Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/25/1996 01:30 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 25, 1996
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 512
"An Act establishing English as the common language and related to
the use of English in public records and at public meetings of
state agencies."
- MOVED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 536
"An Act relating to charitable gaming."
- MOVED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 368
"An Act relating to election campaigns, election campaign
financing, the oversight and regulation of election campaigns by
the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists
that relate to election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses
of campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective date."
- CSHB 368 (JUD) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 443
"An Act relating to the tax on transfers or consumption of motor
fuel, and repealing the exemption from that tax for motor fuel
which is at least 10 percent alcohol by volume; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 474
"An Act relating to violations of municipal ordinances and
regulations; and amending the definition of the jurisdiction of the
superior court and the Department of Health and Social Services
over delinquent minors to add a further exclusion from that
jurisdiction for a minor's violation of a municipal ordinance or
regulation that is punishable as an infraction or violation, and
making a related technical amendment to that jurisdictional
definition."
- CSHB 474 (JUD) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 512
SHORT TITLE: ENGLISH AS THE COMMON LANGUAGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT, Barnes, Green, Kohring
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/96 2728 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2729 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
02/27/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/27/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/05/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/08/96 3042 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/12/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/12/96 3101 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
03/14/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/14/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/19/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/19/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/20/96 3213 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 2DP 2DNP 2NR 1AM
03/20/96 3213 (H) DP: TOOHEY, VEZEY
03/20/96 3214 (H) DNP: ROBINSON, BRICE
03/20/96 3214 (H) NR: G.DAVIS, BUNDE
03/20/96 3214 (H) AM: ROKEBERG
03/20/96 3214 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV/ALL DEPTS)
03/20/96 3214 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
03/25/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 536
SHORT TITLE: CHARITABLE GAMING:PERCENTAGE TO CHARITY
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/29/96 2962 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/29/96 2962 (H) JUDICIARY
03/08/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/08/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/11/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/25/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 368
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2362 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2362 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2362 (H) STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/25/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/25/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/30/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/01/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/01/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/29/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/29/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/05/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/05/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/96 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/09/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/12/96 3087 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 2DP 3NR
03/12/96 3088 (H) DP: JAMES, PORTER
03/12/96 3088 (H) NR: GREEN, IVAN, ROBINSON
03/12/96 3088 (H) FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
03/20/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/20/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/22/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/22/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
BILL: HB 443
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE MOTOR FUEL TAX
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LONG RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN CMSN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/96 2508 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/22/96 2508 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/12/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/12/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/96 3175 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 2DP 3NR
03/18/96 3175 (H) DP: JAMES, PORTER
03/18/96 3175 (H) NR: OGAN, ROBINSON, WILLIS
03/18/96 3176 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DOT)
03/18/96 3176 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
03/20/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/20/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/22/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/22/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
BILL: HB 474
SHORT TITLE: VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) TOOHEY, Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/07/96 2648 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/07/96 2649 (H) CRA, HES, JUDICIARY
02/28/96 2944 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY
02/29/96 (H) CRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/29/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/07/96 (H) CRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 124
03/07/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/08/96 3024 (H) CRA RPT 1DP 1DNP 4NR
03/08/96 3025 (H) DP: IVAN
03/08/96 3025 (H) DNP: ELTON
03/08/96 3025 (H) NR: MACKIE, AUSTERMAN, VEZEY, KOTT
03/08/96 3025 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, DCRA, DPS)
03/12/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/12/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/13/96 3109 (H) HES RPT 4DP 1NR 2AM
03/13/96 3109 (H) DP: ROKEBERG, BUNDE, TOOHEY, VEZEY
03/13/96 3109 (H) NR: BRICE
03/13/96 3109 (H) AM: G.DAVIS, ROBINSON
03/13/96 3110 (H) 3 ZERO FNS (DHSS, DCRA, DPS) 3/8/96
03/22/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/22/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
WITNESS REGISTER
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division, Department of Law
State of Alaska
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907)465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and proposed
amendment to HB 368
BROOKE MILES
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110222
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0222
Telephone: (907)465-4864
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information with regard
to HB 368
RICHARD B. LAUBER, Lobbyist
Pacific Seafood Processors Association
321 Highland Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907)586-6366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 443
ROBERT BARTHOLOMEW, Assistant Director
Income & Excise Tax Division
Department of Revenue
State of Alaska
10th Floor State Office Building
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907)465-4773
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information with regard to HB 443
MARY HUGHES, Attorney
Municipality of Anchorage
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650
Telephone: (907)343-4431
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 474
BOB BAILEY
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce
3840 Spenard Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907)279-3511
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 474
DUANE UPLAND, Deputy Chief
Anchorage Police Department
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650
TELEPHONE: (907)343-4431
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 474
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-42, SIDE A
Number 0025
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER called the House Judiciary committee meeting
to order at 1:30 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Porter, Bunde, Toohey, and Davis. Representatives
Green and Vezey arrived shortly thereafter.
HB 512 - ENGLISH AS THE COMMON LANGUAGE
HB 536 - CHARITABLE GAMING:PERCENTAGE TO CHARITY
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 512, ENGLISH AS THE COMMON
LANGUAGE, would go to a subcommittee, to be chaired by
Representative Vezey. Other members will be Representatives Toohey
and Davis. HB 536, CHARITABLE GAMING: PERCENTAGE TO CHARITY, will
also go to a subcommittee, to be chaired by Representative Porter.
Representatives Green and Finkelstein will be members of the
subcommittee.
HB 368 ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Number 0210
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the first order of business before
the House Judiciary Committee was HOUSE BILL NO. 368, "An Act
relating to election campaigns, election campaign financing, the
oversight and regulation of election campaigns by the Alaska Public
Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists that relate to
election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses of campaign
misconduct; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the committee has already taken up HB
368 in two different hearings. Several amendments are now before
the committee, in response to concerns raised by the Department of
Law.
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, stated that she would like to address a proposed
amendment to the criminal provisions of HB 368, which begin on page
24. The amendment prohibits knowingly engaging in conduct that
violates a provision of AS 15.13 or a regulation adopted under AS
15.13. The department is requesting this because they can prove
knowingly violating a statute, as opposed to intentionally
violating, which is not how the criminal law is written. The
amendment would also remove Subsection B, because the section does
not relate to the state prosecution of criminal violations. It may
have another meaning, in relation to federal violations.
MS. CARPENETI further noted that under Campaign Misconduct In The
Second Degree, the amendment makes a change on page 25, in
connection with the prohibitions starting on page 24, "knowingly
write or print or circulate material that would provoke a
reasonable person under the circumstances to a breach of the
peace." The department added the phrase, "or that a reasonable
person would construe as damaging to the candidate's reputation,"
to clarify what is a reasonable person's standard.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the proposed amendment would be number
17.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to move amendment number 17.
MS. CARPENETI stated that she had not completed her discussion of
the amendment. On page 24, lines 4 - 7 were deleted, because the
material is covered under campaign misconduct in the first degree,
"knowingly engaging in conduct that violates a provision," rather
than "knowingly violating a provision."
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the version being amended was CSHB 368
version F.
MS. CARPENETI responded in the affirmative. She further stated
that, on page 25, the department's amendment would delete the
material on lines 5 - 7. This would delete the provision which
states that "violation of this section is a corrupt practice." In
terms of state prosecution, this provision is not necessary. On
page 25, line 10, the amendment inserts the word "if." The
material on lines 11 and 12 of page 25 would be replaced with the
following: "If a person violates a provision of AS 15.13, or a
regulation adopted under AS 15.13 ...". This would be a strict
liability, and would bring the language in line with criminal
prosecution in the state. In connection with that, the department
would delete the word "intentionally" on line 16, page 25, so that
if a person is within 200 yards, their intent does not have to be
proved. On line 23, since the provision on line 5 has been
deleted, the reference to it must be deleted from line 23.
Number 0746
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked if the committee should adopt
version G as the working version.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee had adopted the
amendments piece by piece. He noted that the committee should ask
the bill drafter to make the conforming amendments. Version G is
the amended version that conforms to what was adopted at the last
meeting. Chairman Porter asked if there was any objection to
adopting version G as the working draft.
Number 0819
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN commented that the amendments
being considered were prepared for the prior version of the bill.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the committee would preface each
amendment by stating that the bill drafter should make it conform
to the page and line of the new version. There being no objection,
CSHB 368 version G was adopted as the working version.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move amendment 17, with the
stipulation that the bill drafter make the amendment conform to
version G.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that much of the material
contained in the amendment was unfamiliar, and he wasn't sure that
he understood its significance. Some of the changes to provisions
of existing law, for instance, have nothing to do with the bill
itself. He stated that he had no objections, because he didn't
know enough about the law.
MS. CARPENETI responded that she would be happy to get information
from people who know more about elections, per se.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked why the committee would get rid of
language in existing law, without knowing what it means.
MS. CARPENETI responded that she was trying to make the language
conform to the way criminal prosecution is handled.
Number 0914
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN proposed that the committee remove the
section which would delete existing language from the proposed
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY stated that he didn't believe the amendment
actually changed the bill. He further stated, "I am absolutely
amazed that we are making it a misdemeanor to put out some sort of
advertisement that would make somebody else fighting mad."
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that that was the existing law,
and was not affected either by the initiative or the bill, prior to
the proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that it would now be campaign
misconduct in the second degree, which is a misdemeanor class B.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that the conduct is now considered
a class A misdemeanor, and the amendment would make it a class B
misdemeanor.
Number 0993
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that all violations of AS 15.13
could be treated as misdemeanors. Virtually all violations of AS
15.13 also have a civil fine. Violations are normally pursued
under civil penalties, rather than as misdemeanors. He reiterated
that the entire section strikes him as rather odd.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that the committee was actually
considering AS 15.56, election offices corrupt practices and
penalties. He said his only point was that the initiative would
not affect those particular violations.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Brooke Miles to address the committee.
Number 1066
BROOKE MILES, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), Department
of Administration, stated that the reference to corrupt practices
is contained in current law, although it is not a part of the law
over which the APOC has purview. It is in the election code under
AS 15.56, and it refers to election misconduct. Ms. Miles stated
that she is somewhat familiar with the provisions, because the APOC
sometimes receives concerns from members of the public about truth
in public advertising. The only place where that issue is
addressed is AS 15.56.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Carpeneti if she felt the issue was a
policy call.
MS. CARPENETI responded that it is a policy call.
Number 1139
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if Ms. Carpeneti was upset with the
definition of corrupt practices.
MS. CARPENETI responded that she was not upset. She stated it was
a policy call, whether to leave the section in or take it out, and
would not affect the criminal division.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that he was proposing an
amendment to the amendment, which would change page 25, lines 4 -
7, to lines 4 - 6, by deleting the referenced section.
Number 1166
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted the amendment to proposed amendment number
17. On the third reference to page 25, lines 4 - 7, the amendment
to the amendment would change the reference to lines 4 - 6.
MS. CARPENETI interjected that the committee would also want to
add, under campaign misconduct in the first degree, that violation
of this subject is a corrupt practice.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that his amendment was a
conceptual amendment.
CHAIRMAN PORTER reiterated that the amendment to the amendment was
to reincorporate the reference to corrupt practices, in the two
places where amendment number 17 removed it.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected, on the grounds that he did not
understand the proposed amendment to the amendment.
Number 1253
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that Ms. Carpeneti was proposing to
take out a reference that the committee didn't understand, and
Representative Finkelstein was proposing to leave in the reference,
for the same reason. He further noted that he understood the
reference was in existing statute.
MS. CARPENETI apologized for bringing up the issue.
Number 1295
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated he was inclined to defer to the existing
law, in the case where he did not understand something.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that there were several more
proposed amendments, and suggested that this issue be moved to the
bottom of the list.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the proposed amendment number 17 would
be put aside for the time being. He announced that the next order
of business was proposed amendment number 18, version F.11, dated
3/23/96. He explained that the amendment addresses the court
system's concern about the need for a jury trial or public
appointed council in cases of election law civil violations.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked who had proposed the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if there are other civil actions where
statutes specifically proscribe a jury trial.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that there are. In small claims actions,
for instance, the value of the claim is not high enough to justify
the cost of a jury trial.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that the possible damages in this
type of case would be greater.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the rationale was, this would
actually be an appeal.
Number 1540
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to adopt amendment number 18.
Hearing no objection, amendment number 18 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to adopt proposed amendment
number 19.
CHAIRMAN PORTER objected, for purposes of discussion.
Number 1588
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that the proposed amendment speaks
to the disposition of a candidate's campaign account. He noted
that the amendment refers to the previous CS, and would need to be
redrafted to conform to the present version.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted for the record that all amendments offered
today would be so conformed.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE continued his explanation of the proposed
amendment number 18. It would insert new bill sections, regarding
the balance left in a campaign account after the election, and
would stipulate that the funds cannot be used as personal income.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if this was a different amendment
from the one proposed at the last meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that the premise that any
personal use of campaign funds would be allowed by HB 368 is wrong.
He stated that the bill absolutely bans in specific terms any
personal use of campaign funds. The money can only be carried
forward to the next campaign, for a list of specific campaign uses.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he did not believe the bill speaks
to what happens to the leftover money. This amendment would do
that.
Number 1672
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that the bill adds to the
allowable uses of surplus campaign funds, by saying that $5,000 can
be carried forward for an account for future election campaigns.
That is on page 15, line 17. Once funds are put into an election
account, they fall under use of campaign funds, which is already in
the bill. There is never an opportunity to take the funds as
personal income. Should a person decide not to run again, the
funds must be donated to a party, returned to contributors, donated
to a 501(C)(3) charitable group, or given to the state or
municipalities. There is no opportunity available for personal use
of campaign funds.
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS noted that under current law, a
candidate can take campaign funds for personal use.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN concurred. The proposed bill being
amended, HB 368, prohibits any personal use of campaign funds.
Therefore, he questioned the need for the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that the language of the bill could
conceivably allow a person to say that they might run for office at
some point in the future, and put up to $5,000 away for that
purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded that the section on pages 14
and 15, regarding dispersement of campaign assets after elections,
deals with that issue. He commented that the proposed amendment
was confusing, and might actually weaken the bill, by use of the
term "surplus balance." The bill currently states that any funds,
whether surplus balance or not, can never be used as personal
income.
Number 1909
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that because the use of surplus funds
as personal income was not specifically prohibited by the bill, he
thought the amendment was necessary. He then proposed a conceptual
amendment related to funds accrued before the effective date of HB
368, so that those existing funds would fall under the terms of the
bill. He also stated that he would like to see the effective date
for this section occur before the upcoming primary election, so
that candidates can make decisions accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that the concept was interesting.
He suggested a conceptual amendment, which would make the
provisions related to personal use of campaign funds effective as
of July 1, 1996. The remainder of the bill would not take effect
until January 1, 1997.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the amendment would need to be rewritten.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he was comfortable with adopting
Section B only, if the committee concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested that the easiest way to
proceed would be to modify the amendment, as follows: "Lines 28
and 29 of page 13 go into effect on July 1, 1996."
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that amendment number 19, left to the bill
drafter to craft appropriately, would say on page 13 of version F,
lines 28 and 29 have an effective date of July 1, 1996. There
being no objection, proposed amendment number 19, as modified, was
adopted.
Number 2080
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN then returned to the discussion of the
proposed amendment number 17. He explained that the reference to
corrupt practices ties the law into AS 15.56, which states that
corrupt practices trials receive expedited treatment. He stated
that he did not have a strong feeling regarding the provision.
MS. CARPENETI stated that she thought it would be best to leave the
existing language in the section.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the committee would accept a conceptual
amendment to amendment number 17, deleting the two references to
the corrupt practices act.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked for an explanation.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that existing law would be left as is.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained that AS 15.56.115 says that
cases involving elections matters shall be promptly tried, and the
case shall be accorded a preferred status to ensure a speedy
disposition.
CHAIRMAN PORTER reiterated that the provision is already in
existing statutes. Hearing no objection, the proposed amendment to
amendment number 17 was adopted.
Number 2212
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to adopt amendment number
17, as amended. Hearing no objection, amendment number 17 to CSHB
368 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the Department of Law had further
concerns.
MS. CARPENETI responded that all concerns had been addressed.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were other proposed amendments.
Number 2288
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that he had two proposed
amendments, one with two alternatives. It was pointed out at the
last meeting that there was an internal inconsistency in the
proposed bill. On page 5 of the previous version, the basic tenets
of who can make campaign contributions are laid out. Groups can
give, to a limited degree, to other groups. The committee seemed
to have some interest in eliminating the ability of groups to give
to groups. The approach in the House State Affairs version is that
groups can give to groups at the same level as they can give to
anyone else, which is a $1,000 contribution. Representative
Finkelstein stated that his goal is to make sure the section is
clear.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said he was trying to think of a situation where a
group, which is two or more people gathered together for the
purpose of influencing an election, would give money to another
group.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that groups, such as the
Associated General Contractors, sometimes decide to give money to
a political party. In this context, the word "group" also applies
to a political party. Without this approach, only individuals--as
opposed to groups--can donate to political parties.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that this provision would allow, for
instance, the Republican Women's Club to give to the Republican
party.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the issue is, should such groups be
allowed to donate to political parties. In the instance where a
group is actually a sub-group of a political party, they should not
be able to.
TAPE 96-42, SIDE B
Number 0002
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated that the provision refers to groups in
general. For instance, a group might want to influence an issue,
but they don't have much money. Under this provision, they could
donate their money to another group, which might be able to exert
more influence.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the committee needs to think in
terms of ballot propositions, in addition to candidates. Ballot
propositions are seldom, if ever, advocated by individuals. They
are almost always advocated by a group. This creates the group to
group relationship.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that this particular view of
amendment number 19 is alternative 2.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that it was proposed amendment number 20, not
number 19. He asked if there was any objection to adopting
amendment number 20, alternative 2, version F.12 dated 3/25/96.
Hearing no objection, amendment number 20 to CSHB 368 was adopted.
Number 0106
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN proposed a conceptual amendment to the
new bill version, on page 18, line 8. The amendment would insert
the phrase "$50 per day for each day the delinquency continues,"
between "then" and "as". The entire amendment results from a
drafting problem in the original bill. Representative Finkelstein
further noted that there should be civil penalties for these
offenses, with a maximum fine and a per day charge, because people
need a greater incentive to correct delinquencies.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the committee was considering version
G or version F.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted, for purposes of clarification, that the
amendment would require two changes. It would change line 4, from
$500 back to $50, and at line 8, insert "not more than $50 per
day."
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded that the amendment would not
change line 4. According to the section, there are three levels of
violations. There are reporting violations, which are $50. There
are special reporting violations, which are $500. This last
category covers all other potential violations. The amount does
not need to be $50. It could be $25, but the important thing is
that there is a provision allowing for civil penalties.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what was being deleted.
Number 0302
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded that nothing was being
deleted, but rather the phrase "$50 per day for each day of
delinquency" was being inserted. He further explained that the
APOC has complete discretion to lower fines. The per day is for
the amount of time that the person fails to address the violation.
This approach is consistent with the current APOC structure, which
seems to be widely supported.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why the committee would want to let the
fine become so large. He noted that $500 is a substantial fine,
and the offenses are misdemeanors.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded that this was the civil
penalty provision, and that misdemeanor provisions would not apply.
It is true that violations can accumulate; however, APOC will lower
fines if the violation was unintentional, and the circumstances are
explained. The amendment and the proposed changes are intended to
achieve consistency with current law.
Number 0346
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that it was his understanding that the
proposed bill says that a person who violates the provisions of AS
15.13, other than a reporting violation, would be subject to a per
day fine. How can a per day fine be applied to a violation of that
nature?
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded that the commission has
discretion, for that exact reason. Some cases will not require a
cumulative fine. However, there are major circumstances that can
fall under this provision. For instance, knowingly attempting to
receive non-allowable donations would not be a reporting violation.
In such a case, the APOC might choose to apply the $50 per day
fine. More likely, they would set a cap on the fine.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asserted that the commission would then have
carte blanche to set the level of fines.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded that the current level, for
reporting violations, is already $50 per day. However, this is
only the maximum allowable fine. The commission reserves the
highest fines for the worse cases.
Number 0496
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what is the existing law in regard to APOC's
ability to impose fines for offenses not related to reporting.
MS. MILES explained that current statute allows for civil penalties
only for late reports, and are per day penalties. Thirty days
before election reports, ten day after election reports, and year
end reports are fined at a maximum of ten dollars per day. This
level would not be changed in the proposed bill. The report that
is filed seven days prior to an election, and the 24 hour reports,
where a candidate must report larger contributions within the ten
days just prior to an election, are currently fined at $50 per day.
These are reporting violations only. At present, the commission
does not have civil penalty authority for other provisions of the
law; for example, not identifying who paid for an advertisement.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked about line 4, referring to violation of AS
110.(A)(2) and 110(B). Does the $500 per day refer only to the
last two reports?
MS. MILES responded that, yes, the $500 per day refers only to the
24 hour and the 7-day reports. The $50 per day would apply to
other reporting violations.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the wording of the statute is confusing.
Number 0680
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that Ms. Miles was referring to
the $50 per day on the previous page, page 17, line 2. This $50
does apply to other, non-reporting violations. The problem is that
the initiative takes a completely different approach. It states
that all violations are subject to a maximum penalty of $500 per
day, if certain standards are met. The standards relate to a state
of mind. The State Affairs committee was trying to keep the new
bill as close as possible to current law. He stated that his
proposed amendment would allow a broader application of civil
penalties, but would not disturb the APOC's existing fee structure.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was further discussion of the
amendment under discussion, amendment number 21.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if the amendment would insert the phrase
"$50 per day for each day."
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that that was accurate. Amendment 21 would
amend page 8, line 18, of version G, to insert the phrase, "$50 per
day for each day the delinquency continues" between the words
"than" and "as."
Number 0723
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to adopt amendment number
21.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected.
CHAIRMAN PORTER requested that a roll call vote be taken.
Representatives Toohey, Davis, Finkelstein, and Bunde voted yes.
Representatives Green and Vezey voted no. Therefore, amendment
number 21 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked for discussion of version G, page 18,
line 4, regarding the $500 per day amount.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the existing law imposes higher
level fines for violations of reports that are due under short
deadlines, immediately before and after an election. This
provision recognizes that these are more serious violations.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Miles what would be the current
maximum fine.
Number 0611
MS. MILES responded that the maximum fine is currently $50 per day
for late 24-hour report and late 7-day reports, and $10 per day for
other reports.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that these levels would be raised to $500 and
$50, under the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN commented that this was the maximum
allowable fine, and would only apply to a tiny proportion of actual
offenses.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were any other proposed amendments
to CSHB 368.
Number 1009
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion that the committee pass out
CSHB 368, as amended, with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, CSHB 368 was passed out of the
House Judiciary Committee.
HB 443 - INCREASE MOTOR FUEL TAX
Number 1084
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the next order of business to come
before the House Judiciary Committee was HOUSE BILL NO. 443, "An
Act relating to the tax on transfers or consumption of motor fuel,
and repealing the exemption from that tax for motor fuel which is
at least 10 percent alcohol by volume; and providing for an
effective date." He noted that the bill was introduced at the
request of the Long Range Fiscal Planning Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if the State Affairs CS was before the
committee.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded in the affirmative. He asked if there
was anyone on the teleconference line who wished to testify on HB
443. Hearing no response, the Chairman invited Rick Lauber to
testify.
Number 1454
RICHARD B. LAUBER, a lobbyist for Pacific Seafood Processors
Association, stated that he did not know when the time would be for
HB 443, but that it certainly was not now. He emphasized that this
is probably the worst time in the history of the state for the
seafood processing industry. Virtually every aspect of the
industry is in trouble. In the last year, the processing sector
has lost millions--possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. The
outlook for the 1996 fishing season is the worst ever. For
example, a processor who was selling a case of canned pink salmon,
a year ago would have sold it for about $18 per case. At the close
of the 1995 season, the offering price for the same case was
$16.25. There were no takers. Today, that same case of salmon is
selling for about $10 per case. In Japan today, there is a glut of
surimi, with over a 6-month supply. In the United States, there is
over 6-months supply, not even taking into account the amount of
product in the cold storage of individual producers. This does not
bode well for the rest of 1996, in that portion of the bottom fish
industry. Every species is experiencing similar problems. Last
year, processors were paying about 15 to 20 cents per pound for
refrigerated sea water pink salmon. One major processor recently
notified fishermen that the base price this year will be 5 cents
per pound, and that the refrigerated sea water price will be 6
cents per pound.
MR. LAUBER further noted that this will make it extremely difficult
for fishermen to survive economically. To add increased fuel costs
to the overall costs of doing business would present an
insurmountable burden. The current marine fuel tax is 5 cents per
gallon. If a fisherman delivers to a floating processor, that
processor pays 5 percent of the ex-vessel price to the state of
Alaska. The local sales tax on fish is 3 percent. The Alaska
Seafood Marketing institute state tax, combined between fishermen
and processors, is 1.3 percent. The fishermen also have to pay
fees to the Limited Entry Commission. Thus, taxes add up to
somewhere between 10 and 12 percent. On top of that, there are
additional taxes, such as the current marine fuel tax. Mr. Lauber
stated that he understands the desire of the Long Range Fiscal
Planning Commission to raise revenue. He asserted that very few of
the commission members have any knowledge of the seafood industry.
Perhaps the commission members were not aware of the crisis in the
fishing industry, which is the largest private employer in the
state of Alaska. Mr. Lauber reiterated that neither processors nor
fisherman can afford an increase in the current motor fuel tax.
Number 1679
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the proposed bill is now tied to a
constitutional amendment, which would allow the funds to be
dedicated. He asked if, from Mr. Lauber's perspective, that would
be an improvement.
MR. LAUBER responded that, in the event a fisherman could not
afford to go fishing, he would certainly need some place to tie up
his boat. However, the crying need in the industry is not for
ports and harbor improvements. He further stated that he has heard
the statement, "the best thing a legislature can do is do no harm."
Right now, the industry appreciates the thought of taxes to improve
harbors, but the first priority at present is simply to stay in
business.
Number 1760
ROBERT BARTHOLOMEW, Assistant Director, Income & Excise Tax
Division, Department of Revenue, stated that he would review the
fiscal impact of the proposed bill. The current CSHB 443 does tie
any potential tax increase to a dedicated fund. The bill would
raise three taxes: the highway motor fuel tax, the off-highway
motor vehicle tax (for heavy equipment), and the marine motor fuel
tax. The highway motor fuel tax would increase 7 cents per gallon
in FY 98 and 7 cents per gallon in FY 99, raising the total tax to
22 cents per gallon, which is the average of the 50 states. This
motor fuel tax has not been raised in 55 years. The off-highway
tax, which currently generates $3 to $4 million per year, is now 2
cents per gallon. The bill would raise the tax to 6 cents per
gallon, over a two year period. The marine motor fuel tax is
currently 5 cents per gallon. The proposed bill would raise it to
8 cents. Last year, the legislature passed a bill raising the
marine motor fuel tax to 8 cents. The governor vetoed that bill,
asking that it be looked at in the bigger context of other motor
fuels and potential dedication. This bill is the result.
Number 1927
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if the legislation which passed last
year included a dedicated fund.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW responded that the bill would have put revenue into
the general fund, and asked that it be shared back to the
localities where the fuel tax was collected. This would have
created administrative problems, because tax is collected at the
retail, rather than wholesale, level. The fiscal note to HB 443
points out potential revenue increases, which are significant. In
the second year, new revenue of about $53 million per year would be
generated. Another portion of the bill repeals the gasohol tax
exemption. This exemption was originally put in to encourage the
use of Matanuska grown products as alternative gas. Current
estimates are that the exemption for gasohol (or ethanol) fuel use-
-which is now required by the EPA during certain months--will grow
to a loss of $6 million per year in revenue in FY 96. This fuel is
being sold not only during the four months required by the EPA, but
year round. The department used to collect $23 million per year in
highway fuel taxes; it projects collecting only $17 million for FY
96, due to this exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if the department feels the bill should
be amended to limit the time when ethanol fuel can be sold to the
winter months.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW responded that the Department of Environmental
Conservation should probably address that issue. It would probably
be best to tax ethanol fuel, rather than restrict its sale, since
it is a clean burning fuel.
Number 2119
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the original reason for the exemption
was to promote an Alaskan business, which never came into being.
So there is no longer any reason to continue the exemption.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW concurred. He noted that HB 443 is trying to close
the fiscal gap, and also to bring the tax in line with what is paid
in other states. The department is also requesting funding for a
position, to enhance monitoring of motor fuel compliance.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that, there being no further witnesses,
the public hearing on HB 443 was closed.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to table HB 443.
Number 2311
CHAIRMAN PORTER objected to the motion, for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY stated that the state's economy is such that
the proposed bill is a bad idea. She further noted that she had
promised her constituents she would not raise taxes, and the
proposed tax would increase the burdens on industry. She stated
that she thought increasing taxes at the present time was a poor
policy.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that representatives of the trucking industry
had missed their opportunity to testify on HB 443, because of the
length of the committee's deliberations on campaign finance reform.
He commented that the Executive Director of the trucking
association had indicated he would not oppose the bill, because of
the provision tying it to a constitutional amendment, which would
allow the public to vote on the tax. If the public voted for the
tax, a dedicated fund would be created. For that reason, and that
reason only, he opposed the motion.
TAPE 96-43, SIDE A
Number 0011
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY requested that Representative Vezey be
located, so that a full vote of the committee could be taken.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that he supported Representative
Toohey's motion, for a different reason. He asserted that the
issue of a constitutional amendment, and the creation of a
dedicated fund, should not be on the floor for a vote by the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked what would prevent the committee from
coming back on another day and moving the bill.
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that it was certainly possible for the
committee to vote to rescind its action. The committee took a
brief at-ease.
Number 0237
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would consider a
motion to table CSHB 443, amended.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that other tax bills are also before the
legislature. One, the tobacco tax, is supported by 75 percent of
the people that he has heard from. He has not heard from anyone
supporting HB 443.
CHAIRMAN PORTER requested a roll call vote on the motion to table
CSHB 443. Representatives Toohey, Davis, Finkelstein, Green, and
Bunde voted yes. Chairman Porter voted no. The House Judiciary
Committee tabled CSHB 443.
HB 474 - VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES & REGS
Number 0390
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the next order of business to come
before the committee was HB 474. He noted that only 5 minutes
remained on the teleconference line.
MARY HUGHES, attorney for the Municipality of Anchorage, testified
via teleconference. Ms Hughes noted that a CS is before the
committee, and stated that the Municipality of Anchorage supports
CSHB 474.
BOB BAILEY, representing the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce,
testified via teleconference. The Anchorage Chamber of Commerce
has passed a resolution in support of HB 474. The Chamber feels
that HB 474 is a good, first line of defense against juvenile
crime.
DUANE UPLAND, Deputy Chief, Anchorage Police Department, testified
via teleconference. He stated that the department supports CSHB
474.
Number 0524
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Hughes to explain the revised bill to the
committee.
MS. HUGHES explained that CSHB 474 revises the initial bill, which
gave municipalities jurisdiction over both civil and criminal
infractions of juvenile offenders, in certain circumstances. The
committee substitute limits jurisdiction to those municipal
infractions on the civil side. The CS amends both Title 29, the
municipal ordinance, and Title 37, which is the juvenile code. On
the criminal side, the municipalities will work with the civil
infraction system, and wait for the task force recommendation in
September. Ms. Hughes added that the CS solves the concerns of
both the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) and the
Department of Law.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that DFYS and Department of Law
representatives were both present, and both agreed. There being no
further witnesses, Chairman Porter announced that public testimony
on HB 474 was closed. He noted that HB 474 allows municipalities
to participate in the juvenile justice system to the extent of
allowing them to deal with juveniles who commit violations of
municipal ordinances, from a civil perspective.
Number 0745
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion that the committee adopt CSHB
474, version K. Hearing no objection, the CS was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS made a motion to move CSHB 474, with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no
objection, CSHB 474 was passed out of the House Judiciary
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0781
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the House Judiciary Committee
meeting was adjourned at 3:16 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|