  social event or meal is not included.                                        
                                                                               
  There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 6 was adopted.                           
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  MOVED to  adopt Amendment  7 (copy  on                 
  file).   Amendment 7  would delete  discounts when  on state                 
  business.  Representative Kelly spoke against the amendment.                 
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 96-159, Side 2)                                            
                                                                               
  Representative Finkelstein emphasized that discounts can  be                 
  a way to  circumvent the gift prohibitions.   Representative                 
  Martin pointed out  that many legislators  receive discounts                 
  on housing.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Representative  Kelly  maintained  that  the  danger of  the                 
  ethics law is  not that  a legislator will  make an  ethical                 
  violation,  but  that  there  will  be  a  perception  of  a                 
  violation in the media.  He spoke against the amendment.                     
                                                                               
  Representative  Finkelstein stressed  that pricing  based on                 
  rental length or season is not a discount.                                   
                                                                               
  Representative Martin questioned if  he could take advantage                 
  of a 15  percent discount on  carpet cleaning.  Ms.  Barnett                 
  noted that the  discount would be  under $100 dollars.   She                 
  added that the discount  is also being offered to  a broader                 
  group.                                                                       
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to  adopt Amendment                 
  7.                                                                           
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Brown                                                              
  OPPOSED:  Kelly,   Kohring,    Martin,   Mulder,    Parnell,                 
  Therriault,         Foster                                                   
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley and Representatives  Navarre and Grussendorf                 
  were absent for the vote.                                                    
                                                                               
  The MOTION FAILED (1-7).                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  MOVED to  adopt Amendment  8 (copy  on                 
  file).    Representative  Finkelstein   explained  that  the                 
  amendment would provide for contribution  and time limits on                 
  legal defense funds.  It also clears up the division between                 
  the  Legislative  Ethic  Committee  and  the  Alaska  Public                 
  Offices Commission.                                                          
                                                                               
  Ms. Miles summarized  that the amendment would  provide more                 
  statutory  guidance concerning  the  accounting behavior  of                 
  legal  defense  funds.    It would  also  require  that  the                 
  Commission  by regulation  determine when  reports would  be                 
  filed disclosing  who contributed to  the Fund.   It provide                 
  that the  Alaska Public  Offices Commission  the enforcement                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  body  and  provide  for civil  penalty  assessments  of late                 
  filings of required reports.                                                 
                                                                               
  In response  to a  question by  Representative Parnell,  Ms.                 
  Miles noted that there would not  be provision for a loosing                 
  candidate  who is  not a  seated legislator,  subject to  AS                 
  24.60.  However, they would be disclosure on their financial                 
  disclosure reports.                                                          
  Representative  Finkelstein noted that  the State  of Alaska                 
  acts on behalf of the winning candidate.                                     
                                                                               
  Representative   Parnell   expressed   concern    with   the                 
  contribution and time  limits.   He felt uncomfortable  with                 
  placing limits on someone who can  be sued just because they                 
  are legislators, when a person who  does not hold office can                 
  raise  all  the money  that they  want  to participate  in a                 
  lawsuit.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative  Parnell  MOVED  to   AMEND  Amendment  8  by                 
  deleting  the reference to page 16, line 2 and page 16, line                 
  27.   There being  NO OBJECTION, it  was so ordered.   There                 
  being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 8 was adopted.                                 
                                                                               
  Representative Brown provided members with Amendment 9 (copy                 
  on file).  Amendment  9 would delete "political"  "or public                 
  policy" on page 15 and 16.  She questioned the need for this                 
  language.  Ms. Barnett noted that  the language was added by                 
  Senator Donely in the Senate.   She stated that the language                 
  was added to clarify that the defense fund could not be used                 
  to fund divorce proceedings or other personal matters.                       
                                                                               
  Ms. Miles observed that the without the amendment any civil,                 
  criminal or administrative action could be covered.                          
                                                                               
  ANN  RINGSTADT,   STAFF,  SENATE  STATE   AFFAIRS  COMMITTEE                 
  clarified that Senator Donley's intent  that the Fund should                 
  only  refer to the political  position or election.  Divorce                 
  or small claims cases  would not be covered.  She noted that                 
  monies could  be  used to  defend against  a frivolous  case                 
  having to do with a campaign.                                                
                                                                               
  Ms. Miles noted  that expenditures  for election  challenges                 
  are proposed for inclusion in other legislation.                             
                                                                               
  Representative Mulder  summarized that the  legislation will                 
  codify  provisions  regarding  legal   defense  relating  to                 
  campaigns.                                                                   
                                                                               
  In  response  to  a question  by  Representative  Brown, Ms.                 
  Ringstadt noted  that the  intent is  to cover  the cost  of                 
  actions  arising  against a  legislator  that was  not under                 
  their control.                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative Brown HELD Amendment 9.                                       
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative MOVED to  adopt Amendment 10 (copy  on file).                 
  She explained that the amendment would allow  the subject of                 
  a complaint to attend amy  meeting concerning the complaint.                 
  She noted that the Committee can consider the request and if                 
  it decides to  deny the  request notify the  subject of  the                 
  complaint their reasons.                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative   Kelly   spoke   against    the   amendment.                 
  Representative  Finkelstein  noted   that  committee   final                 
  deliberations are not open  to the public or the  subject of                 
  the complaint.  He stressed that the amendment clarifies the                 
  internal inconsistency.                                                      
                                                                               
  Representative Therriault argued that the Legislative Ethics                 
  Committee  should   not   be  elevated   to   jury   status.                 
  Representative Martin spoke against the amendment.                           
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to  adopt Amendment                 
  10.                                                                          
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Brown                                                              
  OPPOSED:  Kelly,   Kohring,    Martin,   Mulder,    Parnell,                 
  Therriault,         Foster                                                   
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley and Representatives Navarre and  Grussendorf                 
  were absent for the vote.                                                    
                                                                               
  The MOTION FAILED (1-7).                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Finkelstein noted  that page  22, line 17  is                 
  inconsistent.  He noted that  the legislation would prohibit                 
  the subject of the complaint from being present at committee                 
  deliberations and vote on the  dismissal order and decision.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative  Kelly  MOVED  to  adopt  oral Amendment  11,                 
  delete "or the subject  of the complaint" on page  22, lines                 
  11 and 12.                                                                   
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.                                    
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Kelly,   Kohring,    Martin,   Mulder,    Parnell,                 
  Therriault,         Foster                                                   
  OPPOSED:  Brown                                                              
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley and Representatives Navarre and  Grussendorf                 
  were absent for the vote.                                                    
                                                                               
  The MOTION PASSED (7-1).                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  MOVED to  adopt oral  Amendment 12  to                 
  delete on page  23, lines 24 -  28.  Ms. Barnett  noted that                 
  the amendment  would retain  the status quo.   The  language                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  would impose restrictions  on the release of  information by                 
  the  subject  of the  complaint  unless the  complainant has                 
  agree to be bound  by similar restrictions and has  not made                 
  public   the   information  contained   in   the  complaint,                 
  information about the complaint,  or the fact of filing  the                 
  complaint.    She noted  that  the  language would  tie  the                 
  Committee  to  conditions  as  set  by  a  person  that  the                 
  Committee  has no  jurisdiction  over.   She noted  that the                 
  language pertains to be information irrelevant to the case.                  
                                                                               
  There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                 
                                                                               
  Representative Brown MOVED  to adopt  oral Amendment 13,  on                 
  page  8,  line  29  insert  "incidental"  before  "political                 
  activities".  She maintained that the language is too broad.                 
  There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                 
                                                                               
  Representative Mulder  questioned if a  ethics complaint can                 
  be initiated within 60 days of an election.  He alleged that                 
  ethic  complaints are  being used  as campaign  tools.   Mr.                 
  Gaguine  noted  that  AS  11.56  makes  the crime  of  false                 
  accusation with the Legislative Ethics  Committee, a class A                 
  misdemeanor.   Representative Parnell  pointed out  that the                 
  penalty requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.                            
                                                                               
  In  response  to a  question  by Representative  Martin, Ms.                 
  Barnett noted that the  statues do not speak to a gift given                 
  to a family member and imputed to the legislator.  She noted                 
  that family  members are limited  to those people  listed on                 
  page 13, lines 17 - 23.                                                      
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 96-160, Side 1).                                           
                                                                               
  Representative Brown spoke  to the  need for changes  within                 
  the proposed legislation.   She  pointed out that  following                 
  communication  with Senator  Pearce's  office, some  changes                 
  would  be permissible.   Representative Brown suggested that                 
  the current bill could cause unfortunate repercussions.  She                 
  stressed that the  legislative ethics  as proposed would  be                 
  "forced" into the Executive ethics,  explaining that the two                 
  concepts are quite different.                                                
                                                                               
  SB 141 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.                         
  SENATE BILL 52                                                               
                                                                               
       "An  Act  authorizing  capital punishment,  classifying                 
       murder  in the first  degree as  a capital  felony, and                 
       establishing   sentencing   procedures    for   capital                 
       felonies; authorizing  an advisory vote  on instituting                 
       capital  punishment;  and  providing for  an  effective                 
       date."                                                                  
                                                                               
  BRANT  MCGEE,  (TESTIFIED  VIA   TELECONFERENCE),  DIRECTOR,                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to                 
  the proposed legislation.  He pointed  out that costs do not                 
  appear to be attached  to the proposal.  Mr.  McGee stressed                 
  that    implementing    the   death    penalty    would   be                 
  "astronomically"  costly and  that execution  would be  many                 
  times more  expensive than  life in  prison without  parole.                 
  The legislation will impose indirect  costs on every citizen                 
  who  attempts  to  bring  their  case  before  an  impartial                 
  tribunal.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Mr.  McGee  continued,  the  defense  and  prosecution costs                 
  estimated for the first four years would alone amount to $18                 
  million  dollars.   He urged the  Committee to  consider the                 
  costs  associated  on  any bill  associated  with  the death                 
  penalty.  Representative Martin agreed that voters should be                 
  informed regarding the costs involved.                                       
                                                                               
  V. BONNIE  LEMBO, (TESTIFIED VIA  TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT                 
  DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, opposed the                 
  legislation as  passage would  seriously  increase the  work                 
  load for all prosecuting attorneys and it  would become more                 
  difficult to  obtain the  cooperation  of witnesses.   If  a                 
  person knows that when they cooperate with the government as                 
  a  witness, and  that  someone they  care  about could  face                 
  execution,  they  are more  hesitant  to provide  the needed                 
  information.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Ms. Lembo  continued, it  will be  more difficult to  obtain                 
  convictions in homicide cases.   The standard of proof being                 
  "beyond a reasonable  doubt" would remain legally  the same.                 
  Both  practically and  humanly,    a  person would  be  more                 
  reticent to loath someone to death unless they are convinced                 
  without a "shadow of a doubt".                                               
                                                                               
  Ms. Lembo  concluded, she feared  that there would  be court                 
  case  capital rulings which  will make it  more difficult to                 
  obtain a court  conviction in other kinds of criminal cases,                 
  and judges will become  more careful in capital cases.  In a                 
  judgement call, judges  will tend to  error in favor of  the                 
  defense when a human life is at stake.                                       
                                                                               
  She  informed  members  that  there  is little  scrutiny  on                 
  appeals  or  curatorial  attacks in  other  case convictions                 
  when sentencing to life without parole.                                      
                                                                               
  Ms. Lembo pointed out that the bill as written does not have                 
  a fiscal note  attached.  This is a  very complex matter and                 
  will  involve increased  expenses for the  defense agencies,                 
  the  Department of  Corrections and the  Court System.   She                 
  stressed that  each agency should  be required to  provide a                 
  meaningful  fiscal note.   Representative Martin requested a                 
  faxed copy of Ms. Lembo's testimony.                                         
                                                                               
  REX   LAMONT,   (TESTIFIED   VIA  TELECONFERENCE),   PRIVATE                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  PRACTIONER- CRIMINAL DEFENSE, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition                 
  to  the death penalty.  He  addressed the impact to the poor                 
  and the minorities.   Our criminal justice  system continues                 
  to have a number of fallacies in adequately representing the                 
  poor.   Currently, the Legislature  is unable to  fully fund                 
  the public defender and public  advocacy agencies.  He urged                 
  the Committee not to pass the proposed legislation.                          
                                                                               
  AVERIL  LERMAN,  (TESTIFIED VIA  TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,                 
  spoke  against  the  proposed  legislation.    She  provided                 
  Committee members with a brief  history of the death penalty                 
  in  the  State of  Alaska.    There were  three  hangings in                 
  Fairbanks between  1900 -  1957.   Three  hanging also  took                 
  place in Juneau during a ten year period.                                    
                                                                               
  The history of Alaska  has shown that an ill advised vote by                 
  "uninformed"  people  will not  reflect  the way  those same                 
  people will feel ten years later.  At that time it  would be                 
  too late for the decision to be reversed.                                    
                                                                               
  HUGH FLEISCHER, (TESTIFIED  VIA TELECONFERENCE),  ANCHORAGE,                 
  spoke against  passage of  SB 52.   He  had read  an article                 
  written   in    February,    1995,   by    a   well    known                 
  attorney/prosecutor  in New  York, Robert  Martinthaw.   Mr.                 
  Martinthaw spoke about the death penalty  and how it hinders                 
  the fight  against crime.   To  date, 350  people have  been                 
  wrongfully accused and convicted of murder.                                  
                                                                               
  SUSAN ORLANSKY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY  IN                 
  PRIVATE PRACTICE, ANCHORAGE,  spoke in opposition to  SB 52.                 
  She stressed  that an  advisory  vote on  the death  penalty                 
  would  not be  a good  idea.   When  people  vote on  ballot                 
  questions,  they vote  on limited  information and  emotion.                 
  Legislators are chosen  representatives for the  people, and                 
  are  responsible to  analysis  information regarding  voters                 
  concerns.                                                                    
                                                                               
  She  pointed out  that we like  to think  that we live  in a                 
  civilized  society,   although,  no  other   modern  western                 
  civilized country supports the  intentional killing of other                 
  human  beings by  the state.   Ms. Orlansky  urged Committee                 
  members to take a stance to support the dignity and sanctity                 
  of human life  and vote  against the  bill.   Representative                 
  Martin agreed.                                                               
                                                                               
  SENATOR  ROBIN  TAYLOR  questioned  what  the  fear  was  in                 
  allowing Alaskans to  express an  opinion at the  poll.   He                 
  suggested that  the  question was  a  simple one,  and  that                 
  Alaskans  should  be given  the  opportunity to  voice their                 
  opinion.  He emphasized that voters  should not be kept from                 
  expressing   their  opinions   because  of   someone  else's                 
  personal,  philosophical  or  theological  points  of  view.                 
  Senator  Taylor referenced a poll that  had been provided to                 
  the Senate Judicial Committee.                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative Martin  asked  who had  requested  the  poll.                 
  Senator Taylor replied  that the pollster provided  the poll                 
  independently and then  sent the result  to him on his  own.                 
  The poll had not  been requested.  This was a statewide poll                 
  taken involving an interview of  500 people.  Senator Taylor                 
  interjected that the  people of Alaska  have not been  heard                 
  from on the issue.                                                           
                                                                               
  Representative Martin questioned the costs involved with the                 
  proposed legislation.   Senator Taylor  responded that there                 
  was no way to  project the costs.  He suggested,  an attempt                 
  to ascertain the  savings associated with the  change, would                 
  be equal to  the cost of the  trial.  He concluded  that the                 
  only cost incurred with passage  of the legislation would be                 
  the cost in placing  the measure on the ballot,  which would                 
  amount to $2 thousand dollars.                                               
                                                                               
  Representative  Martin  asked  how   many  people  would  be                 
  eligible for the  death sentence at  this time, it the  bill                 
  should pass.   Senator  Taylor explained  that the  November                 
  vote would only be an advisory vote to the Legislature as to                 
  whether or not to implement the action.  No one already with                 
  a  conviction  and   judgement  would  be  subject   to  the                 
  sentencing.    He   reiterated  that   there  would  be   no                 
  retroactivity to the death penalty.                                          
                                                                               
  Representative Martin inquired why this legislation had been                 
  proposed as a bill instead of  a resolution.  Senator Taylor                 
  stated that it  was a bill  in order to accomplish  the full                 
  purpose of implementing a death penalty within the State  of                 
  Alaska.  Representative Martin asked if Senator Taylor would                 
  object  if  the  legislation was  changed  to  a resolution.                 
  Senator Taylor noted that he would  not support that motion.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative  Therriault  agreed  that   resolutions  were                 
  usually incorporated for  motions as proposed.   He asked if                 
  putting the question  on the  ballot would be  subject to  a                 
  veto.    Senator  Taylor  replied  that  he  did  not  know.                 
  Representative Therriault  voiced concern with  the finality                 
  of execution  given the number  of mistaken cases.   Senator                 
  Taylor agreed that mistakes happen but  he believed that the                 
  United  States has the finest judicial  system in the world.                 
  He added,  people  are killed  all  the time  in  accidents.                 
  People  do  not expect  perfection  out of  any institutions                 
  within this country.                                                         
                                                                               
  Representative Kohring voiced his support of the legislation                 
  and noted that he wanted to cross-sponsor the bill.                          
                                                                               
  Representative  Navarre  countered  Representative  Kohring,                 
  speaking  in support  of  the current  judicial system.   He                 
  acknowledged that  SB  158  would  be  much  worse  for  the                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  criminal  victims  throughout  the  State.    Representative                 
  Navarre emphasized that innocent people  will die because of                 
  mistakes or because the judicial system is weighted in favor                 
  of  the wealthy.   He agreed  that the legal  system in this                 
  country is  the best  in the  world, and  that is because  a                 
  person  has the  presumption  of innocence,  a  right to  an                 
  attorney and the right to an appeal process.  In most cases,                 
  it will be the poor that the State will have to  pay for the                 
  prosecution and  the defensive  all the way  to the  Supreme                 
  Court.   He maintained  that the  status quo  would be  more                 
  financially sound.                                                           
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 96-160, Side 2).                                           
                                                                               
  Senator  Taylor responded  that  living  in  a  correctional                 
  facility for the  "rest of  ones natural life"  was a  death                 
  sentence.  He  could not  understand a philosophical  belief                 
  system which  could  think  that  would  be  a  more  humane                 
  treatment  than to execute that  person.  He emphasized that                 
  both sentences result  in the  termination of that  person's                 
  life;  although,  one  would  take  longer than  the  other.                 
  Senator Taylor stated that it becomes a choice whether  that                 
  person deserves the  right to  continue to utilize  services                 
  and receive benefits.  He elaborated that those benefits and                 
  services  should  be  made  available  to  other  productive                 
  members in society.                                                          
                                                                               
  Representative  Navarre  pointed out  that  there  have been                 
  cases in which "new" evidence was brought forth and innocent                 
  people were set  free.  Many  people are beat by  the system                 
  and he concluded that  the death penalty has no  ability for                 
  recourse.                                                                    
                                                                               
  JAMES  MCCOMAS,  PRESIDENT,   ALASKANS  AGAINST  THE   DEATH                 
  PENALTY,  ANCHORAGE, spoke against SB 158.   He pleaded that                 
  the Committee consider the voice of  rural Alaska.  He noted                 
  the  late  hour  of  the  meeting  and  the  fact  that  the                 
  Legislative Information  Offices (LIO) across the  State had                 
  closed  except  in  Anchorage.   Mr.  McComas  stressed that                 
  information from rural Alaska is critical because 75% of the                 
  people executed  have been and  will continue to  be Native.                 
  He interjected  that 25% of  the people executed  were white                 
  even though white people committed 75% of the crimes.  Every                 
  Native organization  has  strongly  denounced  the  proposed                 
  legislation.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Mr. McComas addressed Senator Taylor's  intent.  He stressed                 
  that the  sponsor  was playing  a  political game  and  that                 
  peoples lives are at  stake.  He thought that it was Senator                 
  Taylor's   intention   to   have  the   Governor   veto  the                 
  legislation.  Mr. McComas believed  if Senator Taylor really                 
  had  wanted  to  know what  people  thought,  he would  have                 
  proposed the idea as a resolution.  The legislation's intent                 
  would  be  to force  a  veto  in  order  that  it  could  be                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  campaigned  against  in  the  fall  election.   Mr.  McComas                 
  objected to "politics" being played  with issues of life and                 
  death.                                                                       
                                                                               
  He continued, there should not be an advisory vote until the                 
  public is adequately  educated regarding  the concern.   The                 
  volunteers  for  Alaskans  Against the  Death  Penalty  is a                 
  volunteer   organization  and   can  not   afford   such  an                 
  undertaking.     Legislators  have  the   responsibility  to                 
  debating important issues.  Mr. McComas noted that there has                 
  been no debate  on the death  penalty within either Body  of                 
  the Legislature.   He informed  Committee members that  most                 
  people (voters) think  that it  would cost more  to house  a                 
  criminal for life in prison than the death penalty.  That is                 
  a misconception!   He  advised that  there are  thirty-seven                 
  states with the death  penalty in tact, and for  the sponsor                 
  to insinuate that "we  do not know the costs" is a lie.  The                 
  attorney general's estimate for each execution will cost the                 
  State $5 million dollars.   Mr. McComas pointed out  that $5                 
  million  dollars is  one  half of  the  Department of  Law's                 
  budget for an entire  year.  States that are  going bankrupt                 
  because of enforcing the  death penalty.  It costs  too much                 
  money.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Mr.  McComas continued,  popular  opinion is  totally wrong.                 
  People   were  asked  how long  someone convicted  of murder                 
  would be sentenced.  He noted  that 78% of Alaskans believed                 
  it would be 20  years or less; those people are  afraid of a                 
  crime risk repeat which could not  happen.  Under the Alaska                 
  Statutes, anyone  convicted of  a first  degree murder  must                 
  serve twenty years  without "good time" and  without parole.                 
  No  one is  released.    The  average  first  degree  murder                 
  sentence,  according  to  the Department  of  Law,  is 80-90                 
  years.  In those cases that  could be death eligible, parole                 
  is  restricted.  Mr. McComas summarized,  there is no public                 
  safety risk which the death penalty can address.                             
                                                                               
  He continued, the question proposed in  SB 52 is slanted and                 
  inaccurate.  Mr. McComas spoke  to the "tolerance" that  has                 
  existed  in the State  of Alaska.   If the  death penalty is                 
  ratified, the values of  tolerance will decimate.  He  spoke                 
  to the mean  spirited intent  of the legislation's  sponsor.                 
  He urged  Committee members  to further  consider the  death                 
  penalty.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Capital punishment  has been  struck from  the law of  every                 
  western industrialized nation  except America.  It  has been                 
  struck from the law of the Soviet Union and Africa.  Yet, in                 
  the  land  of  liberty,  a  sponsor  schemes  to  provide  a                 
  gubernatorial veto for the purpose  of campaigning to create                 
  the  false  appearance of  an  uninformed public  mandate in                 
  order that they can resume for first time in 46 years, which                 
  Alaskans are worthy of life.                                                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  In  defense  of  Representative  Martin  being  cut  off  by                 
  Representative Mulder, Representative Navarre  stressed that                 
  it is  the Legislature's responsibility to  provide adequate                 
  understanding of such complex issues as being presented.                     
                                                                               
  JOYCE  BAMBERGER,  (TESTIFIED  VIA   TELECONFERENCE),  SELF,                 
  COMMISSIONER,  ALASKA  HUMAN  RIGHTS COMMISSION,  ANCHORAGE,                 
  spoke against the  proposed legislation.   She compared  the                 
  Legislature's intent not  to place the North Star  Oil lease                 
  legislation  out for public vote,  whereas, at the same time                 
  considering a vote on placing human resources out for public                 
  opinion.  The duty of legislators is to protect life.                        
                                                                               
  KIM MCGEE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE FRIENDS                 
  COMMUNITY  - QUAKERS,  ANCHORAGE, stated  that  Quakers have                 
  always been against  the death penalty  and are against  the                 
  bill.   Quakers uphold the sanctity  of all life.   "That of                 
  God" exists in  each person.   She concluded that the  State                 
  can not emulate  the person lost  by taking another  persons                 
  life.                                                                        
                                                                               
  MICHAEL LEMAN, (TESTIFIED VIA  TELECONFERENCE), BUSINESSMAN,                 
  ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to the  proposed legislation.                 
  He  believed  that  the  proposal was  being  fuelled  by  a                 
  misconception regarding the length of prison sentences.  The                 
  death penalty will not  save money.  He summarized  that the                 
  death penalty is  "racist"; capital punishment means  if you                 
  don't have the "capital", you get the "punishment".                          
                                                                               
  ANNE  WILKAS,  (TESTIFIED  VIA   TELECONFERENCE),  ASSISTANT                 
  PUBLIC  DEFENDER,  DEPARTMENT  OF   LAW,  ANCHORAGE,  voiced                 
  opposition to SB 52.   She advised that voters  are ignorant                 
  regarding the  issue and  that the  House Finance  Committee                 
  members are responsible for weighing the monetary conditions                 
  of the  legislation.  Voters  do not  have that  information                 
  available to them.  No agency affected by the death penalty,                 
  supports the death penalty.                                                  
                                                                               
  Ms. Wilkas spoke to the moral  costs wrapped up in the death                 
  penalty.    There  does  exist  a racial  disparity  impact.                 
  Innocent people  will be killed.   She explained  that there                 
  are strong  moral implications  of the  death penalty  bill.                 
  The decision should be  made by people who are  educated and                 
  informed.  She  urged Committee  members to vote  no on  the                 
  death penalty.                                                               
                                                                               
  KATHY  HARRIS,  (TESTIFIED  VIA TELECONFERENCE),  ANCHORAGE,                 
  spoke against  the proposed  legislation.   She pointed  out                 
  that  almost  all religious  affiliations  oppose  the death                 
  penalty and  noted that all  the testimony had  been against                 
  passage of the bill.                                                         
                                                                               
  KEVIN  MCCOY,  (TESTIFIED  VIA  TELECONFERENCE),  ANCHORAGE,                 
  testified   against  of  SB  52.    He  suggested  that  the                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  legislation  should  require  careful  study;  matters  this                 
  important should  not be rushed  through the last  couple of                 
  nights.    He  reiterated  the  high costs  associated  with                 
  implementing the death penalty.                                              
                                                                               
  CHARLES CAMPBELL,  PREVIOUS DIRECTOR  OF  THE DEPARTMENT  OF                 
  CORRECTIONS,  SELF,  JUNEAU,  spoke   against  the  proposed                 
  legislation.  He corrected Senator Taylor's misconception of                 
  life in a  prison cell as "death".  He agreed that it is not                 
  much of  a life,  but an  overwhelming majority of  "lifers"                 
  make a "life" for themselves somehow in it.  They often have                 
  jobs at  industries  within the  prison and  are capable  of                 
  sending  money  home  to  their  families  or  try  to cover                 
  restitution costs associated with their crime.                               
                                                                               
  Mr.  Campbell  pointed  out  that  the Legislature  is  more                 
  informed  than  voters  regarding  the  issues.   The  death                 
  penalty is far  more costly than  life in imprisonment.   He                 
  stressed  that it  is not fair  to put  the question  to the                 
  voters,  when  legislators  know  they  will  be  voting  on                 
  misinformation.    He stated  that would  be inappropriately                 
  using the electorate.                                                        
                                                                               
  In  response   to  Representative  Martin's   question,  Mr.                 
  Campbell  indicated  that  there  are  about  three thousand                 
  people on death  row today.   Death row  continues to  grow;                 
  there is no way  that the number of  persons added could  be                 
  executed.   The average time  between the death sentence and                 
  the execution is nine years.                                                 
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 96-161, Side 1)                                            
                                                                               
  BARBARA BRINK, PUBLIC DEFENDER,  ANCHORAGE testified via the                 
  teleconference network in opposition to SB 52.  She stressed                 
  that the death penalty  is a complicated issue.   She agreed                 
  that there is a costly appeal  process.  She emphasized that                 
  there is a  separate sentencing trial.   She noted that  the                 
  cost of maintaining an inmate on  death roll is greater than                 
  keeping an inmate in the general population.  She noted that                 
  in the state of California it  costs $15 million dollars per                 
  execution.  She gave examples of costs in other states.  She                 
  maintained  that  the  cost will  be  significant  enough to                 
  require taxes.  She  asked what programs will be  reduced to                 
  pay for the cost of the death penalty.                                       
                                                                               
  BARBARA  HOOD,  ANCHORAGE testified  via  the teleconference                 
  network in opposition to  SB 52.  She maintained  that there                 
  is no constituency for the legislation.  She emphasized that                 
  vengeance is a terrible  trait.  She alleged that  the power                 
  to take human life is a power no government should have.                     
                                                                               
  JOHN SALEMI, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF                 
  ADMINISTRATION testified  via the teleconference  network in                 
  opposition to SB 52.   He emphasized that the  death penalty                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  is  not  a simple  issue.    He  acknowledged  citizens  are                 
  concerned   regarding  crime  in   their  communities.    He                 
  maintained that the  perception of a  yes vote on the  death                 
  penalty is that  public safety  will be helped.   He  argued                 
  that studies  demonstrate that  the death  penalty does  not                 
  lessen crime.   He noted  that the cost  of defending  seven                 
  death  penalty  cases would  be  approximately  $1.5 million                 
  dollars.   He questioned where  the funding will  come from.                 
  He emphasized that the money could  be better spent on other                 
  public safety items.  He stressed  that 38 other states have                 
  shown that there  is no savings  and that the death  penalty                 
  does not deter crime.   He noted that rural  committees have                 
  not been heard  from on the  legislation.  He observed  that                 
  rural communities will be the most affected.                                 
                                                                               
  REBECCA DAVIS,  FAIRBANKS testified  via the  teleconference                 
  network in opposition  to SB 52.   She maintained that  many                 
  innocent people  have been  executed in  the United  States.                 
  She  alleged   that  more   innocent  people,   particularly                 
  minorities, will be kill.  She emphasized the fiscal cost.                   
                                                                               
  SCOTT DAVIS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, FAIRBANKS testified                 
  via the teleconference network  in opposition to SB 52.   He                 
  maintained that it  is inconsistent to be  anti-abortion and                 
  pro-death penalty.   He emphasized that  the death does  not                 
  deter crime.                                                                 
                                                                               
  DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF  ASSISTANT ATTORNEY,  DEPARTMENT OF  LAW                 
  testified  in  opposition  to SB  52.    He  noted that  the                 
  Administration opposes SB  52 because  it is too  expensive.                 
  He estimated that the  cost per trial would be  $3.5 million                 
  dollars or  greater.   He stressed  that  the death  penalty                 
  skews  the case  law related  to criminal  prosecution.   He                 
  noted  that  capital  punishment  is  not  reversible.    He                 
  observed that capital punishment has a discriminatory impact                 
  on  minority members.  He added that capital punishment does                 
  not deter crime.  The death penalty was repealed in 1957.                    
                                                                               
  Mr Guaneli stressed that the Legislature is the proper forum                 
  for discussion of the  issue.  He observed that  an advisory                 
  vote is a  snap shot of public opinion in one point in time.                 
  He maintained that the advisory vote  is likely to be affect                 
  by the most  recent news headline.  He emphasized that it is                 
  a complicated issue that should not  be resolved by a yes or                 
  no vote.   He noted that  the legislation  would need to  be                 
  amended  to  include   a  reference  to  the   Alaska  State                 
  Constitution.                                                                
                                                                               
  In  response  to  a question  by  Representative  Brown, Mr.                 
  Guaneli  observed  that  the  cost  of  instituting  capital                 
  punishment is difficult.  He noted that the costs are spread                 
  over a number of years.  Trial and investigation costs occur                 
  early.   Appeals at  the state  and federal  level would  be                 
  extended to a number of years.                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative  Parnell noted that  the Department  of Law's                 
  fiscal note reflects the belief that an affirmative advisory                 
  vote would result in the institution of the death penalty.                   
                                                                               
  RACHEL KING,  ALASKANS AGAINST  THE DEATH  PENALTY spoke  in                 
  opposition  to SB 52.   She noted  that the  addition of the                 
  fiscal  notes reflect a cost of  $5.0 million dollars before                 
  the first execution takes  place.  She observed that  it has                 
  been difficult  to testify  in regards  to the  legislation.                 
  She  gave  examples of  hearings  in Senate  Judiciary where                 
  individuals  were   unable  to   testify.     She  recounted                 
  experiences as  a public defender in Ketchikan.   She stated                 
  that she had a client convicted  that she knew was innocent.                 
  The person's conviction  was later  reversed.  She  observed                 
  that as  a public  defender in  Kotzebue she  had an  annual                 
  caseload of 225 cases.  She  alleged that the justice system                 
  in  rural Alaska  will be  overwhelmed.   She  observed that                 
  since 1970, 59 innocent people have been released from death                 
  row.                                                                         
                                                                               
  Representative Kohring spoke in support of  SB 52.  He MOVED                 
  to  report CSSB  52 (JUD)  out of Committee  with individual                 
  recommendations  and  with  the accompanying  fiscal  notes.                 
  Representative Martin OBJECTED.   He MOVED to TABLE  CSSB 52                 
  (JUD).   Representative Kohring OBJECTED.   A roll call vote                 
  was taken on the MOTION to Table SB 52.                                      
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Martin, Navarre, Therriault, Brown                                 
  OPPOSED:  Mulder,  Parnell,  Grussendorf,   Kelly,  Kohring,                 
  Hanley                                                                       
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Foster was absent for the vote.                                     
                                                                               
  The MOTION FAILED (4-6).                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative  Martin  maintained  that  the advisory  vote                 
  should be established through a resolution.  Co-Chair Hanley                 
  explained that the legislation was in order.                                 
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken  on the MOTION to report CSSB  52                 
  (JUD) from Committee.                                                        
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Mulder,  Parnell,  Grussendorf,   Kelly,  Kohring,                 
  Hanley                                                                       
  OPPOSED:  Navarre, Therriault, Brown, Martin                                 
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Foster was absent from the vote.                                    
                                                                               
  The MOTION PASSED (6-4).                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative  Martin  MOVED  to  RESCIND  the  Committee's                 
  action  in  reporting  CSSB  52   (JUD)  out  of  Committee.                 
  Representative Kohring  OBJECTED.   He spoke  in support  of                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  capital punishment.  He WITHDREW his objection.                              
                                                                               
  A  roll call vote  was taken on  the MOTION to  move CSSB 52                 
  (JUD) out of Committee.                                                      
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Parnell, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring, Hanley                       
  OPPOSED:  Navarre, Therriault, Brown, Martin                                 
                                                                               
  Co-Chair  Foster and Representative  Mulder were  absent for                 
  the vote.                                                                    
                                                                               
  The MOTION FAILED (5-4).                                                     
                                                                               
  CSSB 54 (JUD) FAILED to pass from Committee.                                 
                                                                               
  SENATE BILL NO. 191                                                          
                                                                               
       An  Act   relating  to  election   campaigns,  election                 
       campaign  financing,  the oversight  and  regulation of                 
       election  campaigns   by  the  Alaska   Public  Offices                 
       Commission, the activities of lobbyists  that relate to                 
       election campaigns,  and the definitions of offenses of                 
       campaign  misconduct; and  providing  for an  effective                 
       date."                                                                  
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 96-161, Side 2)                                            
  SENATE BILL NO. 191                                                          
                                                                               
       An  Act   relating  to  election   campaigns,  election                 
       campaign  financing,  the oversight  and  regulation of                 
       election  campaigns   by  the  Alaska   Public  Offices                 
       Commission, the activities of  lobbyists that relate to                 
       election  campaigns, and the definitions of offenses of                 
       campaign  misconduct; and  providing  for an  effective                 
       date."                                                                  
                                                                               
  SENATOR TIM KELLY testified  in support of SB 191.  He noted                 
  that  SB  191  would  replace  the  ballot initiative.    He                 
  acknowledged  that  the  legislation   needs  changes.    He                 
  compared  the  initiative to  SB  191.   He  noted  that the                 
  initiative prohibits  non-resident contributions,  personal,                 
  office or other use of campaign  funds, and carry forward of                 
  campaign funds.  The legislation allows limited non-resident                 
  contributions, some  transfers of  campaign funds  to office                 
  use and limited carry forward.                                               
                                                                               
  Senator  Kelly  reviewed provisions  identical  in both  the                 
  legislation and initiative.   Both  prohibit lobbyists  from                 
  making contributions outside their district.   He noted that                 
  this  section  will be  disputed  in  court.   Candidate  to                 
  candidate campaign fund donations  are prohibited.  Personal                 
  candidate contributions are not prohibited.    Corporations,                 
  partnerships,  unions  and  companies  are  prohibited  from                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  making contributions.   He  noted that  the legislation  was                 
  passed unanimously by the Senate.                                            
                                                                               
  Senator Kelly provided  members with  a number of  technical                 
  amendments (copies on file).                                                 
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN noted that Amendments 1 - 5                 
  are supported by  the Sponsor,  the imitative committee  and                 
  Representative Finkelstein.                                                  
                                                                               
  Representative Martin MOVED  to adopt  Amendment 1 (copy  on                 
  file).   Representative Finkelstein  noted that  Amendment 1                 
  states  that groups  organized on ballot  propositions would                 
  not  have  to adhere  to the  lower  limits included  in the                 
  imitative.  There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                     
                                                                               
  Representative Martin MOVED  to adopt  Amendment 2 (copy  on                 
  file).  Representative  Finkelstein explained that Amendment                 
  2  clarifies  that  there  are   no  limits  on  independent                 
  expenditures.  There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                  
                                                                               
  Representative Finkelstein discussed that  Amendment 3 (copy                 
  on file).  Amendment 3 inserts "or group" on page 5 line 18.                 
  Representative Navarre MOVED  to adopt  Amendment  3.  There                 
  being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                       
                                                                               
  Representative  Grussendorf MOVED to adopt Amendment 4 (copy                 
  on file).  Amendment 4 increases  the office account for the                 
  House amount to $10 thousand dollars.  The legislation would                 
  allow  $10  thousand  dollars  to  be transferred  from  the                 
  campaign   account    to   the    House   office    account.                 
  Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of Amendment  4.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative  Finkelstein  noted  that  the  transfer   is                 
  limited and must be disclosed to the Alaska Public Officials                 
  Commission (APOC). Representative Finkelstein  discussed the                 
  disclosure requirements.                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  OBJECTED to the adoption  of Amendment                 
  4.  A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.                                
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Grussendorf,  Navarre,  Kelly,   Kohring,  Martin,                 
  Mulder,        Therriault, Foster, Hanley                                    
  OPPOSED:  Brown                                                              
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Foster  and Representative Parnell were  absent for                 
  the vote.                                                                    
                                                                               
  The MOTION PASSED (8-1).                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Finkelstein  discussed Amendment  5 (copy  on                 
  file).  He noted  that fund raising time frames  vary in the                 
  legislation.   The amendment  clarifies that if  any of  the                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  time restraints are struck down that campaign funds could be                 
  raised 18 months prior to the general election.  There being                 
  NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                             
                                                                               
  Representative Parnell MOVED  to adopt Amendment 6  (copy on                 
  file).   Amendment 6 would delete  "and files a copy  of the                 
  receipt with the  commission" on  page 12, line  28.   There                 
  being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                       
                                                                               
  Representative Mulder maintained  that complaints should  be                 
  held confidential while under investigation.  Representative                 
  Finkelstein   questioned   the    penalty   for    releasing                 
  confidential information.   Representative  Mulder asked  if                 
  complaints are  prohibited within  60 days  of an  election.                 
  Representative  Finkelstein   noted  that  the   concern  is                 
  legitimate  but emphasized the  difficulty of  legislating a                 
  solution.                                                                    
                                                                               
  In  response   to  a  question  by   Representative  Martin,                 
  Representative  Finkelstein  discussed section  2  (3).   He                 
  stated that proceeds of charitable gaming activities, except                 
  the proceeds  of a  raffle or  lottery, cannot  be used  for                 
  campaigning.  He further explained  that no municipality can                 
  use  funds  to  support  or  oppose  a  candidate.    Ballot                 
  propositions can only be supported or opposed by ordinance.                  
                                                                               
  In response  to a  question  by Representative  Grussendorf,                 
  Representative Finkelstein noted that campaign  funds can be                 
  given to a  party, non-profit, be returned  to contributors,                 
  set aside for future campaigns or up to $10 thousand dollars                 
  can be transferred to an office account.                                     
                                                                               
  Senator Kelly noted that there is  a one time carry over for                 
  1998.                                                                        
                                                                               
  Representative Brown referred  to page 17, lines 15  and 16.                 
  Representative  Finkelstein  clarified that  a  House member                 
  could transfer $10 thousand dollars to an office account and                 
  $5  thousand  dollars  to  a  future  campaign.   Any  funds                 
  remaining after  the allowed distribution would  be returned                 
  to the General  Fund.  She  noted that some candidates  have                 
  large balances.                                                              
                                                                               
  Representative   Finkelstein  spoke   in   support  of   the                 
  legislation.    He noted  that  there are  earlier effective                 
  dates in the legislation than in the initiative.                             
                                                                               
  Representative Therriault provided  members with Amendment 7                 
  (copy on file).   Representative Finkelstein noted that  the                 
  legislation was  amended by Representative Bunde to prohibit                 
  personal use of campaign funds  after July 1, 1996.  He  did                 
  not think the amendment was needed.                                          
                                                                               
  JACK  CHENOWETH, LEGAL  COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE  AFFAIRS AGENCY                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  explained that the  amendment would cut off  the opportunity                 
  to  take campaign  account  money as  personal  income.   He                 
  explained  that  section  20  would  supercede  section  19.                 
  Representative Finkelstein spoke against the amendment.                      
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 96-162, Side 1).                                           
                                                                               
  Representative  Mulder spoke  against  the  amendment.    He                 
  thought  that  adoption  would  "unravel"  support  for  the                 
  initiative.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Representative  Therriault MOVED  TO WITHDRAW  Amendment #7.                 
  There being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.                                  
                                                                               
  Senator  Kelly advised  that next  year on  January 1st,  if                 
  campaign finance reform and if the ethics bill passes, there                 
  will  be changes  in  the way  the  political system  works.                 
  Whether or not the  bill passes, an initiative will  pass in                 
  the fall.   He recommended that legislators should take more                 
  time to fully understand the  repercussions of choices made.                 
  Senator  Kelly  preferred   passage  of   a  bill  over   an                 
  initiative.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Representative  Therriault asked  the effective  date on  HB                 
  307.  Co-Chair Hanley replied it would take effect after the                 
  election.    Representative  Finkelstein added,  legislators                 
  will not be able  to access those funds until  after January                 
  1st.  Representative Martin pointed out that HB 307 provided                 
  an earlier implementation date and  that it would not impact                 
  this year.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Representative Mulder  MOVED to report  HCS CS SB  191 (FIN)                 
  with  individual recommendations  and with  the accompanying                 
  fiscal notes.   Representative  Navarre asked  if there  had                 
  been testimony regarding the office account.  Representative                 
  Finkelstein replied that a municipal office account had been                 
  added,  although  there  had been  no  input  regarding that                 
  concern.  There being  NO OBJECTION to moving the  bill from                 
  Committee, it was so ordered.                                                
                                                                               
  HCS CS  SB 191 (FIN) was reported  out of Committee with "no                 
  recommendation" and with fiscal notes  by the (2) Department                 
  of Administration dated 4/9/96, the  Department of Law dated                 
  3/25/96, (2) zero fiscal notes by the Office of the Governor                 
  dated 3/20/96 and Legislative Affairs Agency dated 3/25/96.                  
  SENATE BILL 265                                                              
                                                                               
       "An Act relating to the definition of program receipts;                 
       and providing for an effective date."                                   
                                                                               
  GORDY  WILLIAMS,  STAFF,  SENATOR  FRED  ZHAROFF,  spoke  in                 
  support of  SB 265.   SB 265 was  introduced to enhance  the                 
  ability of the  Department of Fish and Game  to successfully                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  manage  the complex  fisheries.   An important  tool  in the                 
  management regime would be the utilization of private sector                 
  vessels  and  expertise  to  conduct  test fisheries.    The                 
  fisheries provide valuable information on such things as the                 
  health of  fish stocks,  compositions of  stocks, timing  of                 
  fish runs, and the economic condition of our resources.                      
                                                                               
  Mr. Williams  pointed out that  the Department  of Fish  and                 
  Game is limited  with regard to  vessels and field staff  in                 
  many areas of the State.  As budget constraints continue, it                 
  is increasingly difficult for the  Department to maintain or                 
  enhance their management  capabilities without a significant                 
  cooperative effort with the private sector.                                  
                                                                               
  SB 265  would not  affect the  legislature's role  in making                 
  appropriations to the  test fisheries  program or the  other                 
  programs that are identified as utilizing restricted program                 
  receipts.  The  bill recognizes the special  relationship of                 
  these  funds  and clarifies  their  treatment in  the budget                 
  process.                                                                     
                                                                               
  NANCY SLAGLE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BUDGET REVIEW, OFFICE OF                 
  MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,  OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,  stated that                 
  the  legislation  would not  restrict  the authority  of the                 
  Legislature in reviewing  or appropriating funds.   It would                 
  take those specific items received by the State  by contract                 
  and would identify them as restricted program receipts.  Ms.                 
  Slagle noted that attached to the  fiscal note was a list of                 
  agencies affected by the legislation.                                        
                                                                               
  Representative Mulder MOVED to report CS SB 265 (FIN) out of                 
  Committee  with  individual  recommendations  and  with  the                 
  accompanying fiscal note.  There  being NO OBJECTION, it was                 
  so ordered.                                                                  
                                                                               
  CS  SB 265 (FIN)  was reported out  of Committee with  a "do                 
  pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Office of                 
  Management and Budget dated 5/1/96.                                          
  SENATE BILL 98                                                               
                                                                               
       "An Act making  changes related to the  aid to families                 
       with dependent children program,  the Medicaid program,                 
       the  general relief assistance  program, and  the adult                 
       public assistance program;  directing the Department of                 
       Health  and  Social Services  to  apply to  the federal                 
       government for  waivers to implement the  changes where                 
       necessary; relating  to eligibility for  permanent fund                 
       dividends  of  certain  individuals  who receive  state                 
       assistance, to  notice requirements  applicable to  the                 
       dividend program; and providing for an effective date."                 
                                                                               
  Co-Chair  Hanley  explained   Amendment  #1,   9-LS0692\L.9,                 
  Lauterback, 5/2/96.   [Copy  on file].   Amendment #1  would                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  remove crew members licenses  from the list.  He  noted that                 
  those licenses could be purchased  at locations such as Fred                 
  Meyers  and that it  would be unreasonable  to require those                 
  types business to provide a Child Support Enforcement Agency                 
  (CSEA) check before a license was issued.  The amendment had                 
  been submitted by Representative Phillips.                                   
                                                                               
  KEVIN BROOKS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,                 
  DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, advised that the Department has                 
  approximately 400 vendors who  sell crew licenses throughout                 
  the State and that approximately  four thousand licenses are                 
  sold throughout the year.                                                    
                                                                               
  Co-Chair  Hanley MOVED  to  adopt Amendment  #1.   [Copy  on                 
  file].  There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.                            
                                                                               
  Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2 which would                 
  allow victims of domestic violence to seek public assistance                 
  to aid them  to establish a  life free of violence  whenever                 
  necessary.  [Copy on file].   She maintained that assistance                 
  should  be available whenever  needed in a  time of "crisis"                 
  regardless of the time limits.                                               
                                                                               
  JIM  NORDLUND,  DIRECTOR,  DIVISION  OF  PUBLIC  ASSISTANCE,                 
  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH  AND SOCIAL  SERVICES, stated that  the                 
  amendment would amend two  sections of the bill.   The first                 
  one would adjust the  two year time limit within  the waiver                 
  section.    Under federal  law,  that  would  be  an  option                 
  available to individual states.                                              
                                                                               
  Representative  Brown  noted that  one  of the  reasons that                 
  abused women stay in  abusive situations, is that they  lack                 
  adequate financial resources  to leave.  She  suggested that                 
  there should be a  "showing" that the need existed  in order                 
  to  qualify  for  the funding.    Co-Chair  Hanley expressed                 
  concern that a woman could try to use a circumstance from an                 
  "old" abusive situation.  He suggested  that a time limit be                 
  placed on the matter.                                                        
                                                                               
  Representative   Brown   suggested  amending   the  language                 
  following "believe", deleting  "has been" and  inserting "is                 
  or recently has been" on line 4 and line 13 of Amendment #2.                 
  There being NO  OBJECTION, it was  changed.  There being  NO                 
  OBJECTION to the amended amendment, it was adopted.                          
                                                                               
  Representative Brown spoke to Amendment #3.  [Copy on file].                 
  The amendment would address  the confidentiality section and                 
  a  fraud  inquiry   based  on  information  received   by  a                 
  legislator on  a person.    The attempt  would more  clearly                 
  target the  kinds of  information which would  appropriately                 
  disclose that situation.                                                     
                                                                               
  Mr. Nordlund explained that the  legislator could not report                 
  back   to  the  person  who  made  the  complaint  with  the                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  information  received from the Department.   That is how the                 
  bill is currently  constructed and would not  be affected by                 
  the amendment.                                                               
                                                                               
  In response to Representative Parnell, Mr. Nordlund spoke to                 
  the   portion  of   the   amendment  on   line   11  &   12.                 
  Representative Parnell MOVED  to divide  the question.   Co-                 
  Chair Hanley pointed out that the amendment had not yet been                 
  moved.     Representative   Parnell  WITHDREW   the  MOTION.                 
  Representative Brown MOVED  to delete lines  11 - 13 of  the                 
  amendment.    There  being  NO  OBJECTION, it  was  deleted.                 
  Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #3.                            
                                                                               
  SENATOR LYDA GREEN spoke  to the frustration on the  part of                 
  legislators trying to seek  information for constituents  on                 
  inquires concerning  persons  who are  eligible  for  public                 
  assistance.    That constituent  would  not be  assured that                 
  there had  been a  follow-up.  The  original language  could                 
  achieve that.                                                                
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 96-162, Side 2).                                           
                                                                               
  Senator Green  commented that not every inquiry would have a                 
  fraud basis and that the amendment would narrow it.  She did                 
  not think that  the amendment  was broad enough  to get  the                 
  information needed  and that  the standard  would be  "very"                 
  high for a legislator who had the information.                               
                                                                               
  Mr. Nordlund understood the language  of the amendment to be                 
  limited to potential violations.   Co-Chair Hanley added, it                 
  would  allow  the  legislator to  request  a  fraud inquiry.                 
  Representative Brown questioned other circumstances.                         
                                                                               
  Co-Chair  Hanley reiterated  that the legislature  would not                 
  require  a  fraud   investigation.     It  is  stated   that                 
  regulations must provide that the results of a fraud inquiry                 
  shall  be disclosed.   Mr.  Nordlund responded  that  if any                 
  person  suspected  fraud,  the   Department  would  then  be                 
  required to investigate.                                                     
                                                                               
  CURTIS LOMAS,  WELFARE REFORM  OFFICER,  DIVISION OF  PUBLIC                 
  ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, stated                 
  under  current  law,  the standard  response  as  to whether                 
  someone is or is not on public assistance would be protected                 
  information.   Under current law, that would be the response                 
  that a legislator would receive.   Whenever there is a claim                 
  that   someone   is   suspected   of   receiving    benefits                 
  fraudulently,  the Division  receives that information  as a                 
  signal to do a fraud report.                                                 
                                                                               
  Co-Chair  Hanley stated that  information regarding a person                 
  being  or  not  being on  public  assistance  should not  be                 
  confidential.    Representative Therriault  suggested adding                 
  language  "the  results  of an  inquiry  or  investigation".                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative Brown recommended substituting  that language                 
  with "the results of inquiry based on a possible fraud".                     
                                                                               
  Senator Green thought  that language could limit  the scope.                 
  Representative Therriault  disagreed.   He thought  that all                 
  information would  be available from  the results of  a tip-                 
  off,  thus    providing  legislators  information  regarding                 
  investigations to base public policy calls on.                               
                                                                               
  Representative Brown stated that it  was not appropriate for                 
  a legislator have access to confidential information without                 
  a purpose  to be served  by it.   She asked  if a person  on                 
  public assistance had the power  to include their legislator                 
  in  access  to their  own records.    Mr. Lomas  agreed they                 
  could.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  MOVED to  adopt the  amended Amendment                 
  inquiry  regarding  possible  fraud,  based  on  information                 
  received by  a legislator,  based on  a particular  person".                 
  Representative Mulder OBJECTED.                                              
                                                                               
  A roll call was taken on the MOTION.                                         
                                                                               
       IN FAVOR:      Brown, Grussendorf, Navarre, Therriault.                 
       OPPOSED:       Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Hanley.                         
                                                                               
  Representatives Kelly, Kohring  and Foster were not  present                 
  for the vote.                                                                
                                                                               
  The MOTION FAILED (4-4).                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Brown MOVED to adopt  Amendment #4.  [Copy on                 
  file].  Mr.  Nordlund stated that  the amendment would  make                 
  the  bill  in  line  with  federal  law.    Co-Chair  Hanley                 
  OBJECTED.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Senator Green  advised that  the wording  of the  referenced                 
  section had been drafted carefully and she requested that it                 
  not  be  adjusted.   Representative  Brown refuted,  the new                 
  language would only be used if there was a high unemployment                 
  rate.   The proposed language  would provide for  a rateable                 
  reduction to recipients benefits.                                            
                                                                               
  A roll call was taken on the MOTION.                                         
                                                                               
       IN FAVOR:      Navarre, Grussendorf, Brown.                             
       OPPOSED:       Martin,  Mulder,   Parnell,  Therriault,                 
                      Kelly, Hanley.                                           
                                                                               
  Representatives Kohring and Foster were  not present for the                 
  vote.                                                                        
                                                                               
  The MOTION FAILED (3-6).                                                     
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Representative Brown spoke to Amendment #5 to page 25 of the                 
  HESS version.  [Copy on file].  The change would be  to line                 
  28, section (b),  which would allow Native  organizations to                 
  authorize  the  transfer  of  the  State's  share  of  funds                 
  appropriated for that purpose.                                               
                                                                               
  Co-Chair  Hanley questioned  if  federal  law  provided  the                 
  authority to  Native organizations  to take  control of  the                 
  JOBS program.   Representative  Brown pointed  out that  the                 
  Legislature would still  need to appropriate funds  for that                 
  purpose.  Mr.  Lomas explained that  section of the bill  is                 
  the comprehensive  reform  section,  and  that  it  presumes                 
  passage  of the  reform  legislation.   It  is modeled  from                 
  language within federal law.   The $944 thousand dollars was                 
  requested in the  budget, currently is  a fiscal note to  be                 
  used for the Native JOBS program.  Under federal reform, the                 
  JOBS program will  no longer  exist.  It  has been  replaced                 
  with the new block grant program.                                            
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley  noted  that he  wanted the  language to  be                 
  tight  enough  in  order  to  address the  specific  funding                 
  purposes.    Mr.  Nordlund countered  that  the  language in                 
  reference is not about  the JOBS program; it is  about state                 
  matching  of  a  Native  organization  providing  the entire                 
  program.   That language was  proposed by the  Tanana Chiefs                 
  Council in a statement of intent.  The Department would like                 
  the Native program and the federal program to run comparable                 
  benefits.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley reiterated his  concern with the flexibility                 
  of  the  language  and the  implications  it  would provide.                 
  Senator Green stated  that the main purpose  of the original                 
  language was to give  the Department authority to  plan with                 
  the Native organizations.   Following implementation of  the                 
  new programs, it  would be in  the State's best interest  to                 
  have a consistent program.                                                   
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley  suggested that language  was not necessary.                 
  He recommended adding  a Letter  of Intent.   Representative                 
  Brown noted that she  would not move the amendment  if there                 
  would be a letter of intent.                                                 
                                                                               
  Representative Therriault MOVED Amendment 6, on page 9, line                 
  30,  deleting  "or  emotional".   Senator  Green  noted that                 
  federal  language addresses  a  persons physical  health and                 
  safety and also emotional and mental health conditions.  She                 
  recommended that language remain in the bill.                                
                                                                               
  Mr.  Lomas added,  that provision  had been included  in the                 
  Governor's legislation and was included  in HB 78 last year.                 
  The  entire  section  addresses minor  parents  living  with                 
  family or  in some other  appropriate setting.   There  have                 
  been  times  when the  minor  claims  that the  home  is not                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  suitable  or  safe  either  for  physical  or  psychological                 
  reasons  because  of a  history  of  abuse.   He  added, the                 
  Department will  not allow  a frivolous  claim of  emotional                 
  harm.    There will  need  to be  documentation  of problems                 
  existing at that home to allow for the exemption.                            
                                                                               
  Representative  Therriault  thought if  problems  did exist,                 
  they would jeopardize the youths physical health also.   Mr.                 
  Nordlund elaborated, situations exist where there is serious                 
  psychological stress for minors.  The Division of Family and                 
  Youth  Services  (DFYS)   should  be  able  to   take  these                 
  circumstances into consideration.                                            
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 96-163, Side 1)                                            
                                                                               
  Representative Grussendorf pointed out that emotional stress                 
  can have a serious affect on the minor.                                      
                                                                               
  A  roll  call  vote  was  taken  on  the  MOTION  to  delete                 
  "emotional," Amendment 6.                                                    
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Mulder, Therriault, Kelly, Hanley                                  
  OPPOSED:  Martin, Navarre, Parnell, Brown, Grussendorf                       
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Foster  and Representative Kohring  were absent for                 
  the vote.                                                                    
                                                                               
  The MOTION FAILED (4-5).                                                     
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to adopt  Amendment 7 (copy on  file).                 
  He  noted  that   the  amendment  would  delete   "day  care                 
  assistance and" from the  title.  There being NO  OBJECTION,                 
  it was so ordered.                                                           
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley referred to the fiscal notes.  He noted that                 
  there  are  two  fiscal note  sets,  one  set  each for  the                 
  comprehensive and waiver  provisions.  The fiscal  notes for                 
  the  waiver  provisions  would not  take  effect  if federal                 
  reform takes place.  He explained  that the net general fund                 
  match in the  comprehensive set  is $3.170 million  dollars.                 
  The net general  fund match  is $3 million  dollars for  the                 
  waiver provision.  Some program  receipts would be collected                 
  to offset costs.                                                             
                                                                               
  Representative Brown asked  what the impact would be  if the                 
  legislation passed without adoption of the fiscal notes.                     
                                                                               
  Mr. Lomas  stated  that the  Department would  have a  great                 
  amount  of  difficulty  if fiscal  notes  were  not adopted.                 
  Caseload reductions  would be in danger without day care and                 
  work assistance  funds.   He explained  that areas  noted by                 
  asterisks are not  currently in the  budget.  He  emphasized                 
  that  the Department requests that funding  be restored.  He                 
  noted  that  the  Department  needs  $2 million  dollars  in                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  federal authorization, $1 million  unrestricted general fund                 
  dollars and $2  million dollars  in increased child  support                 
  enforcement  program  receipts  for a  total  of  $5 million                 
  dollars.                                                                     
  Mr. Nordlund added  that the  two sets of  fiscal notes  are                 
  very close.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley  summarized that  the Department realized  a                 
  savings  in FY 96.  The Department wished to reinvest the FY                 
  96 savings in FY 97.                                                         
                                                                               
  Mr.  Lomas explained that  reinvestment funds from  FY 97 is                 
  the  requested  funding source  for  the $2  million dollars                 
  shown in both provisions.    He observed that  child support                 
  collections in  FY 97  were underestimated.   He  noted that                 
  some provisions do  not require either  a waiver or  federal                 
  law change.  He emphasized that 13 data processing positions                 
  would be lost without the reinvestment funds.  He maintained                 
  that additional money  for work programs  and child care  is                 
  necessary to put additional people into work activities.                     
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Hanley noted that the Governor may not support  the                 
  legislation without funding for the fiscal notes.                            
                                                                               
  Mr. Nordlund emphasized the need for  the child care and job                 
  training funding.                                                            
                                                                               
  Representative Martin MOVED  to report HCS CSSB 98 (FIN) out                 
  of Committee  with individual  recommendations and with  the                 
  accompanying fiscal notes.  There being NO OBJECTION, it was                 
  so ordered.                                                                  
                                                                               
  HCS CSSB 98  (FIN) was  reported out of  Committee with  "no                 
  recommendation" and with nine Department  of Health & Social                 
  Services fiscal impact notes for the Comprehensive Plan; and                 
  with ten fiscal impact notes pertaining to the Comprehensive                 
  Plan; one by the Department of  Revenue, 4/22/96, one by the                 
  Department of Education,  4/22/96, two by the  Department of                 
  Labor,  4/22/96,  one by  the  Department of  Public Safety,                 
  4/22/96, three by  the Department  of Commerce and  Economic                 
  Development, 4/22/96,  and two by the Department of Fish and                 
  Game, 4/22/96; and with a zero fiscal note by the Department                 
  of Health &  Social Services;  or with  eight fiscal  impact                 
  notes  pertaining to the Waiver Plan  from the Department of                 
  Health & Social Services.                                                    
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  The meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m. on May 4, 1996.                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects