Legislature(1999 - 2000)

03/29/2000 02:00 PM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                                         
March 29, 2000                                                                                                                  
2:00 P.M.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
TAPE HFC 00 - 88, Side 1                                                                                                        
TAPE HFC 00 - 88, Side 2                                                                                                        
TAPE HFC 00 - 89, Side 1                                                                                                        
TAPE HFC 00 - 89, Side 2                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee                                                                          
meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
PRESENT                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Mulder                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Therriault    Representative Foster                                                                                    
Vice Chair Bunde   Representative Grussendorf                                                                                   
Representative Austerman   Representative Moses                                                                                 
Representative J. Davies   Representative Phillips                                                                              
Representative G. Davis   Representative Williams.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mike Tibbles, Staff, Representative Therriault; Khristopher                                                                     
Knauss, Staff, Senator Pearce; Wilda Rodman, Staff,                                                                             
Representative Therriault; Larry Persily, Deputy                                                                                
Commissioner, Department of Revenue; Matt Robus, Deputy                                                                         
Director, Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and                                                                         
Game; Sue Schrader, Alaska Conservation Alliance, Juneau;                                                                       
Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services                                                                      
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Eddie                                                                            
Grasser, Staff, Representative Masek; Dick Bishop, Alaska                                                                       
Outdoor Council; Carol Carroll, Director, Division of                                                                           
Support Services, Department of Natural Resources; Terry                                                                        
Cramer, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Affairs Agency.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SUMMARY                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
HB 349 "An Act relating to powers of the Board of Game,                                                                         
means of access for hunting, trapping, and                                                                                      
fishing, the definition of 'means' and 'methods,'                                                                               
and hunting safety education and game conservation                                                                              
education programs; relating to the purposes of                                                                                 
game refuges, fish and game critical habitat                                                                                    
areas, and public use areas."                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HB 349 was heard and HELD in Committee for further                                                                              
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HB 366 "An Act relating to the rights of crime victims,                                                                         
the crime of violating a protective order or                                                                                    
injunction, mitigating factors in sentencing for                                                                                
an offense, and the return of certain seized                                                                                    
property to victims; expanding the scope of the                                                                                 
prohibition of compromise based on civil remedy of                                                                              
misdemeanor crimes involving domestic violence;                                                                                 
amending Rules 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17, Alaska                                                                                   
District Court Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule                                                                                
9, Alaska Rules of Administration."                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CSHB 366 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with                                                                               
"no recommendation" and four fiscal notes: one                                                                                  
fiscal impact note by the Department of                                                                                         
Administration, published date 2/11/00; one fiscal                                                                              
impact note by the Department of Corrections,                                                                                   
published date 2/11/00; one zero fiscal note by                                                                                 
the Department of Public Safety, published date                                                                                 
2/11/00; one Department of Law, published date                                                                                  
2/11/00.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HB 428 "An Act relating to interest on child support                                                                            
overpayments that are disbursed to the obligor."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CSHB 428 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with                                                                               
a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal                                                                               
note by the House Finance Committee.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HJR 52 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the                                                                        
State of Alaska relating to certain public                                                                                      
corporations.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
 CSHJR 52 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with                                                                              
"no recommendation" and a fiscal impact note by                                                                                 
the Office of the Governor, published 2/18/00.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CSSB 269(RLS) am                                                                                                                
"An Act relating to legislative powers and                                                                                      
responsibility with respect to collective                                                                                       
bargaining agreements between the state and a                                                                                   
labor or employee organization representing state                                                                               
employees; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HCS CSSB 269 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee                                                                                
with a zero fiscal note by the Department of                                                                                    
Administration, published date 3/6/00.                                                                                          
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(RLS) am                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
"An Act relating to legislative powers and                                                                                      
responsibility with respect to collective bargaining                                                                            
agreements between the state and a labor or employee                                                                            
organization representing state employees; and                                                                                  
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
   Page 1, lines 5- 11:                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Delete all material.                                                                                                            
 Page 1, line 12:                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Delete "Sec. 2                                                                                                                  
Insert "Section 1                                                                                                               
 Page 2, following line 14:                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                              
Sec. 2. AS 23.40.250(4) is amended to read:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
(4) "Monetary terms of an agreement" means the changes                                                                          
in the terms and conditions of employment resulting                                                                             
from an agreement that will require an appropriation                                                                            
for their imp1ernentation [OR] will result in a change                                                                          
in state revenues or productive work hours for state                                                                            
employees;                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
(C) Address employee compensation leave benefits, or                                                                            
health insurance benefits, whether or not an                                                                                    
appropriation is required for implementation.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained                                                                        
that the amendment would delete section 1 and add a new                                                                         
section, which would expand the definition of monetary                                                                          
terms. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the definition of                                                                         
monetary terms would be expanded to include items such as                                                                       
leave cash-ins.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grussendorf noted that the legislation                                                                           
contains a 45 day deadline in regards to submissions of                                                                         
agreements to the legislature. He spoke in support of a 60-                                                                     
day limit, which would be halfway through the statutory                                                                         
legislative session limit.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
KHRISTOPHER KNAUSS, STAFF, SENATOR PEARCE pointed out that                                                                      
the original date was April 1. He clarified that the 45-day                                                                     
deadline was substituted to allow action on rejection.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault explained that under the current statute                                                                    
the legislature would have to take action by the 60th day.                                                                      
This assumes that the legislature would have had the                                                                            
information previously. The 45-day period refers to the time                                                                    
in which the information is provided to the legislature.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies spoke in support of the 60 day                                                                         
deadline. He maintained that 60 days would allow action in                                                                      
either direction.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3:                                                                          
delete "45" and insert "60" on page 2, line 3.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that the language requiring a                                                                     
concurrent resolution had been deleted.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Knauss observed the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that if                                                                      
the legislature does not specifically fund the monetary                                                                         
terms of a contract that they do not go into effect.                                                                            
Representative Grussendorf observed that the Court was                                                                          
addressing the university and added that the university is                                                                      
not in the same position as the state because it does not                                                                       
have the option to raise funds.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Knauss explained that the university expressed concern                                                                      
that renegotiated contracts be considered as timely filed if                                                                    
the original contract submission was timely.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies questioned the meaning of "unless                                                                      
otherwise authorized by the legislature." He asked if the                                                                       
legislature would have to pass a resolution to address a                                                                        
renegotiated contract. He suggested that language be added                                                                      
to allow the legislature to consider a renegotiated contract                                                                    
if it was timely filed.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault stressed that the power of appropriation                                                                    
is king and if a contract were funded then it would be                                                                          
authorized. Representative J. Davies felt that the language                                                                     
"unless otherwise authorized by the legislature" could open                                                                     
the state to litigation.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Phillips interpreted the language to refer to                                                                    
previous action by the legislature. Representative J. Davies                                                                    
argued that the final agreement would not have been                                                                             
submitted timely. He felt that there needed to be explicit                                                                      
acknowledgement.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Tibbles observed that legislative legal counsel did not                                                                     
feel that a resolution was required to meet the requirement                                                                     
of authorized by the legislature. He explained that a                                                                           
temporary act would have to be introduced and passed to                                                                         
accept something that is passed the deadline.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies MOVED to delete "unless otherwise                                                                      
authorized by the legislature" and "final" and change "the"                                                                     
to "The". The legislation would be amended to read: "The                                                                        
agreement shall be submitted to the legislature no later                                                                        
then the 60th day of the legislative session." He concluded                                                                     
that the amendment would eliminate the need to pass separate                                                                    
legislation.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CSSB 269(RLS)am was heard and HELD in Committee for further                                                                     
consideration during the meeting.                                                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 428                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
"An Act relating to interest on child support                                                                                   
overpayments that are disbursed to the obligor."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
WILDA RODMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT spoke in                                                                         
support of the legislation. She noted that CSHB428(FIN)                                                                         
requires the Child Support Enforcement Division to pay                                                                          
interest on the return of overpayments of child support when                                                                    
the overpayment is due to a mistake made by the agency.  The                                                                    
agency would be required to pay obligors six percent, the                                                                       
same amount of interest the agency can charge on child                                                                          
support arrearages set out in AS 25.27.025, imposed under AS                                                                    
25.27.020(a)(2)(B).  The requirement to pay interest on                                                                         
returns of overpayment is not a new precedent; AS 43.05.280                                                                     
imposes a similar requirement on the Department of Revenue                                                                      
when refunding or crediting an overpayment of tax.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CSHB 428(FIN) is in response to an inequity in the child                                                                        
support collection system that allows the agency to charge                                                                      
interest when an obligor is late paying support, but does                                                                       
not require the agency to pay interest when returning                                                                           
overpayments that are the direct result of a mistake made by                                                                    
the agency.  The bill would provide incentive to the agency                                                                     
to be more careful when calculating support and more prompt                                                                     
about returning overpayments.  House Bill 428 carries no                                                                        
fiscal note as the agency would be expected to absorb the                                                                       
cost of paying the interest out of its annual budget.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
The Committee Substitute for HB 428 changes the amount of                                                                       
interest the Division of Child Support Enforcement must pay                                                                     
under AS 25.27.062(l)(1) when it is delinquent returning                                                                        
overpayments that have been withheld by an employer after                                                                       
the support order has been satisfied. CSHB 428(FIN) changes                                                                     
the rate of interest to make it consistent with the rate set                                                                    
in AS 25.27.320.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Vice Chair Bunde observed that the Division's budget is                                                                         
$16.5 million dollars.  He questioned how much leverage the                                                                     
legislation would apply.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault explained that the department estimated                                                                     
that it would take $3 thousand dollars to fund the interest.                                                                    
He observed that it would not be his intent to give the                                                                         
department separate funding for the interest. He maintained                                                                     
that the department could absorb the cost.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Vice Chair Bunde agreed that obligors should have right to                                                                      
have interest on their money.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the department has been                                                                       
careful to repay funds owed in other programs.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault stressed that it is fair for the state                                                                      
or the obligor to the state to pay interest if the money is                                                                     
late.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
LARRY PERSILY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE                                                                       
spoke in support of the bill. He acknowledged that the state                                                                    
should pay interest if the department makes a mistake. He                                                                       
observed that paying the same 6% interest that the state                                                                        
would charge seems reasonable.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if it would be fair to take                                                                      
the interest out of the department's existing budget. Mr.                                                                       
Persily agreed and stated that he did not expect to have                                                                        
many cases.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the House Finance                                                                             
Committee would submit a zero fiscal note.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to report CSHB 428 (FIN) out of                                                                          
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO                                                                     
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CSHB 428 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do                                                                         
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the                                                                         
House Finance Committee.                                                                                                        
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 52                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State                                                                         
of Alaska relating to certain public corporations.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, SPONSOR spoke in support of                                                                     
HJR 52. She referred to previous legislation, which she                                                                         
sponsored regarding legislative confirmation of the Alaska                                                                      
Permanent Fund Corporation Board. She clarified that she                                                                        
became interested in the issue because of the elimination                                                                       
and reappointment of board members at the beginning of new                                                                      
administrations. She maintained that a board which manages                                                                      
one of the biggest assets of the state should not be "wiped                                                                     
out one day and a whole new set of folks put in the next                                                                        
day." She noted that members were replaced due to a                                                                             
difference in philosophy: they were of the wrong party. She                                                                     
tried to tie elimination of Board members to cause. She has                                                                     
no complaints regarding individual board members. She                                                                           
explained that the Department of Law informed her that the                                                                      
observed that the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation Board is                                                                    
not in the Constitution. Boards of existing public                                                                              
corporations are not in statute. She concluded that a                                                                           
constitutional amendment was needed to include the Alaska                                                                       
Permanent Fund Corporation Board and other boards and                                                                           
commissions into statute. She stressed that her intent is to                                                                    
provide continuity.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative James noted that HJR 52 adds to existing                                                                         
language in Alaska's Constitution, which currently provides                                                                     
for legislative confirmation of all boards or commissions,                                                                      
which are the head of a principal department or a regulatory                                                                    
or quasi-judicial agency. The legislation adds governing                                                                        
entities of a public corporation established by law, which                                                                      
manage significant state assets as defined by law. She gave                                                                     
examples of affected agencies: Alaska Industrial Development                                                                    
and Export Authority (AIDEA), Alaska Science and Technology                                                                     
Foundation, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC),                                                                          
Alaska Railroad corporation (ARRC), and Alaska Aerospace                                                                        
Development Corporation.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative James added that the legislation also states                                                                     
that: "With respect to public corporations, the legislature                                                                     
may by law exclude the applicability of this section to a                                                                       
public corporation." She concluded that the legislation                                                                         
would allow confirmations and establish in law how the                                                                          
appointments could be withdrawn or replaced. She pointed out                                                                    
that the legislature confirms the boards of hairdressers and                                                                    
others that do not handle huge state funds. The legislation                                                                     
is permissive. She maintained that the founding fathers did                                                                     
not "have a clue that we would amass so much money in so                                                                        
many public corporations in this state."                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Vice Chair Bunde questioned if a ballot question would                                                                          
result in the perception that the legislature is trying to                                                                      
get more control over the Permanent Fund. Representative                                                                        
James responded that her other legislation failed because it                                                                    
specifically identified the Alaska Permanent Fund                                                                               
Corporation Board. She reiterated that the legislation                                                                          
mentions all public corporations and added that the general                                                                     
population has more knowledge of these corporations. She                                                                        
concluded that the legislation would have more support.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies suggested that the provision to                                                                        
exclude a corporation be eliminated. He agreed that these                                                                       
corporations are more important to the state of Alaska than                                                                     
the Board of Hairdressers. Representative J. Davies                                                                             
suggested that the language on page 1, lines 12 - 15 be                                                                         
deleted.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault stressed that it is impossible to                                                                           
foretell what new boards would be created and questioned if                                                                     
the legislature should have the latitude to decide which                                                                        
boards should have legislative participation. Representative                                                                    
J. Davies responded by questioning if the exclusion should                                                                      
pertain to other boards.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grussendorf noted that there are some boards                                                                     
that are not confirmed by the legislature. He did not recall                                                                    
of any problems with boards outside of legislative                                                                              
oversight. He questioned the affect of requiring legislative                                                                    
approval. He maintained that governors pick the best people                                                                     
for the job and felt that legislative confirmation could                                                                        
result in politicizing the appointments.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative James stated that she did not care if                                                                            
legislative approval is required. She clarified that her                                                                        
concern is to prevent the ability of a board from being                                                                         
eliminated all at one time. She explained that the                                                                              
legislature could not protect the elimination of a board                                                                        
unless it was confirmed. She stressed that the issue is what                                                                    
needs to be done to prevent appointees from being removed                                                                       
from their duties before their term is up. She pointed out                                                                      
that legislators respond to the public. She maintained that                                                                     
legislative action is based on constituent input. She stated                                                                    
that she would be happy to skip the confirmation process.                                                                       
She  reiterated that the issue is to prevent the elimination                                                                    
of the entire board. She stressed that it is a serious issue                                                                    
when it affects the Alaska Industrial Development and Export                                                                    
Authority (AIDEA), Alaska Housing Finance Corporation                                                                           
(AHFC), or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation boards.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Austerman referred to page 8. Representative                                                                     
James noted that law defines public corporations.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
In response to a question by Representative G. Davis,                                                                           
Representative James explained that all of the licensing                                                                        
boards are regulatory. She noted that the Department of Law                                                                     
indicated that public corporation do not fall under current                                                                     
statutes. Representative G. Davis questioned if the law                                                                         
could be changed to make them fit. Representative James did                                                                     
not know if it would be possible.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Phillips expressed sympathy with the intent,                                                                     
but stated that she agreed with Representative Grussendorf.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 88, SIDE 2)                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative Phillips stated that she was uncomfortable                                                                       
with "the legislative body having the intelligence, and the                                                                     
wherewith all, and the financial knowledge to make a                                                                            
decision on the confirmation of the Permanent Fund Board."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative James pointed out that the legislature could                                                                     
not eliminate the board at one time since terms are                                                                             
staggered. She stated that she would be happy to consider                                                                       
alternatives. She observed that most of the people that are                                                                     
chosen for the Permanent Fund Board are people of high                                                                          
credibility and quality and are very intelligent, and                                                                           
probably can do a perfectly good job. She acknowledged that                                                                     
staff is available to advise new members, but stressed that                                                                     
members are not just there for looks and high visibility,                                                                       
but to do a job.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies questioned if Representative James                                                                     
had explored another way of putting the section in the                                                                          
Constitution without requiring appointments.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative James explained that the only way the                                                                            
legislature can make rules and regulations regarding public                                                                     
corporation is through confirmation of appointments.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies asked if "with respect to public                                                                       
corporations, its members can only be removed as provided by                                                                    
law" would solve the problem. Representative James stated                                                                       
that she had not asked the Department of Law that specific                                                                      
question.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Vice Chair Bunde observed that most confirmations are                                                                           
perfunctory. He stressed that the confirmation process is                                                                       
viewed as a safety value. Representative James observed that                                                                    
appointments by an administrator, such as the governor,                                                                         
should be made with the best interest of the job in mind,                                                                       
but that without oversight the process could be used to                                                                         
advance friends.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative James noted that the following boards would                                                                      
be affected:                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
 Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation                                                                                       
 Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority                                                                             
 Alaska Railroad corporation (ARRC)                                                                                             
 Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI)                                                                                      
 Alaska Science and Technology Foundation                                                                                       
 Commission on Postsecondary Education                                                                                          
 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)                                                                                      
 Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority                                                                                           
 Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority                                                                                           
 Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation                                                                                              
 Alaska State Pension Investment Board                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Grussendorf stressed that members that have                                                                      
been removed from the Permanent Fund Corporation Board were                                                                     
replaced with good people. They are picked for their                                                                            
knowledge and expertise. He stressed that problems could                                                                        
occur, as legislators become concern with issues such as                                                                        
regional representation.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to delete "with respect to public                                                                        
corporations, the legislature may by law exclude the                                                                            
applicability of this section to a public corporation."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative James stated that she did not have a                                                                             
preference on the language. Co-Chair Therriault felt that                                                                       
the latitude should be retained.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Vice Chair Bunde stressed that members could be changed                                                                         
every two years with the amendment. He pointed out that                                                                         
there has not been a need to change the membership of the                                                                       
Permanent Fund Board over the past 25 years.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Moses, Williams, Bunde, Davies, Davis                                                                                 
OPPOSED: Foster, Grussendorf, Phillips, Austerman,                                                                              
Therriault                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Mulder was absent from the vote.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION FAILED (5-5).                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHJR 52 (JUD) out of                                                                     
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. Representative                                                                     
Grussendorf OBJECTED.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Austerman stated that he shares some of                                                                          
Representative Grussendorf concerns, but that he would not                                                                      
vote to hold the bill in committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Davies, Moses, Austerman, Bunde, Davis, Foster,                                                                       
  Kohring, Williams, Therriault                                                                                                 
OPPOSED: Grussendorf                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Mulder was absent from the vote.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION PASSED (9-1).                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CSHJR 52 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no                                                                           
recommendation" and a fiscal impact note by the Office of                                                                       
the Governor, published 2/18/00.                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 366                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
"An Act relating to the rights of crime victims, the                                                                            
crime of violating a protective order or injunction,                                                                            
mitigating factors in sentencing for an offense, and                                                                            
the return of certain seized property to victims;                                                                               
expanding the scope of the prohibition of compromise                                                                            
based on civil remedy of misdemeanor crimes involving                                                                           
domestic violence; amending Rules 10, 11, 13, 16, and                                                                           
17, Alaska District Court Rules of Civil Procedure and                                                                          
Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration."                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Tibbles explained that both Amendments 1 and 2 were                                                                         
needed to cover the civil and criminal sections of statute.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1.                                                                            
Amendment 1 would add "or issued by another state under laws                                                                    
substantially similar to AS 18.66.100 - 110" to AS                                                                              
11.56.740(c) and renumber remaining sections. There being NO                                                                    
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
18.66.140(a) is amended to read:                                                                                                
(a)  A certified copy of an unexpired protective order                                                                          
issued in another jurisdiction  has the same effect and                                                                         
must be enforced in the same manner as a protective                                                                             
order issued by a court of this state and  may be filed                                                                         
with the clerk of court in any judicial district in                                                                             
this state.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES                                                                      
SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW clarified that                                                                    
"under laws substantially similar" would not need to be                                                                         
added to Amendment 2. The amendment addresses violations of                                                                     
a protective order that may not be a crime, but which would                                                                     
want to be enforced by a police office. She stated that the                                                                     
amendment would fall under the single subject rule. The                                                                         
criminal and civil sides would be consistent.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti did not anticipate a change to the fiscal                                                                         
note.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to report CSHB 366 (FIN)  out of                                                                         
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO                                                                     
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CSHB 366 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no                                                                           
recommendation" and four fiscal notes: one fiscal impact                                                                        
note by the Department of Administration, published date                                                                        
2/11/00; one fiscal impact note by the Department of                                                                            
Corrections, published date 2/11/00; one zero fiscal note by                                                                    
the Department of Public Safety, published date 2/11/00; one                                                                    
Department of Law, published date 2/11/00.                                                                                      
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(RLS) am                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
"An Act relating to legislative powers and                                                                                      
responsibility with respect to collective bargaining                                                                            
agreements between the state and a labor or employee                                                                            
organization representing state employees; and                                                                                  
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the committee changed 45th                                                                    
day to 60th day. He observed that there is an amendment by                                                                      
Representative J. Davies pending. The language being amended                                                                    
addresses a concern by Senator Elton that if a rejected                                                                         
contract was renegotiated after the deadline that it would                                                                      
not receive consideration during the calendar year.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies argued that if the contract was                                                                        
submitted and then resubmitted that the argument could be                                                                       
made that it was timely. He added that it would be unlikely                                                                     
that action by the legislature to approve an appropriation                                                                      
would be rejected.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TERRY CRAMER, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS                                                                          
AGENCY provided information on the legislation. She observed                                                                    
that the language does not give guidance about what is                                                                          
intended to be authorization. She agreed that the court                                                                         
gives deference to the legislature in matters that are                                                                          
within their purview.  She observed that the legislature                                                                        
could manifest their authorization by appropriating money                                                                       
and did not think that the courts would rule that contract                                                                      
monetary terms that were appropriated by the legislature did                                                                    
not take effect. She added that the language does not guide                                                                     
future legislatures in how they are to go about authorizing                                                                     
monetary terms.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault referred to the use of "final". Ms.                                                                         
Cramer explained that the current statute requires that the                                                                     
Department of Administration submit monetary terms within 10                                                                    
days. The new language changes this to the final agreement.                                                                     
She was unsure of the meaning of final.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if "ratified" would provide                                                                      
clarification. Ms. Cramer responded that "ratified" would                                                                       
work if the intent is to have the contract ratified by the                                                                      
employees.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies referred to page 1, line 6.  He                                                                        
observed that the collective bargaining provisions modify                                                                       
"agreement".                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Cramer observed that statutes require that the monetary                                                                     
terms of agreements be submitted to the legislature. She                                                                        
asked for clarification of "final" agreement and questioned                                                                     
if a final agreement would have to have already been                                                                            
ratified or is an agreement reached by the union and state                                                                      
negotiators that was to be submitted to the legislature for                                                                     
approval of monetary terms and the membership for approval                                                                      
of the contract as a whole.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies suggested the use of "tentative".                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Cramer stated that the statutory language does not speak                                                                    
to the "tentative agreement".                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Therriault observed that Senator Parnell expressed                                                                     
concern over the deletion of "final". Mr. Tibbles clarified                                                                     
that Senator Parnell felt that the final agreement would                                                                        
contain the entire package. Co-Chair Therriault observed                                                                        
that sick leave information was not received because it was                                                                     
not considered as part of the monetary agreement.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Vice Chair Bunde asked when is an agreement an agreement. He                                                                    
questioned if it is a new agreement every time there is a                                                                       
change. Ms. Cramer responded that it would be possible to                                                                       
argue that every change constitutes a new agreement, but                                                                        
that it would not be a strong argument. Vice Chair Bunde                                                                        
clarified that it is not his intent that every change is                                                                        
considered as a new agreement. He asked if "tentative" would                                                                    
solve the issue. Ms. Cramer agreed that it would reduce                                                                         
ambiguity. He noted that a sentence could be added to                                                                           
specifically address the circumstances: "When an agreement                                                                      
has been presented to the legislature and the parties                                                                           
perceive that the legislature disapproves it, and goes back                                                                     
to the table to renegotiate, if the first submission was                                                                        
filled in a timely fashion anything later counts as timely                                                                      
filled."                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies agreed with Ms. Cramer and added                                                                       
that a sentence could be added that states: "Except that the                                                                    
legislature may consider a resubmitted agreement if it was                                                                      
originally submitted timely and has been perceived to be                                                                        
rejected, renegotiated and resubmitted."                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative G. Davis suggested that agreements are                                                                           
amending an initial contract. Ms. Cramer observed that the                                                                      
Public Employment Act uses "agreement" in place of                                                                              
"contract".                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies reviewed his conceptual amendment                                                                      
(see amendment 1-LS1386\KA.7). He observed that "unless                                                                         
otherwise authorized" is undefined. He clarified that his                                                                       
amendment would address all the terms: monetary and non-                                                                        
monetary.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SB 269 was heard and HELD in Committee for further                                                                              
consideration and amendments.                                                                                                   
HOUSE BILL NO. 349                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
"An Act relating to powers of the Board of Game, means                                                                          
of access for hunting, trapping, and fishing, the                                                                               
definition of 'means' and 'methods,' and hunting safety                                                                         
education and game conservation education programs;                                                                             
relating to the purposes of game refuges, fish and game                                                                         
critical habitat areas, and public use areas."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
EDDIE GRASSER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MASEK spoke in support                                                                     
of HB 349.   He observed that HB 349 was introduced as a                                                                        
result of Representative Masek's discussion with long time                                                                      
Alaskans who have witnessed the steady erosion of hunting                                                                       
and trapping opportunities throughout the state. He                                                                             
maintained that since statehood, millions of acres of land                                                                      
have been closed to hunting and trapping, and millions more                                                                     
restricted from being managed under the sustained yield                                                                         
principle due to federal management prerogatives.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Grasser observed that HB 349 does not require any other                                                                     
uses to be restricted or in any way infringed upon. He                                                                          
asserted that the legislation would protect hunting, fishing                                                                    
and trapping on lands belonging to the state as a legitimate                                                                    
use of fish and wildlife. He observed that federal                                                                              
legislation clarifying hunting, fishing and trapping as                                                                         
legitimate uses on National Wildlife Refuge Lands was passed                                                                    
and explained that HB 349 would do the same thing on state                                                                      
refuges, state wildlife ranges, critical habitat areas and                                                                      
public use areas.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Grasser reviewed the legislation by section:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Section one and two amends AS 16.05.221 and 16.05.255                                                                           
by adding the term enhancement to current statute. By                                                                           
doing so it is hoped past efforts of the Legislature to                                                                         
make clear the desire to manage for sustained yield is                                                                          
followed. Currently the Board of Game has attempted to                                                                          
follow the Legislature's policies on sustained yield                                                                            
only to be thwarted by administrative problems. By                                                                              
adding the term enhancement we hope to make Clear that                                                                          
wildlife populations should be managed for the benefit                                                                          
of                                                                                                                              
all Alaskans, not just those who for personal reasons                                                                           
oppose legitimate human uses of those common property                                                                           
resources.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Section three creates new language clarifying the                                                                               
Boards authority to close areas to access.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 89, SIDE 1)                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Grasser continued with his sectional analysis of the                                                                        
legislation:                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The board may continue to close areas to certain                                                                                
methods and means for a variety of reasons without any                                                                          
legislative oversight. However, in cases where a                                                                                
biological concern is not addressed, the Board is                                                                               
required to adhere to advisory committee oversight in                                                                           
that an AC with jurisdiction in the affected GMU may                                                                            
object in writing. This language will protect fishers,                                                                          
hunters and trappers from unnecessary closures in their                                                                         
area by giving them more of a voice in the process                                                                              
through their local advisory committees. We would like                                                                          
to note that each GMU currently has a listing of AC's                                                                           
with jurisdiction under 5 AAC 97.005 For instance, GMU                                                                          
13 includes the following AC's -Paxson, Copper Basin,                                                                           
Middle Nenana, Tok Cutoff/Nabesna, Denali, Anchorage,                                                                           
Mat Valley, Copper River/Prince William Sound.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Section 4 - Defines means and methods. Example of need                                                                          
is meat on bone. Section 5 - Amends language relating                                                                           
to state refuges to ensure hunting, fishing and                                                                                 
trapping are protected uses.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Section 6 - page 4, line 6. Amends language relating to                                                                         
critical habitat areas to insure hunting, fishing and                                                                           
trapping are protected uses. Also the new language "and                                                                         
traditional uses of fish and wildlife" may have the                                                                             
desired effect of helping the Division of Habitat                                                                               
exclude troublesome new uses that may have a damaging                                                                           
affect on an area.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Sections 7,8 & 9 - Pages 4 & 5. Section 7 has been                                                                              
amended to clarify that it is clear the Dept. may                                                                               
continue providing hunter education but also should                                                                             
cooperate with other groups who are interested to                                                                               
providing those services as long as they meet state                                                                             
standards.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Section 8 was amended to clarify that the Dept. should                                                                          
assist nonprofits who are supportive of hunting,                                                                                
fishing and trapping in developing shooting ranges and                                                                          
associated educational programs.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Section 9 was amended to delineate that nonprofits                                                                              
supportive of hunting, fishing and trapping may receive                                                                         
grants to provide for hunter safety training and                                                                                
wildlife conservation education training.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Sections 10 - 15. These sections were amended to                                                                                
further protect hunting, fishing and trapping as                                                                                
legitimate uses on Public Use lands.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
With these changes, Representative Masek feels this                                                                             
legislation meets the needs of both those Alaskans whose                                                                        
cultural heritage is being jeopardized by an                                                                                    
increasingly urbanized society. The reasons for this                                                                            
legislation should be apparent to most Alaskans                                                                                 
supportive of traditional Alaskan values. As further                                                                            
evidence that traditional uses of wildlife to feed one's                                                                        
family need this extra consideration, we would like to                                                                          
point out a couple of items.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
First, there appears to be a growing sentiment in the                                                                           
environmental community that their views and their                                                                              
economic well being deserves the highest level of                                                                               
protection. Environmentalists and their supporters                                                                              
rarely acknowledge the lands that have already been set                                                                         
aside for their exclusive use; there are no lands set                                                                           
aside for hunting, fishing and trapping. It is not                                                                              
enough that viewing, photography and other non-                                                                                 
consumptive uses have huge areas of Alaska already set                                                                          
aside; they would like more areas set aside. He noted                                                                           
that under the game regulations viewing is the first                                                                            
priority in almost every instance on every species, by                                                                          
virtue of limits on hunting, fishing bag limits and                                                                             
seasons. He noted that on unit 9, which is a prime bear                                                                         
hunting area, hunting is only allowed every other year.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Grasser asked: "In short, where is the equity, or the                                                                       
balance in further attacks on legitimate human uses of                                                                          
wildlife when we have already done so much to give a                                                                            
priority to nonconsumptive uses?"                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Grasser conclude by stating that:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HB 349 provides a solution to a flagging question. "Are                                                                         
we going to allow further attacks on the Alaskan Way of                                                                         
Life, the way of life that many of you in this room                                                                             
grew up with?" By providing protection for those                                                                                
cultural and spiritual values associated with ancient                                                                           
uses of wildlife by Native and non-natives alike we                                                                             
will insure that the diversity of Alaska's peoples                                                                              
continues.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
In response to a comment by Representative Foster, Mr.                                                                          
Grasser observed that he found numerous sites on the                                                                            
Internet that attack hunting, fishing and trapping. The                                                                         
concern is that there is a movement in society to move away                                                                     
from the traditional uses of wildlife. He noted that federal                                                                    
legislation was passed to protect hunting, fishing and                                                                          
trapping on federal land and added that the legislation                                                                         
would do the same on state lands. He acknowledged that there                                                                    
might be amendments but emphasized that the goal is to                                                                          
assure some protections for consumption uses.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Austerman referred to section 6. Mr. Grasser                                                                     
explained that the language on section 6, line 9 "and                                                                           
traditional uses of fish and wildlife in the critical                                                                           
habitat area" would provide statutory authority to regulate                                                                     
or restrict the use of jet skis in Katchemak Bay.                                                                               
Representative Austerman felt that the language "and to                                                                         
restrict all other uses not compatible with that primary                                                                        
purpose" would do the job. Mr. Grasser explained that newer                                                                     
uses like jet skis would not fall under the traditional use                                                                     
category.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MATT ROBUS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,                                                                             
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME testified on HB 349. He                                                                             
expressed concerns by the department. He noted that several                                                                     
of the issues that were identified in testimony before other                                                                    
committees have been resolved. For example, reinsertion of                                                                      
the word "development" in Section 1 emphasizes the                                                                              
importance of human utilization as a resource use.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Robus noted that there are still several areas of                                                                           
concern to the department. Section 3 of the bill would limit                                                                    
the Board of Game's authority to restrict the means of                                                                          
access for the purpose of taking fish or game. Access                                                                           
restrictions could be authorized only in the six specific                                                                       
ways outlined in this section. Management of access is and                                                                      
has been one of the most useful tools available to the Board                                                                    
of Game for reducing conflicts between user groups while                                                                        
still allowing maximum opportunity to harvest wildlife                                                                          
populations. Without the ability to craft appropriate                                                                           
mixtures of access methods and timing, the Board will be                                                                        
faced with the need to shorten hunts and reduce bag limits                                                                      
in order to scale back harvests that would climb in some                                                                        
areas due to unrestricted access.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Changes made to the bill have done away with several of the                                                                     
problems that were originally identified in this section by                                                                     
simplifying the process by which advisory committees would                                                                      
be involved in access issues considered by the Board and                                                                        
grandfathering existing access rules where they are in                                                                          
effect. However, according to the department's                                                                                  
interpretation, the current version would allow a single                                                                        
fish and game advisory committee to veto an access-related                                                                      
proposal. He acknowledged that there are few wildlife                                                                           
management measures that are universally beloved and stated                                                                     
that it is unwise to instill this degree of power in a                                                                          
single advisory committee. He maintained that one committee                                                                     
could prevent an access rule that had general support                                                                           
within the region and across the state.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
In response to a question by Representative J. Davies, Mr.                                                                      
Robus expressed concern is in regards to subsection 2, on                                                                       
page 3, lines 6 - 9.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Robus continued review of the legislation. Section 4 of                                                                     
the bill would define "methods and means" in statute to mean                                                                    
"tools, implements, devices, or vehicles" used to take fish                                                                     
or game. Methods and means are not currently defined in                                                                         
either statute or regulation, but an entire section of the                                                                      
fish and game regulations deal with methods and means. This                                                                     
section addresses issues such as shooting off of highways,                                                                      
definition of bait, prohibiting the use of poison, wanton                                                                       
waste, same day airborne restrictions, and many other rules                                                                     
that are necessary for good wildlife management. The way the                                                                    
bill is structured it would limit the use of methods and                                                                        
means only to tools, implements, and vehicles. All other                                                                        
methods and means regulations would conflict with the                                                                           
statute and would probably go away. He emphasized that the                                                                      
section would need to be changed if it is not the intent to                                                                     
delete regulations that are currently being used.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if some of the examples given                                                                        
would be included as a tool or device. Mr. Robus observed                                                                       
that "tools, implements, devices, or vehicles" are concrete                                                                     
items and explained that the concern is that the definition                                                                     
could restrict the regulation of things that are not tools.                                                                     
He explained that if methods and means are defined in a                                                                         
narrow fashion that the ability to regulate other things                                                                        
could be lost.  Items of concern include wanton waste,                                                                          
definition of bait, same day airborne restrictions,                                                                             
prohibiting the use of poison, or  shooting off or across of                                                                    
highways.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Robus noted that section 5 expands the purposes for                                                                         
state game refuges to include enhancement of fish and game,                                                                     
fish and game habitat, and traditional public uses of fish                                                                      
and game. The department's concern is that section 5 makes                                                                      
public recreational use coequal to protection of habitat and                                                                    
wildlife. He explained that there could be a situation such                                                                     
as in Potter's Marsh where the department might not be able                                                                     
to prohibit kayaking in the springtime when it would                                                                            
displace birds that are trying to establish nests. The value                                                                    
of the refuge as bird habitat would be effected by the                                                                          
prominence of protecting human use. He explained that the                                                                       
Department of Fish and Game has managed refuges and other                                                                       
special areas to primarily protect habitat and to promote                                                                       
use of the habitat by animals and to then manage it as a                                                                        
multiple use human area to the extent that human use fits                                                                       
with the original purpose of the refuge.  He felt that                                                                          
conflict and degradation of the purpose of the refuge would                                                                     
result.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Section 7 of the bill addresses the department's authority                                                                      
for hunter education and wildlife conservation education                                                                        
programs. The change made to subsection (2) in this version                                                                     
answered earlier concerns expressed by the department. Mr.                                                                      
Robus pointed out that the department would take a broad                                                                        
interpretation of the term "wildlife conservation education                                                                     
program." He noted that there are other areas such as                                                                           
Potter's Marsh where the department is working with private                                                                     
non-profits and other agencies to establish a visitor                                                                           
center. The department feels that this would be part of a                                                                       
wildlife conservation program and should be included.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if there have been objections.                                                                       
Mr. Robus stated that the motivation is to make sure that                                                                       
the understanding is clear.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SUE SCHRADER, ALASKA CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, JUNEAU stated                                                                       
that the Alliance was pleased that the term "development"                                                                       
was added back into the bill. She noted that they continue                                                                      
to have problems with the inclusion of "enhancement" in                                                                         
sections 1 and 2. She estimated that the changes would                                                                          
increase conflict (between the user groups).                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Schrader stated that the Alliance has concern with                                                                          
language in section 3 that would make it more difficult to                                                                      
regulate access. She spoke in opposition to removing                                                                            
authority from the Board of Game and biologists of the                                                                          
Department of Fish and Game to deal with access issues, by                                                                      
allowing advisory committees veto power over regulations on                                                                     
access.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Schrader noted that section 5 is a major area of                                                                            
concern. She maintained conflict will arise over placing                                                                        
hunting and trapping interests at the same level as                                                                             
protection of the habitat and wildlife in refuges such as:                                                                      
Creamers Field, McNeil River, Anchorage Coastal, and                                                                            
Mendenhall Wetlands. She stressed that the legislation is                                                                       
confusing and emphasized that it is not going to help with                                                                      
the debate over hunting and trapping.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CAROL CARROLL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES,                                                                          
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES addressed sections 10 - 19.                                                                     
She noted that the Department of Natural Resources manages                                                                      
the public use areas. The Department of Natural Resources                                                                       
considers public use areas as multiple-use areas. She noted                                                                     
that public use areas are open to oil and gas leasing,                                                                          
mining, and other types of development. In the past the                                                                         
department has paid attention to the habitat, as required by                                                                    
statute. She expressed concerns that the bill would make                                                                        
public use areas more like refuges. The department would                                                                        
have additional authority to develop, preserve and protect                                                                      
fish and the wildlife that use the habitat. She emphasized                                                                      
that this would be outside of the normal purview of the                                                                         
Department of Fish and Game. She felt that the balance would                                                                    
be upset toward creating more of a refuge for fish and game                                                                     
within a habitat.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
DICK BISHOP, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL spoke in support of the                                                                     
legislation.  He agreed with the emphasis on protecting the                                                                     
traditional means of access and traditional uses of fish and                                                                    
wildlife in state special use areas. He maintained that                                                                         
preserving fish and wildlife habitat in state public use                                                                        
areas institutionalizes a purpose that many thought was                                                                         
already there. He asserted that the bill does not reduce the                                                                    
multiple use opportunities in public use areas. He noted                                                                        
that they would still be open to development. He spoke in                                                                       
support of the broadening of the Department of Fish and                                                                         
Game's contact and support of private organizations                                                                             
dedicated to perpetuating traditional fishing, hunting and                                                                      
trapping uses of fish and wildlife. These pursuits are basic                                                                    
to the values of rural and urban Alaskans that rely on and                                                                      
enjoy participating in Alaska's ecosystems as consumptive                                                                       
users.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Bishop stated that he had some concern with language on                                                                     
page 4, lines 2 and 3: general public recreation on refuges.                                                                    
He questioned the addition of the language as part of the                                                                       
purpose of the refuge.  He recommended that the language be                                                                     
deleted and added that it goes beyond the recreational                                                                          
opportunities associated with fish and wildlife refuges.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies referenced section 5, which defines                                                                    
the purposes of the wildlife refuges. He asked for Mr.                                                                          
Bishop's understanding of the inclusion of "enhance".  He                                                                       
noted that the general concept of wildlife refuge is a place                                                                    
that is a preserve, in as close a way as possible, as a                                                                         
natural habitat.  He questioned what is meant by: "enhancing                                                                    
a natural habitat".                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Bishop responded that there is nothing in the national                                                                      
or state refuge system that suggests or implies that it                                                                         
needs to be maintained in the status quo.  He asserted that                                                                     
there are active efforts to enhance habitat on many refuges.                                                                    
He noted that there have been controlled burns on Creamers                                                                      
Field refuge.  An enhancement would be to improve the                                                                           
habitat conditions to the benefit of the fish and wildlife                                                                      
species that normally reside there.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies asked specifically about predator                                                                      
control.  Mr. Bishop stated that predator control would not                                                                     
be included under sections 1 or 2.  Predator control is a                                                                       
management technique that might apply under some                                                                                
circumstances, but would not be considered as a traditional                                                                     
use.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative Phillips referred to section 4, page 3, line                                                                     
23. She expressed concerns about the elimination of                                                                             
management tools by the Department of Fish and Game.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Bishop acknowledged that it is a legitimate concern that                                                                    
those types of regulations not be lost.  He felt that it was                                                                    
only a matter of labeling.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative Phillips pointed out that the word "tools"                                                                       
could be interpreted to mean many different things.  She                                                                        
maintained that it is a dangerous thing to use "tools" if                                                                       
other concepts are not included.  Mr. Bishop maintained that                                                                    
the matter could be addressed by including the kinds of                                                                         
regulations that Mr. Robus discussed under a different label                                                                    
of methods and means.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Mulder expressed concern if the statutory language                                                                     
would led disputes to court.  Mr. Bishop stressed that the                                                                      
regulations should be sufficiently clear to avoid problems.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Austerman commented that true Alaskans,                                                                          
understand that the habitat must be protected or there is no                                                                    
resource. He referred to section 5.  He expressed concern                                                                       
that the protection of traditional public use would be                                                                          
brought to the same plane as protection of habitat. He                                                                          
suggested that other traditional uses should be one step                                                                        
beneath the protection of the habitat.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Bishop responded that there would be two ways to look at                                                                    
the issue.  It could be looked at in relationship to the                                                                        
order of the purposes: the order in which the purposes are                                                                      
listed. The first listed purpose would be the most                                                                              
important. He maintained that logical administration of the                                                                     
law would follow that public uses could not be protected if                                                                     
the habitat and resource are not protected.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Vice Chair Bunde noted that he shared the concern voiced by                                                                     
Ms. Schrader regarding increasing the volatility between                                                                        
hunter and non-hunter.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Bishop acknowledged the concern.  He stated that in most                                                                    
cases when hunters, trappers and fishermen have tried to                                                                        
reduce the level of controversy through compromising some of                                                                    
their interest that they have lost their interest and have                                                                      
been asked to give up more.  He maintained that it is                                                                           
important for hunters, trappers and fishers to assert their                                                                     
rights, to assert the ecological correctness of their                                                                           
pursuits.  In the context of other legislation it is                                                                            
important that the resources be managed on the sustained                                                                        
yield principle. He stressed that consumptive use is part of                                                                    
the sustained yield principle.  He concluded that the                                                                           
pursuits of hunting, fishing, and trapping are protected and                                                                    
recognized as the foundation for the management of natural                                                                      
resources on the sustained yield principle. Resources can be                                                                    
conserved and used into perpetuity.  It is essential for                                                                        
public officials to state that (hunting, fishing and                                                                            
trapping) are legitimate uses and should be accommodated and                                                                    
protected with other uses.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Vice Chair Bunde stated that it comes down to issues of                                                                         
power and control. Mr. Bishop responded that it is implicit                                                                     
that "you can not have the use unless you have taken care of                                                                    
the resource".                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Austerman referred to section 6, page 4.  He                                                                     
asked why the language was not included and asked how its                                                                       
deletion would affect the bill.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 89, SIDE 2)                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Bishop stated that the language institutionalizes the                                                                       
concept that critical habitat areas are important to                                                                            
traditional uses of fish and wildlife, which includes                                                                           
fishing, hunting, trapping and viewing. He stressed that if                                                                     
the language was deleted that the impact would be to                                                                            
identify by omission that compared to the others items                                                                          
identified, critical habitat areas are not considered as                                                                        
important for traditional uses. He felt that such an                                                                            
interpretation would be illogical and inconsistent with the                                                                     
direction and purpose of the legislation in regards to other                                                                    
areas such as refuges. He concluded that deletion of the                                                                        
language would detract from the effectiveness of the                                                                            
legislation in terms of institutionalizing and recognizing                                                                      
the importance of fishing, hunting, trapping uses and                                                                           
diminish it's effectiveness.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 349 was heard and HELD in Committee for further                                                                              
consideration.                                                                                                                  
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(RLS) am                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
"An Act relating to legislative powers and                                                                                      
responsibility with respect to collective bargaining                                                                            
agreements between the state and a labor or employee                                                                            
organization representing state employees; and                                                                                  
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1-                                                                            
LS1386\KA.7:                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The complete monetary and nonmonetary terms of a                                                                                
tentative agreement shall be submitted to the                                                                                   
legislature no later than the 60th day of the                                                                                   
legislative session to receive legislative                                                                                      
consideration during that calendar year.  However, if                                                                           
the department has submitted a tentative agreement in a                                                                         
timely manner and the parties to the agreement decide                                                                           
to renegotiate the terms, the renegotiated agreement                                                                            
shall be considered to have been submitted in a timely                                                                          
manner.  In this subsection, "tentative agreement"                                                                              
means an agreement that has been reached by the                                                                                 
negotiators for the employer and the bargaining unit                                                                            
but that has not yet been ratified by the members of                                                                            
the bargaining unit.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies argued that the agreement is                                                                           
tentative until the membership and the legislature have                                                                         
approved the agreement. He suggested that "or approved by                                                                       
the legislature" be added at the end of line 10 and line 9                                                                      
be changed from "has" to "may". Ms. Cramer argued that "or                                                                      
approved by the legislature" was unnecessary. Co-Chair                                                                          
Therriault pointed out that "have" should be placed before                                                                      
"been".                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT the amendment as                                                                        
amended to change "has" to "may" and insert "have" before                                                                       
"been". There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report HCS CSSB 269 (FIN)  out of                                                                      
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO                                                                     
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HCS CSSB 269 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a zero                                                                    
fiscal note by the Department of Administration, published                                                                      
date 3/6/00.                                                                                                                    
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.                                                                                          
House Finance Committee 22 3/29/00 p.m.                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects