Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/29/2000 02:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
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 |
|---|