Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/31/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 31, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Cliff Davidson
Representative Jim Nordlund
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 89 "An Act revising the law on borough assembly
apportionment as recommended by the revisor of
statutes; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
HB 92 "An Act relating to notaries; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
HB 81 "An Act relating to the longevity bonus program."
CSHB 81 (STA) PASSED OUT WITH NO RECOMMENDATION
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID DIERDORFF
Revisor of Statutes
Division of Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Goldstein Building, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-2450
Position Statement: Explained HB 89
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-4797
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 92
PATTY TROTT
Notary Administrator
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P. O. Box 110015
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-3509
Position Statement: Provided information and answered
questions related to HB 92
GAYLE HORETSKI
Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-6841
Position Statement: Discussed HB 92 and HB 81
RUPE ANDREWS
American Association of Retired People
9416 Long Run Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-7422
Position Statement: Opposed HB 81
NANCY BEAR USERA
Commissioner
Department of Administration
P. O. Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-2200
Position Statement: Supported original version of HB 81
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 89
SHORT TITLE: BOROUGH ASSEMBLY APPORTIONMENT
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
TITLE: "An Act revising the law on borough assembly
apportionment as recommended by the revisor of statutes; and
providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/25/93 152 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/25/93 152 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/02/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/02/93 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/03/93 516 (H) CRA RPT 7DP
03/03/93 516 (H) DP: BUNDE, DAVIES, WILLIS,
WILLIAMS
03/03/93 516 (H) DP: TOOHEY, OLBERG, SANDERS
03/03/93 516 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)
3/3/93
03/31/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/31/93 892 (H) JUD RPT 5DP
03/31/93 893 (H) DP: PORTER, PHILLIPS, JAMES,
KOTT, GREEN
03/31/93 893 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LAW) 3/3/93
BILL: HB 92
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF NOTARIES PUBLIC
BILL VERSION: CSSSHB 92(JUD) AM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT
TITLE: "An Act relating to notaries; and providing for an
effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/93 163 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/27/93 164 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
02/01/93 198 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
-REFERRALS
02/01/93 198 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
02/02/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/02/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/03/93 210 (H) L&C RPT CSSS(L&C) 1DP 3NR
02/03/93 211 (H) DP: HUDSON
02/03/93 211 (H) NR: PORTER, WILLIAMS, GREEN
02/03/93 211 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
2/3/93
02/03/93 224 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
02/05/93 241 (H) COSPONSOR REMOVED: JAMES
03/31/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 81
SHORT TITLE: PHASE OUT LONGEVITY BONUS
BILL VERSION: SCS CSHB 81(RLS)
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act relating to the longevity bonus program."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 130 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 130 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
01/22/93 130 (H) -2 FNS (ADM) 1/22/93
01/22/93 130 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/02/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/02/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/06/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/13/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/13/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/27/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/09/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/11/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/12/93 609 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NEW TITLE 4DP
3NR
03/12/93 610 (H) DP: VEZEY, OLBERG, G.DAVIS,
SANDERS
03/12/93 610 (H) NR: ULMER, B.DAVIS, KOTT
03/12/93 610 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 3/12/93
03/12/93 610 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
3/12/93
03/31/93 892 (H) JUD RPT CS(STA) NEW TITLE 1DP
1DNP 5NR
03/31/93 892 (H) DP: PORTER
03/31/93 892 (H) DNP: DAVIDSON
03/31/93 892 (H) NR: NORDLUND, PHILLIPS,GREEN,
KOTT,JAMES
03/31/93 892 (H) -PREVIOUS FN (ADM) 3/12/93
03/31/93 892 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FN (ADM)
3/12/93
03/31/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-46, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to
order at 1:15 p.m., on March 31, 1993. A quorum was
present. Chairman Porter announced that HB 89 was the first
item of business before the committee.
HB 89: BOROUGH ASSEMBLY APPORTIONMENT
DAVID DIERDORFF, REVISOR OF STATUTES, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
AGENCY, DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES, said that HB 89 had been
introduced to respond to a unique problem within the
statutes. He stated that in 1980, there had been a
significant revision of the apportionment rules, because of
Supreme Court rulings and because 1980 was a census year.
He commented that a free conference committee had produced
the predecessor to what later became AS 29.20.070-110. He
noted that during the "heat" of the free conference
committee, rational thinking had gotten lost. The result
was that statutes which were written by the free conference
committee were unreadable, he said.
MR. DIERDORFF explained that the year before, an obvious
error had been discovered within the apportionment statutes.
In the process of correcting that error, he continued,
numerous other errors were discovered. The result of those
discoveries was HB 89, he said. He noted that officials
from the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA)
and the Department of Law (DOL) had reviewed the bill.
Everyone had agreed that the effect of HB 89 was to make the
law much easier to interpret, without changing the law. He
noted that HB 89 affected eight boroughs at the most.
MR. DIERDORFF was not aware of which of the eight general-
law boroughs had apportioned assemblies. He added that it
was possible that none did. He commented that every ten
years, after a census was conducted, non-home-rule boroughs
which had apportioned assemblies were required to
reapportion their assemblies, or at least review their
apportionment.
Number 146
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked if Mr. Dierdorff was
aware of the Alaska Municipal League's (AML's) position on
HB 89.
Number 150
MR. DIERDORFF was certain that the AML was aware of HB 89,
but he had not heard what its position was. He stated that
there were eight general law boroughs in Alaska, including
the Fairbanks North Star Borough and the Kodiak Island
Borough. He did not know whether any of those eight
general-law boroughs had apportioned assemblies.
Number 164
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned that the Kenai Peninsula
Borough had reapportioned its assembly the year before.
Number 169
MR. DIERDORFF commented that the Municipality of Anchorage
was a home-rule municipality.
Number 178
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked why the statute had not been
corrected until this time.
Number 184
MR. DIERDORFF responded that either the people who had to
use the statutes knew what they meant and did not bother to
read them carefully, or the statutes had been enacted and
never reviewed.
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER noted that the committee's legal
counsel had reviewed HB 89 and found that it did not change
the effect of the present statutes.
Number 206
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE HB 89
out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 92 next.
HB 92: REGULATION OF NOTARIES PUBLIC
Number 224
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 92,
explained that the bill would require all notaries to
maintain a current journal, which would protect the public
by providing valuable documentary evidence of notarization,
in the event that memory failed or the original documents
were altered or misplaced. He added that a journal could
protect a notary against a baseless lawsuit. He stated that
HB 92 would also mandate the use of a rubber inking stamp
instead of an embossed seal. He commented that many
embossed seals used today could not be legibly reproduced
when a document was copied or faxed.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT mentioned that the basic duty of a
notary was to serve the public as an impartial witness.
Current notary laws did not provide guidelines to notaries
on their roles as appointed ministerial officials of the
state, he said. House Bill 92 would give notaries specific
guidelines on impartiality, disqualifying interests, and
unauthorized practices. He said that he had introduced the
bill at the request of Lieutenant Governor Jack Coghill. He
noted that it was very similar to a bill which had passed
the House the year before.
Number 272
PATTY TROTT, NOTARY ADMINISTRATOR, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE, explained that notaries public were appointed by her
office to act as ministerial officials, with specific duties
prescribed in law. She stated that requiring notaries to
keep journals would be a form of insurance against senseless
lawsuits for the notaries. Additionally, she said that
journals would assist the Lieutenant Governor's Office in
that when questions regarding notarial acts arose, answers
could be easily obtained.
MS. TROTT mentioned that currently, notaries could use
either an embossed seal or a rubber inking stamp. She
commented that many times, when documents were faxed or
photocopied, embossed impressions did not appear clearly.
House Bill 92 would not preclude the use of an embossed seal
in addition to a rubber inking stamp, she noted. She
mentioned that the rubber inking stamp would also assist the
state Recorder's Office in its procedures.
MS. TROTT stated that HB 92 offered guidelines on specific
issues, including disqualification, impartiality, and the
unauthorized practice of law. Currently, she said, Alaska
notaries operated under no specific guidelines. She
explained that the present notary statutes had not been
updated since they were first enacted in 1960, with the
exception of a fee increase enacted in 1989.
Number 355
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Ms. Trott to comment on
changes made in section 11 of HB 92.
Number 360
MS. TROTT replied that, in the original version of HB 92,
seals and journals would be returned to the Lieutenant
Governor's Office upon a notary's death, resignation, or the
termination of that notary's commission. But, she said, the
House Labor and Commerce Committee had amended the bill so
as to require that only a notary's most recent address be
sent to the Lieutenant Governor's Office, in any of those
instances.
Number 371
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS was aware of several incidents on
the Kenai Peninsula over the last several years, in which a
notary's journal would have prevented problems. She
expressed an opinion that some notaries would find it
difficult to give up the traditional embossed seals,
however.
Number 390
MS. TROTT reiterated her comment that a notary could
continue to use an embossed seal, as long as it was in
addition to the rubber inking stamp.
Number 395
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Trott to comment on the
possible problem of notaries' inked seals being copied for
fraudulent purposes.
Number 402
MS. TROTT commented that the year before, when HB 394 was
introduced, it was thought that notaries could use blue ink.
However, she said that there was a civil court rule which
required that all court documents had to be in black ink.
She said that in her two and one-half years as a notary
administrator, she had never seen an instance of forgery
regarding a rubber inking stamp. She noted that if a notary
felt that the documents which he or she was notarizing might
be used for fraudulent purposes, he or she could use the
embossed seal.
Number 420
MS. TROTT said that in many cases, her office looked at
signatures, by which they could usually tell whether the
signature on the document in question was authentic.
Number 425
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that a notary could also initial
over a rubber inking stamp's seal.
Number 428
MS. TROTT stated that specific guidelines on how to prevent
forgery could be included in the Notary Handbook.
Number 435
CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that HB 92 required notaries, when
making journal entries, to also obtain the signature of the
person requesting the notarization.
Number 440
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Ms. Trott to tell the
committee where last year's notary bill had died.
MS. TROTT replied that, after unanimously passing the House,
HB 394 had died in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Number 446
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that a review by committee staff
had brought several areas of concern to his attention. He
called the committee's attention to language beginning on
page 2, line 6 of the work draft dated March 4, 1993, where
HB 92 referred to a "crime involving dishonesty." He asked
Ms. Trott if she thought that the bill should further define
a crime involving dishonesty. He also asked Ms. Trott if
she felt that the bill needed a provision that, if a person
was convicted of such a crime, his or her notary commission
would be revoked.
Number 460
MS. TROTT responded that HB 92 was written to comport with
the Model Notary Act of 1984. She said that crimes
involving dishonesty were not spelled out in that Act, but
added that the committee could choose to include a more
specific definition. She called the members' attention to
page 5, line 7, which addressed the procedures that must be
used when revoking a notary's commission. She mentioned
that currently, the state did not have specific guidelines
for revocation. House Bill 92 would give the lieutenant
governor the authority to adopt regulations regarding
revocation procedures, she noted, and the Notary Handbook
would detail those procedures further.
Number 481
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Trott if it was her intent to
specify, in regulations, that a person convicted of a crime
involving dishonesty would have his or her notary commission
revoked.
MS. TROTT replied in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN PORTER called the members' attention to language on
page 3, line 8 of HB 92, which stated that a notary would be
disqualified if he or she was related to the person who was
requesting notarization. He had received letters from
people who were concerned that this requirement would be a
hardship, particularly in small communities.
Number 502
MS. TROTT replied that notaries were commissioned to be
ministerial officials of the state. As such, she said, they
were appointed to be unbiased witnesses of signatures. She
commented that, when notarizing a spouse's signature, it
would be very hard to be unbiased.
Number 507
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS understood that this particular
provision had been a standard one for notaries throughout
the United States for many years.
Number 514
MS. TROTT stated that the National Notary Association and
the Intermountain Notary Institute both defined notaries as
people acting as unbiased witnesses, and recommended to all
notaries that they not notarize documents of relatives.
Number 529
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned language on page 3, line 19 of
HB 92, which held that a notary could not endorse or promote
a product, service, contest, or other offering if the
notary's title or seal was used in the endorsement or
promotion statement. He expressed concerns that this
provision, as written, might restrict a person's First
Amendment rights. He asked Ms. Trott if she concurred with
rewriting that provision, so as to say that a notary could
not use his or her seal to endorse or promote anything.
Number 542
MS. TROTT concurred with rewriting that language, but
suggested saying that a notary could not use his or her
commission, instead of seal.
Number 553
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned language regarding notary fees, at
the top of page 3 of the work draft. He had been told that
notaries charged a wide variety of fees, and asked Ms. Trott
how she would go about establishing what was a "normal fee,"
for the purposes of HB 92.
Number 572
MS. TROTT replied that the Lieutenant Governor's Office had
always viewed notaries as providing a service to the public.
In that light, she said, they recommended that notaries
charge from $2 to $5 for a notarization. House Bill 92 did
not address fees, she said, and a "normal" fee would simply
depend on a particular notary's practices. If anyone
complained that a notary charged too high of a fee, she
said, her office recommended that that person use the
services of another notary, including postmasters and
foreign service officers.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Trott if she would view a notary,
who traditionally charged high fees for her or his services,
to violate the bill's provision regarding "normal" fees.
Number 598
MS. TROTT replied that if a notary had a history of charging
a particular fee, then that fee would be considered that
notary's "normal" fee.
Number 603
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that if a notary was to
charge $10,000 for notarizing a document, she would consider
that unequivocal grounds for decertification of a notary.
Number 612
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, called the members' attention to page 3, line 13
of the draft committee substitute to HB 92, which stated
that a notary shall perform notarial acts unless there was a
reason not to. That provision was a new requirement for
notaries, she said. Under current law, she added, a notary
could decline to perform a notarial act, merely because he
or she was busy. The provision in HB 92, however, would
give a notary less ability to refuse to perform a notarial
act, she said.
Number 633
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Trott if it was the intent of that
language to prohibit a notary from declining to notarize a
document at any person's request.
Number 637
MS. TROTT stated that it had always been the policy of the
Lieutenant Governor's Office that notaries should notarize
documents brought to him or her in a lawful and reasonable
manner. If, however, a notary felt that a document might be
fraudulent or the person might be using fraudulent
identification, then the notary could refuse to perform the
notarial act. House Bill 92, she noted, adopted the policy
which had been recommended to notaries for years.
Number 651
CHAIRMAN PORTER understood the intent of the language.
However, from a practical standpoint, he expressed concern
that a notary working out of his or her home might be called
upon at any hour of the day or night to perform a notarial
act. In that situation, he said, a notary should be able to
refuse to perform a notarization.
Number 668
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS cited a situation in which a small
business in a small town performed notarizations. It might
not be convenient for a worker in that office to perform a
notarization at the drop of a hat, she said, and the law
should protect notaries.
Number 673
MS. TROTT stated that subsection (a) of proposed AS
44.50.072 embodied the "meat" of the impartiality clause.
She did not object to deleting subsection (b) from HB 92.
Number 681
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that a proposed committee
substitute for HB 92 would be drafted, incorporating
elements which the committee had discussed. He said that
the bill would be back before the committee when the
committee substitute was ready.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up
HB 81 next.
HB 81: PHASE OUT LONGEVITY BONUS
Number 691
RUPE ANDREWS, representing the AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
RETIRED PEOPLE (AARP), testified in opposition to HB 81. He
said that the bill would reverse a 20-year-old state policy
which provided economic stability to Alaska's senior
citizens. He said that the longevity bonus allowed senior
citizens to remain in Alaska and also to remain in their own
homes as long as possible. He said that HB 81 represented a
bad investment policy. He asserted that Alaska's senior
citizens contributed $1.2 billion per year to the state's
economy, not counting the longevity bonus and the permanent
fund dividend.
MR. ANDREWS mentioned that many states tried to attract
senior citizens because, as he said, "there is nothing more
portable than a retirement fund or a pension." He
questioned what the state's policy toward future Alaskan
senior citizens would be, if HB 81 was enacted. He stated
that years ago, retirees left the state, as they could not
afford to live in Alaska. He said that the longevity bonus
had been created, in order to give Alaska seniors more
economic stability and to enable them to continue to live in
Alaska. He commented that the governor recognized the
problems of senior citizens in Alaska.
MR. ANDREWS said that the governor had called a conference
of senior citizens, scheduled to meet in Juneau on April 8.
He suggested that the committee wait to act on HB 81 until
after the conference had taken place. He mentioned a
statement made by the Department of Administration
Commissioner, Nancy Usera, which he said was misleading. He
said that she had said that all current longevity bonus
recipients would continue to receive the bonus for life,
under the governor's proposal. He stated that, as what one
legislature could do another legislature could undo, Ms.
Usera's comments were somewhat misleading.
MR. ANDREWS also said that the longevity bonus should not be
tied to a person's income level.
Number 772
NANCY USERA, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,
recalled appearing before the House Finance Committee
approximately one year earlier. At that time, she said, the
price of oil had dropped, and there was talk of changing the
nature of the longevity bonus. That talk was of great
concern to the governor, she said. She stated that the
Hickel administration believed that it was extremely
important to deal with financial management issues of
government in the context of sound public policy. She
expressed the Hickel administration's belief that fiscal
responsibility and social responsibility went hand in hand.
MS. USERA stated that HB 81 had been developed to
"grandfather in" all current longevity bonus recipients, and
provided a three-year phase-out period for new recipients.
She supported the original HB 81, and opposed the State
Affairs committee substitute for the bill. She stated that
the Hickel administration's first priority was to protect
current recipients of the longevity bonus, who had become
dependent on the monthly income. She called the State
Affairs committee substitute irresponsible.
MS. USERA said that the state could afford a reasonable
financial transition for the longevity bonus program. She
encouraged the committee to support the governor's original
bill.
TAPE 93-46, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT asked Commissioner Usera if the
governor would veto the State Affairs Committee's version of
HB 81.
Number 020
MS. USERA replied that the governor was very committed to
his own proposal.
Number 025
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that due to her husband's age and
her own age, the longevity bonus was of personal concern to
her. She had been told that 40% of longevity bonus
recipients had not been in Alaska for more than three years.
Number 044
MS. USERA responded that the state's records for the past
several years indicated that approximately 20% of new
longevity bonus recipients were new Alaska residents. She
noted that when the longevity bonus program was created in
1973, its sole purpose was to provide an incentive for
Alaska residents to remain in the state. It was not
designed as a magnet, to bring new residents to Alaska, she
said. Nor was it designed as a needs-based program.
However, the original program was found to be
unconstitutional in 1983, and had changed dramatically since
then.
Number 063
MS. USERA mentioned that in 1973, there were 4,000 longevity
bonus recipients. Each one met the original requirements
that they be at least 65 years old, had lived in Alaska for
at least 25 years, and had been in Alaska since statehood.
Today, she said, there were 23,000 people on the program, a
good portion of whom were recent immigrants to Alaska.
Number 093
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Commissioner Usera approximately
how many of the original longevity bonus recipients were
still on the program.
Number 105
MS. USERA replied that approximately 400 of the original
recipients were still receiving the longevity bonus. She
noted that the governor would entertain proposals for other
cost-effective incentives for senior citizens to remain in
Alaska. She stated that if someone could come up with a
cost-effective annuity program, the governor's office would
be happy to look at it. She noted that current annuity
proposals before the legislature were not cost-effective.
MS. USERA stated that longevity bonus bills had been before
the legislature for seven years, and a solution to the
continuing financial drain on the state had yet to be
forged. For each year that went by, she said, an additional
$150 million in liability to the state was incurred. She
believed that the original HB 81 was a good first step
toward solving the problem of the longevity bonus.
Number 181
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that there were seven very
active senior centers on the Kenai Peninsula. When the
governor's bill was first released, she said, she did not
receive very much input from those seniors. But what was
most important to them, she said, was that existing
recipients be grandfathered into the program.
Number 199
REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON questioned what HB 81 would do
to those Alaskans aged 60-65, who were not yet receiving the
longevity bonus, but who were counting on receiving it in
the future. It was those Alaskans that the state would
probably lose as a result of the phase-out, he added.
Number 214
MS. USERA stated that Representative Davidson's comment had
pointed out one reason why the governor was very committed
to implementing a phase-out of the longevity bonus program.
Number 232
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said that the state lost a great
deal when it lost the experience of its senior citizens. He
noted that the state could be more creative in its efforts
to assist those people who would need something like the
longevity bonus in the future. He commented that the
longevity bonus program clearly costs the state a great deal
of money, but said that at some point it pushed people out
of their homes and created an even bigger expense for state
government, and even forced people out of Alaska.
Number 269
CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the committee not make
amendments to HB 81. He said that the House Finance
Committee would be a more appropriate place in which to
amend the bill. He said that as a resident of Alaska for
more than 40 years, he had looked forward to receiving the
longevity bonus. However, he said, reality was reality. He
noted that it was irresponsible to add costs to the
longevity bonus program, as the governor's version of HB 81
would do.
CHAIRMAN PORTER observed that, due to discussions that had
been going on over the last few years, people were aware
that the longevity bonus might disappear some day. He
mentioned the original intent of the program, which was to
give something back to those pioneers who had helped to
settle Alaska. He was supportive a motion to move the bill
out of committee.
Number 324
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 81 (STA).
Number 339
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked if it was correct that the
bill currently before the committee was the State Affairs
committee substitute for HB 81.
MS. HORETSKI said that it was her understanding that the
committee had both the State Affairs committee substitute
and the original bill before it, and could report out either
one.
Number 347
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection to the adoption of the
State Affairs committee substitute for HB 81, said that that
version of the bill was now before the committee.
Number 352
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT mentioned that he had an amendment to
offer, but would hold it for the time being and bring it to
the attention of the House Finance Committee instead.
Number 361
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the House Finance Committee would
scrutinize HB 81.
Number 367
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 81 (STA) out
of committee, with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note.
Number 371
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON OBJECTED. He said that, due to the
impact of other changes the legislature was making affecting
senior citizens on fixed-incomes, he could not allow the
bill to go forward without objection. In his opinion, the
longevity bonus was not a subsidy, but a benefit provided in
appreciation of the contributions of senior citizens.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to move the bill
out of committee. Representatives Green, Kott, James, and
Porter voted "YEA." Representatives Davidson and Nordlund
voted "NAY." And so, the bill MOVED OUT of committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 2:21 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|