Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/30/2004 08:43 AM 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
April 30, 2004
8:43 A.M.
TAPE HFC 04 - 103, Side A
TAPE HFC 04 - 103, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 8:43 A.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Harris, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Vice-Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bill Stoltze
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens; Ray Riutta, Executive Director, Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute, Juneau; Tom Wright, Staff to
Representative Harris; Laura Glaiser, Director, Division of
Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor; Joe Balash,
Staff to Senator Gene Therriault; Dave Stancliff, Staff to
the Administrative Regulation Review Committee; Andy
Hemenway, Senior Hearing Officer, Department of
Administration; James Armstrong, Staff to Representative
Williams; Jeff Ottesen, Director of Program Development,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities; Myrl
Thompson; Joe Dubler, Chief Financial Officer, Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation, Department of Revenue; Brian
Butcher, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation, Department of Revenue; Eric Swanson, Director,
Division of Administrative Services, Department Of
Administration; Zach Warwick, Staff to Senator Gene
Therriault
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Paul Kapansky, Director of Mortgage Operations, Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation, Department of Revenue
SUMMARY
HB 459 An Act requiring an auditable paper trail for
electronic voting machines; and providing for an
effective date.
CSHB 459(STA) was REPORTED out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and one previously
published fiscal impact note.
HB 561 An Act providing for and relating to the issuance
of general obligation bonds in a principal amount
of not more than $1,000,000 for the purpose of
paying the cost of state transportation projects;
and providing for an effective date.
HB 561 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
CS SB 203(FIN) am
An Act relating to administrative hearings, to
hearing officers, and to administrative law
judges; establishing the office of administrative
hearings and relating to that office; and
providing for an effective date.
HCS CSSB 203(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and sixteen fiscal
impact notes.
CSSB 273(FIN)
An Act amending the size, membership, and powers
of the board of directors of the Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute and making a corresponding
change in the quorum requirement; authorizing the
establishment of the seafood marketing assessment
at a rate of 0.5 percent or 0.6 percent of the
value of seafood products produced; providing for
an election to retain, terminate, or increase the
seafood marketing assessment; providing for the
repeal of the salmon marketing tax and provisions
related to the salmon marketing tax; and providing
for an effective date.
HCS CSSB 273(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee
with individual recommendations and two previously
published fiscal impact notes.
SB 274 An Act relating to the housing assistance loan
fund in the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation;
creating the housing assistance loan program;
repealing loans for teacher housing and providing
for loans for multi-family housing; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date.
SB 274 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and one previously published
zero fiscal impact note.
SB 295 An Act extending the termination date of the
Navigable Waters Commission for Alaska; and
providing for an effective date.
SB 295 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and one previously published
indeterminate fiscal impact note.
SB 305 An Act relating to state ownership of submerged
land underlying water that was navigable at the
time Alaska achieved statehood.
HCS SB 305(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and one previously
published fiscal impact note.
HOUSE BILL NO. 459
An Act requiring an auditable paper trail for
electronic voting machines; and providing for an
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, SPONSOR, commented that the bill
relates to the national issue of Florida's vote count during
the last Presidential election. It addresses electronic
voting machines that would provide a paper trail in the
event that a vote was disputed and needed verification. The
bill would also provide direction to the Division of
Elections.
Representative Stoltze asked if the new electronic voting
machines are American Disabilities Act (ADA) technology.
Representative Harris affirmed.
Representative Fate asked the approximate useful life of the
thermal copiers.
TOM WRIGHT, STAFF TO REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, was unable to
answer and deferred to Ms. Glaiser.
LAURA GLAISER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, OFFICE OF
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, replied that it is all new technology,
and still in the research and development phases. The
Division didn't know the life of the systems. She thought
the concerns about jamming would be corrected.
Representative Joule commented on the close elections in
Alaska and thought that the bill would clear up ambiguity by
providing a paper trail.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 459(STA) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 459(STA) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and one previously published fiscal impact
note.
HOUSE BILL NO. 561
An Act providing for and relating to the issuance of
general obligation bonds in a principal amount of not
more than $1,000,000 for the purpose of paying the cost
of state transportation projects; and providing for an
effective date.
JAMES ARMSTRONG, STAFF TO REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS, explained
that the bill partially mirrors HB 525 that passed two years
ago that was a combination of GARVEES and general obligation
bonds. This version targets $1 million for transportation
projects in Valdez and Ketchikan.
Co-Chair Harris asked if he was familiar with the federal
revenue in GARVEES, and whether the State currently has more
capacity in that system. Mr. Armstrong deferred to Mr.
Ottesen to respond.
JEFF OTTESEN, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC FACILITIES, replied that he would
hesitate to recommend pursuing more GARVEES revenue. The
President and the Congressional leadership can't resolve the
funding number for the new reauthorization level. The
President is firm on his low number, which would see
Alaska's funding decrease substantially from current levels.
HB 561 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 273(FIN)
An Act amending the size, membership, and powers of the
board of directors of the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute and making a corresponding change in the
quorum requirement; authorizing the establishment of
the seafood marketing assessment at a rate of 0.5
percent or 0.6 percent of the value of seafood products
produced; providing for an election to retain,
terminate, or increase the seafood marketing
assessment; providing for the repeal of the salmon
marketing tax and provisions related to the salmon
marketing tax; and providing for an effective date.
Co-Chair Williams commented that Work draft Version G,
Utermohle, 4/26/04, was adopted on 4/29/04. Testimony was
also heard the previous day, and the Committee would now
consider the amendment by Representative Croft.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Williams,
Representative Croft clarified that he had talked to the
bill sponsor, Icicle Seafoods, the UFA and House members
from fishing communities. The sponsor still preferred his
version of a 7-member or a 9-member board. The Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) had a unanimous
resolution supporting a 15-member board, while the Salmon
Task Force recommended a 9-member board.
Representative Croft stated that there is agreement that
this should be a smaller board with some increase in the
representation of the processors to encourage their adoption
of the processor tax. The question is whether to tilt it in
favor of processors generally, and big processors
specifically. He and Senator Stevens still disagreed on the
tilt.
Co-Chair Williams commented that he had been on the Salmon
Task Force, and he experienced that boards with 15 members
or 18 members were "like a convention." The Task Force
worked for two years with fishermen and processors to lower
the board membership to get a workable composition.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, SPONSOR, explained that through two
years of work, the Salmon Task Force crafted a delicate
balance on the board to ensure that the right decisions are
made. Processors have a legal right to go to zero and decide
to put no money in, but he would encourage the processors to
go to 0.5% or $5 million, and allow the salmon fishermen's
tax to "spin off into the regional organizations."
He felt that would be the ideal situation. He pointed out
that the bill had gone through several committees, and the
House Fisheries Committee moved it out quickly and, he
thought, without opposition. He hoped that the bill would
remain intact.
Representative Croft explained that his amendment is in the
form of a Committee Substitute, Work Draft Version M. He
pointed out that Version G is the original bill version that
has 7 or 9 board members on page 2.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Version M instead of the
Version G. Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Williams asked about the changes in Version M.
Representative Croft explained that the main issue is the
composition of the board. Sections 2 and 3 on page 2
establish either an 11-member or a 13-member board. He
reiterated that ASMI wanted a 15-member board, the Salmon
Task Force wanted a 9-member board, and he wanted a
compromise between those figures. An 11-member board would
be comprised of 5 big processors, 2 small processors and 4
fishermen. He noted that Representative Seaton had expressed
concern in the Fisheries Committee that the big processors
could be a quorum by themselves, with the ability to pass
measures without even one vote from small processors or
fishermen.
Representative Croft explained that his only concern is to
have an Alaskan check on the board's decisions. He conceded
that the board should be smaller and the processors' power
should increase because of their marketing knowledge. But he
did not want the processors to have a majority or quorum on
the board. On an 11-member board with 5 big processors, only
one Alaskan fisherman or one Alaskan small processor would
be needed to pass their plan. He likened it to the checks
and balances in government systems. He concluded that is the
primary difference between Version M and Version G.
Co-Chair Williams informed the Committee that he was a
member of the 13-member Fish Task Force that covered every
region of state. Participation was better in the second
year. He felt that it isn't important if the processors are
from Seattle or Alaska because they make decisions on buying
and selling [emphasis] Alaskan product. The processors had
some farmed fish but they preferred to buy Alaskan salmon.
He expressed strong opposition to Representative Croft's
proposed committee substitute.
Senator Stevens commented on the ASMI Board, explaining that
he'd been a legislative ex officio member. He felt that
there was misunderstanding about the board, which is not
about absolute power, but an organization that decides how
to generically market Alaskan seafood products. He feared
that if the board became parochial, it would eliminate those
who know how to market Alaskan products.
Representative Chenault pointed to the $1.5 million that the
current fishermen would pay if the bill passed, and asked if
it would revert to them to specialty market their own
product. Senator Stevens explained that there is another
bill relating to regional marketing. If the Legislature
passed this bill, the salmon marketing tax of 1% on
fishermen would be eliminated on January 1, 2005.
Representative Croft concluded that it is possible for an
11-member board to be functional. Major companies have a
worldwide interest that includes Alaska, and often make
difficult marketing decisions. Marketing in this new phase
of competition with farmed salmon requires a new structure
to balance the legitimate interests of major corporations
with Alaska's interests.
Co-Chair Williams commented that Alaskans John Sund, a
former Representative in the state House, and Terry
Gardiner, a former Speaker of the House, own Norquest. He
said that they know Alaskan fish and the industry. Co-Chair
Williams stated that the Fish Task Force had discussed the
issue for hours and agreed on this number [in Version G].
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Moses, Croft, Joule
OPPOSED: Meyer, Stoltze, Chenault, Fate, Foster, Hawker,
Harris, Williams
The MOTION FAILED (3-8). Work Draft Version M was not
adopted.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED to report Version G, HCS for CSSB
273(FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 273(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
individual recommendations and two previously published
fiscal notes.
SENATE BILL NO. 305
An Act relating to state ownership of submerged land
underlying water that was navigable at the time Alaska
achieved statehood.
Vice-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft #23-LS1489
Version Q, Bullock, dated 4/13/04, as the version of
legislation before the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
JOE BALASH, STAFF TO SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, explained that
the Federal Government granted all submerged lands under
navigable waters to the State of Alaska at the time of
statehood, a nearly 60 million-acre entitlement. Since that
time it has been difficult to win concessions from the
Federal Government on which waters are navigable and which
are not. In the years since statehood, Alaska has gone to
court to win determinations on 20 water bodies. Those court
decisions refined the criteria by which the determination of
navigability is made. This legislation stakes out the
State's claim to those water bodies fitting the criteria.
Mr. Balash pointed out the language on page 3, line 8 that
directs the Commissioner of the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) to make determinations of navigability, to
compile a list, and to map the water bodies. It also directs
the DNR to give notice to the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) of the State asserting the claim and staking it.
Mr. Balash explained that Senator Therriault pledged to work
with the Native regional corporations. Navigable water
bodies over submerged lands belong to the State. When the
BLM used incorrect criteria and conveyed acreage to the
Native corporations, the BLM conveyed lands that it no
longer possessed because Alaska received the lands at the
time of statehood. As a result, corporations were charged
for acreage they did not receive. The bill sponsor had been
working primarily through SEALASKA Corporation to address
the shared concerns.
Mr. Balash pointed out that the added language on page 3,
lines 26-30, contains a disclaimer that the list and action
does not create an interest in or right of entry onto any
real property that does not otherwise exist under State law,
that it may not be recorded and it does not constitute final
agency action. He explained that the language was added so
that determinations would not be contested within 30 days of
the action by the Commissioner. In Section 3, the sponsor
reworked the language of the notice so that it doesn't
appear adversarial, and would allow the Native corporations
to take the list to the BLM and rectify issues relating to
the prior conveyance of lands.
Representative Joule commented that a lot of good work was
put into the bill.
Representative Hawker asked if these added sections resolve
the Native corporations' concerns. Mr. Balash thought that
they did.
JON TILLINGHAST, CORPORATE COUNSEL, SEALASKA CORPORATION,
explained that Sealaska Corporation worked closely with
Senator Therriault's office and other native corporations in
a collaborative effort to sort out ownership problems on
waterways throughout the state. Sealaska Corporation feels
that the current version addresses their concerns, and
supports the bill.
In response to a question by Representative Joule, Mr.
Tillinghast said that Sealaska Corporation coordinated
closely with other regional corporations to ensure that
their interests were accommodated.
MRYL THOMPSON, REPRESENTING SELF, explained that he is a
property owner of land extending into a navigable river. He
thought that this version of the bill is better, but he
worried about its consequences. He discussed the problem of
a river running through his private property, comprising as
much as 2 acres that he's being taxed on. He said that once
the bill becomes law, he would contest the amount of land
that the borough assesses him for taxes. He would not be
compensated for his loss of 2 acres of river to the State.
He also pointed out that the lower assessment would cost the
borough money. He foresaw the same problem affecting the
Native corporations, and commented on the lengthy process of
getting land from the Federal Government.
Mr. Balash thought that Mr. Thompson's situation illustrates
why the legislation is needed. If the Federal Government
sold the submerged land prior to statehood, the land is
exempted from this situation. The bill does not take land
from anyone. If the land was conveyed to the State at the
time of statehood, it belongs to the State and could never
have been given or sold to anyone unless the State granted
it. He said that concerns over property tax assessments and
valuations should be raised with the local taxing
jurisdictions.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HCS SB 305(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS SB 305(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and one previously published fiscal
impact note.
TAPE HFC 04 - 103, Side B
SENATE BILL NO. 274
An Act relating to the housing assistance loan fund in
the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; creating the
housing assistance loan program; repealing loans for
teacher housing and providing for loans for multi-
family housing; making conforming amendments; and
providing for an effective date.
BRIAN BUTCHER, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE
CORPORATION (AHFC), DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, explained that
the bill would make two changes to the rural loan program.
The first of these would change it from a housing assistance
revolving fund to a program in order to address the
liquidity concerns of the AHFC. The current revolving nature
of the fund limits it to purchases of new loans under this
program. For FY 03, over one third of the AHFC's net income
was in this fund. The Corporation pays a dividend of $103
million to the State, with the funds continuing to come
entirely from the working capital because of the
restrictions of the rural loan fund. Mr. Butcher said that
this has resulted in the liquid assets of the Corporation
declining at an accelerated rate. In addition, the revolving
fund hasn't really revolved for several years. The new loans
made in the program have exceeded the cash available in the
fund, causing the AHFC is use its working capital to
purchase and hold loans for reimbursement from the fund. Mr.
Butcher explained that this bill would allow the program to
operate in the same way the Corporation's other programs
operate. Other than this change, he said that the program
would continue to operate in the same way.
Mr. Butcher explained that the second modification in the
bill would change the rural teacher multi-family loan
program to the rural multi-family loan program. In 2002, SB
181 passed and changed the rural multi-family loan program
to the rural teacher loan program. This change required
anyone using the program to fill their multi-family building
with at least one teacher in every unit. In the nearly two
years since the change, there have been no loans made
because it's been too restrictive. People aren't willing to
take out long-term financing on a multi-family building
requiring a teacher in every unit for the period of time of
the loan. This bill would change the program back to a
rural multi-family program available to anyone, including
teachers. It would also allow an owner to occupy one of the
units.
Representative Foster commented that in the villages, the
Native corporation or the IRA owns land and sells lots to
its members, but not on the open market. He asked how to
open up new land for teacher housing.
PAUL KAPANSKY, DIRECTOR OF MORTGAGE OPERATIONS, ALASKA
HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIA
TELECONFERENCE, replied that it is difficult if it isn't
sold on the open market, because that indicates a deed
restriction. A deed restriction affects the value and the
financing of the land, making it basically not financeable.
JOE DUBLER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE
CORPORATION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, argued that Native
corporations would not be excluded from this program and
could obtain financing to build a duplex or triplex on their
land. The Native corporations could obtain financing for
teachers.
Representative Foster MOVED to report SB 274 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
SB 274 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and one previously published zero fiscal
impact note.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 203(FIN) am
An Act relating to administrative hearings, to hearing
officers, and to administrative law judges;
establishing the office of administrative hearings and
relating to that office; and providing for an effective
date.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft #23-LS0903 Version
M, Cook, dated 4/7/04, as the version of legislation before
the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
DAVE STANCLIFF, STAFF TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE, explained that the bill dates back five
years and developed from an effort to consolidate and
improve the public administrative hearing process. The bill
contains two concepts: that the public deserves timely,
efficient, and fair due-process oriented hearings when
contesting a state agency; and that there are inefficiencies
within state government. In other words, many types of
hearing officers are scattered throughout the state and have
many functions. The past two years of cooperative bipartisan
effort that included the Administration has culminated in a
well thought-out new system of hearings.
Mr. Stancliff explained that the crux of the bill is found
in the first eight pages. The central panel office will
house the hearing officers. By using the current hearing
officers and the existing functions, a more efficient
government would be created with less fiscal impact.
Mr. Stancliff stated that the second aspect of the bill
relates to reforms that occur outside the central panel
office. Hearing officers would be subject to new standards
and reforms, and the central panel office would report to
the House [and Senate] Finance Committees in the future.
Their budget would be a separate component under the
Department of Administration. He noted that twenty-seven
other states and some municipalities have formed central
panels in order to save money and serve the public better by
creating efficiencies.
Mr. Stancliff pointed out that the Office of Tax Appeals has
final jurisdiction, and it is already operating to deal with
oil tax issues. In this proposed committee substitute, the
Administration would move the Office of Tax Appeals
[Hearings and Appeals, Department of Administration] to the
central panel for greater efficiency. He noted that the oil
and gas industry was reluctant to change their office, which
was specifically dedicated to their issues. However, he had
worked with AOGA (Alaska Oil and Gas Association) to reach
accord with the final three amendments in the packet. He
asked the Committee to move the amendments.
Co-Chair Harris referred to one of the [16] fiscal notes and
asked if a new position would be created. Mr. Stancliff
responded that it would. Co-Chair Harris asked if Fiscal
Note #6 is still applicable.
ERIC SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, affirmed that Fiscal Note #6
would set up the funding structure and positions in the new
office of administrative hearings. Co-Chair Harris discussed
that it increases to $900 thousand in FY 06 and funding
sources would include the Permanent Fund Dividend fund, the
General Fund, child support enforcement, and interagency
receipts. He asked about the 9 new full-time positions. Mr.
Swanson clarified that these are transfers of positions that
currently exist in other agencies. The funding increase
occurs in the second year with the office coming together
after January 1, 2005. There is some earlier funding for the
Administrative Law Judge position that would oversee the
office.
Co-Chair Harris asked if the General Fund budget increased
by $260 thousand in FY 06, would it decrease elsewhere. Mr.
Swanson affirmed, and explained that most is General Fund
transfers from other agencies. The increase of $50 thousand
in General Funds in the first year would pay the first six
months' salary for the Administrative Law Judge. There might
also be start-up costs related to the new office, he said.
Co-Chair Harris commented that all the other fiscal note
decrements zero out Fiscal Note #6, except for the $50
thousand. He asked if the new office would use existing
personnel. Mr. Swanson said that the Administrative Law
Judge is a vacant position within the Office of Tax Appeals.
He was unsure if that position would be moved into the new
office, or deleted and a new position created. In any case,
the net effect would be no new positions.
Representative Joule asked if the current salary would carry
over if the current position were transferred. Mr. Swanson
replied that there would be no reclassifications. Any
vacancy would also be hired at the existing level or
classification.
Representative Stoltze commented on high profile tax issues.
Mr. Stancliff responded that there would be "cross-training"
and improved efficiency with the new panel structure.
Representative Stoltze asked if the Alaska judicial process
would remain in place. Mr. Stancliff said that it would not,
and pointed out that that process was subject to
constitutional questions with appointments in one branch of
government serving in another. The chief would be selected
by the Governor and confirmed by the Legislature, and the
chief would hire the central panel. The three amendments are
qualifications that the industry requested for the handling
of tax issues by the Administrative Law Judge.
Representative Stoltze thought that it was a major shift to
have the Legislature confirm the position because it was a
judicial position. Mr. Stancliff agreed that it is a
departure, but he emphasized that the tax work on oil issues
would retain the current standards and statutes, and the
position would have final decision-making authority. He said
that with all those adjustments, the need for the judicial
counsel appointment had become less important.
Representative Co-Chair Williams MOVED to ADOPT Amendment
#1. Co-Chair Harris OBJECTED for purposes of discussion.
Amendment #1 reads:
Page 31, lines 6-10
Delete all existing language and replace with:
*Sec 67. AS43.05.420 is amended to read:
(b) A person conducting a proceeding authorized under AS
43.05.405-AS43.05.499 shall have at least four years of
professional experience as a tax attorney, or be a certified
public accountant practicing in the area of tax, or a tax
administrator.
This amendment is being offered to insure that the high
quality of standards of expertise developed in the original
tax appeals office remain in place as the Central Panel
absorbs and executes those adjudicatory functions.
Mr. Stancliff explained that the amendment was negotiated
between the bill sponsors, the Administration and AOGA. It
deals specifically with the expertise that would be required
by the person taking up the tax appeal issues. He read the
language.
Co-Chair Harris WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Amendment #1 was
adopted.
Co-Chair Williams MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2. Co-Chair
Harris OBJECTED.
Amendment #2 reads:
Add a new section that reads as follows and re-number all
other sections accordingly:
Code of conduct
The following fundamental canons of conduct shall be
included in the code adopted by the Chief Administrative Law
Judge:
An administrative law judge or hearing officer shall in the
carrying out of their official duties:
1) uphold the integrity and independence of the office.
2) avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
3) shall perform the duties of the office impartially
and diligently.
4) shall conduct unofficial activities so as to
minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations
of the office.
5) shall refrain from inappropriate activity in seeking
employment with another agency or employer or in
seeking reappointment.
Mr. Stancliff explained that Amendment #2 is part of the
adjustments important to uphold the integrity of all the
administrative judges. The code of conduct is modeled after
existing judicial canon, and the industry is comfortable
with the language.
Co-Chair Harris WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Amendment #2 was
adopted.
Co-Chair Williams MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3. Co-Chair
Harris OBJECTED.
Amendment #3 reads:
Page 30, line 29,
After the word "section" remove the period and add:
"however AS44.64.070 does apply to such hearings."
Mr. Stancliff explained that the amendment provides for
preemption ability. If a person felt that a conflict existed
and wanted a new hearing officer, one would be appointed.
The oil industry requested this amendment and asked that the
provision of refusal apply to their tax appeals officer. It
is an important technical change.
Co-Chair Harris WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Amendment #3 was
adopted.
Representative Croft observed that the amendment is not only
technical but also substantive. Industry representatives in
an oil tax appeal could now replace a judge they didn't
like. Mr. Stancliff agreed that it is substantive regarding
that change, but technical in terms of conforming to the
existing provisions in the central panel. During
negotiations on the legislation, Amendment #3 helped the oil
industry accept not having judicial counsel involved in the
appointments.
Representative Croft commented on the level of expertise
required in Amendment #1. He questioned if, by granting the
power to preempt a judge or hearing office, it would create
a limited pool of administrative law judges fitting the
qualifications to hear tax appeals. Mr. Stancliff replied
that a situation of a very small pool could arise. However,
the bill would not prevent the Administration from arranging
for a contract-hearing officer with those credentials, and
that was felt to be enough of a safety valve.
Representative Croft asked if workers' compensation is
excluded from the bill's provisions. Mr. Stancliff affirmed.
Representative Croft noted that the proposal to combine
hearing officers makes a lot of sense. He thought that tax
and workers compensation are two specialized areas, and
asked if there are other major exclusions from the bill. Mr.
Stancliff affirmed, and said that there were discussions of
the areas where expertise is more critical. Ratemaking cases
are not included under this jurisdiction.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HCS CSSB 203(FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CSSB 203(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and sixteen fiscal impact notes.
SENATE BILL NO. 295
An Act extending the termination date of the Navigable
Waters Commission for Alaska; and providing for an
effective date.
ZACH WARWICK, STAFF TO SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, advised the
Committee that SB 295 is the simpler part of the
navigability package that Mr. Balash addressed earlier. In
2002, the Legislature created the Joint State and Federal
Navigable Waters Commission comprised of seven states and
seven federal members.
Mr. Warwick explained that the Commission was taxed with
three objectives: to expedite the process of quieting title
to the state's submerged lands; to determine which bodies of
water are navigable or non-navigable; and to provide
recommendations to the state and the federal governments
concerning ways to improve the process of making
navigability determinations and ways to quiet title to the
state's submerged lands fairly and expeditiously.
Mr. Warwick said that after the state legislation passed,
the federal portion of the legislation unfortunately did
not. Consequently, no appointments were made to the State's
part of the Commission. This bill would extend the
Commission for two years to allow time to persuade Alaska's
congressional delegation to introduce similar legislation on
the federal portion of the Commission.
Representative Foster MOVED to report SB 295 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
SB 295 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and one previously published fiscal impact
note.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 A.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|