Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/30/2001 01:16 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 2001
1:16 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 177
"An Act placing certain special interest organizations within
the definition of 'group' for purposes of Alaska's campaign
finance statutes; providing a contingent amendment to take
effect in case subjecting these organizations to all of the
statutory requirements pertaining to groups is held by a court
to be unconstitutional; requiring certain organizations to
disclose contributions made to them and expenditures made by
them; requiring disclosure of the true source of campaign
contributions; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 179
"An Act relating to underage drinking and drug offenses; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 4
"An Act relating to offenses involving operating a motor
vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while under the influence of an
alcoholic beverage or controlled substance; relating to implied
consent to take a chemical test; relating to registration of
motor vehicles; relating to presumptions arising from the amount
of alcohol in a person's breath or blood; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 132
"An Act relating to the possession or distribution of alcohol in
a local option area; requiring liquor license applicants to
submit fingerprints for the purpose of conducting a criminal
history background check, and relating to the use of criminal
justice information by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board;
providing for a review of alcohol server education courses by
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board every two years; and
providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
HOUSE BILL NO. 158
"An Act relating to the criteria for the adoption of regulations
and to the relationship between a regulation and its enabling
statute; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 177
SHORT TITLE:CAMPAIGN FINANCE: CONTRIB/DISCLOS/GROUPS
SPONSOR(S): RLS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/12/01 0543 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/12/01 0543 (H) STA, JUD
03/22/01 0683 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 5DP 2NR
03/22/01 0683 (H) DP: WILSON, STEVENS, JAMES,
FATE,
03/22/01 0683 (H) COGHILL; NR: CRAWFORD, HAYES
03/22/01 0683 (H) FN1: (ADM)
03/22/01 0695 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
03/22/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/22/01 (H) Moved CSHB 177(STA) Out of
Committee
03/22/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 179
SHORT TITLE:OFFENSES RELATING TO UNDERAGE DRINKING
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/13/01 0560 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/13/01 0560 (H) JUD, FIN
03/13/01 0560 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
03/28/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/28/01 (H) <Bill Postponed TO 3/30/01>
03/30/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission
2221 East Northern Lights, Room 128
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4149
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 177.
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
House Judiciary Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 179 on behalf of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 179, presented the
DOL's position, and answered questions.
STEVE MELTON, Fairbanks Alcohol Safety Action Program (FASAP)
911 Cushman Street, Suite 205
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 179, provided
statistics about that pilot program and answered questions.
MARK T. MEW, Deputy Chief
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
4501 Bragaw
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 179 and answered
questions.
LAURA J. GOSS, Community Outreach Coordinator
Adolescent Alcohol and other Drug Treatment Program
Volunteers of America - Alaska (VAA)
441 West 5th Avenue, Suite 301
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 179, suggested
changes and answered questions.
FRED KOPACZ, Southcentral Foundation
4501 Diplomacy Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 179, answered
questions and explained that Southcentral Foundation would be
submitting their concerns in writing, shortly.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 177 on behalf of the House
Rules Standing Committee, sponsor.
NOEL WOODS
PO Box 827
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 177.
JEAN WOODS
PO Box 827
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 177.
STEVE CONN, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
PO Box 101093
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 177, testified in
support of keeping the status quo.
ROD ARNO
Alaska Outdoor Council
PO Box 1410
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 177.
KATHRYN KURTZ, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Terry Miller Building, Room 329
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided legal opinions and answered
questions on HB 177.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-47, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:16 p.m. Representatives
Rokeberg, Coghill, and Meyer were present at the call to order.
Representative Berkowitz arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 177 - CAMPAIGN FINANCE: CONTRIB/DISCLOS/GROUPS
Number 0078
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 177, "An Act placing certain special interest
organizations within the definition of 'group' for purposes of
Alaska's campaign finance statutes; providing a contingent
amendment to take effect in case subjecting these organizations
to all of the statutory requirements pertaining to groups is
held by a court to be unconstitutional; requiring certain
organizations to disclose contributions made to them and
expenditures made by them; requiring disclosure of the true
source of campaign contributions; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was CSHB 177(STA).]
Number 0205
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), testified via teleconference. Ms. Miles
informed the committee that this afternoon APOC would be
reviewing HB 177, and therefore at this point she noted her
testimony would be based on the staff's review only. She
related her understanding that HB 177 would permit a
proliferation of the non-group entities described by the Alaska
Supreme Court in its decision on the campaign finance reform
law. Current APOC regulations narrowly interpreted that area of
law and established a process through which nonprofit
corporations could qualify to participate in candidate election
activities. However, HB 177 would change that and permit
entities that may not be nonprofit corporations, but still meet
the three-point test identified by the Alaska Supreme Court, to
qualify.
MS. MILES explained that the three-point test says that these
entities do not participate in business activities, do not have
shareholders who would have a claim on the earnings of the
association, and are independent from the influence of business
corporations. [The three-point test] makes these non-group
entities subject to the same disclosure and filters as other
groups in Alaska, including political parties. Therefore, their
contributions can only be from individuals in the amount of $500
or less or in the amount of $1,000 or less from another
political group. The disclosures would be identified per "the
true source of the funds" [page 2, lines 2-3], which means that
if one of these entities used a transfer of general account
money, that transfer of money would need to be delineated as to
what individual or permitted political groups the money came
from.
MS. MILES remarked that at this point, APOC has attached a
fiscal note to HB 177. That fiscal note would address writing
regulations to establish a process for these groups to register
and ensure that these groups meet the test prescribed by the
courts and codified by law. Furthermore, there would be some
travel costs related to educating the group with regard to
complying with the campaign disclosure law.
Number 0446
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Miles would interpret this as
leveling the playing field in the sense that special interest
groups already have the same standards as labor unions, business
entities, and corporations.
MS. MILES answered, "This would permit the groups that were
identified by the supreme court to continue to participate in
activities, but would apply the same filters ... and the same
disclosure as are on all other political groups in Alaska."
CHAIR ROKEBERG referred to Section 2 of the CS, which defines
"contributor", in part, as "the true source of the funds".
MS. MILES interjected that candidates cannot accept anonymous
contributions. Furthermore, all contributions over $100 are
identified on the campaign disclosure report by the name,
address, occupation, and employer of the contributor.
Therefore, those rules would also apply to these groups, which
is not the case under APOC's current regulations.
Number 0570
MS. MILES, in response to Chair Rokeberg, explained that a
political action committee (PAC) does the same campaign
disclosure report that a candidate would under the current law.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the committee would return to HB
177 at about 2:15 p.m. today.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced an at-ease from 1:24 p.m. to 1:25 p.m.
HB 179 - OFFENSES RELATING TO UNDERAGE DRINKING
[Contains brief reference to the treatment elements in HB 4.]
Number 0601
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 179, "An Act relating to underage drinking and
drug offenses; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0726
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg,
House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 179 on behalf of the committee. She noted that the
committee had heard a presentation by the Department of Law on
the Niedermeyer decision (State v. Niedermeyer) that nullified
the "Use It, Lose It" law (AS 28.15.183), which allowed a
minor's driver's license to be administratively revoked if
he/she has been caught using or possessing alcohol.
MS. NOBREGA explained that HB 179 is an attempt to create
punishments for minors who are caught using and abusing alcohol.
On a first offense, the fine imposed will be between $200 and
$600, and the offender will be required to complete 24 hours of
community work service (CWS). On a second offense, the offender
will be guilty of "repeat minor consuming," the fine imposed
will be between $500 and $1,000, and the offender will be
required to complete 48 hour of CWS. On a third offense, the
offender will be guilty of "habitual minor consuming," a class B
misdemeanor, which can carry a 90-day jail sentence and a $1,000
fine; the offender's driver's license will be revoked for six
months; the offender will be required to complete 96 hours of
CWS; and the offender will be required to receive alcoholism
treatment.
MS. NOBREGA noted that there are other provisions in HB 179 that
clean up the current administrative revocation [procedures],
which the Niedermeyer decision determined were inappropriate for
minors who are caught consuming [alcohol]. She referred to
Section 10 on page 5 that sets forth the ages for substance
abuse offenses (between 13 and 21) and the ages for the illegal
use or possession of firearms offenses (between 13 and 18),
which is a more definite age period [than current statute
stipulates]. With regard to the juvenile justice system (JJS),
she referred to the Section 12 [on page 6] and said that HB 179
is exempting offenders of habitual minor consuming from the
regular court process and, instead, placing them into the JJS
with the belief that those offenders will be treated better and
will have a better chance of rehabilitation. She then explained
that Section 13 [on page 7] further defines how offenders of
habitual minor consuming (third-time offenders) are adjudicated,
and what is required under that JJS adjudication.
Number 0940
MS. NOBREGA added that it has since been discovered that
imposing CWS does entitle a minor to a jury trial, and therefore
more work will be done to determine how, and at what level, CWS
will be imposed, because one of the goals of HB 179 is to keep
first-time offenders out of the court system. She also
mentioned a forthcoming amendment that will require, when a
minor does have a right to a jury trial and has a right to
counsel, that the minor's parent's financial resources are also
considered when determining whether an offender is eligible for
court-appointed counsel. She noted that although this is
already a court rule, there is a desire to place it in statute
as well so that it applies specifically to minors who are in
"this" situation. She also mentioned that the Department of Law
(DOL) has some suggestions on how [HB 179] can avoid entitling
minors to a court trial, and how to work with the CWS issues,
which might again entitle minors to a court trial. She
confirmed that fiscal notes had been placed in members' packets.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that the Department of Corrections (DOC)
has submitted a zero fiscal note; the Alaska Court System (ACS
or "the courts") has submitted a fiscal note of $145,000; the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) has submitted a
fiscal note of approximately $1.5 million, and the Public
Defender Agency (PDA) will be submitting a fiscal note of
$379,900 for [fiscal year (FY) 2002].
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER reported that he was very familiar with the
CWS program in the Anchorage area, and that it works well;
juveniles help clean up the city, be it the parks or whatever
needs to be done at the time. He said he was wondering how CWS
programs work in the rural areas. If it is so hard to manage or
control the CWS program in some areas, then maybe the [CWS] time
does not need to get served, he suggested.
Number 1162
CHAIR ROKEBERG said his concern is that according to the Alaska
Court of Appeals decision, CWS could not be mandated without a
jury trial.
MS. NOBREGA confirmed that according to her understanding, only
by mandating CWS is the right to a jury trial required. Thus,
if CWS is discretionary, it would not necessarily follow that an
offender has the right to a jury trial. She could not, however,
confirm whether youth court could be chosen in place of regular
court; she deferred that question to the administration. She
also deferred the question of what the rational was behind
changing the current age thresholds for substance abuse offenses
and illegal use or possession of firearms offenses. In response
to questions, she again said that a third-time offender becomes
an habitual minor consuming offender and is required to attend
an alcohol treatment program, but she was not sure if that also
applied to a third-time substance abuse offender.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said he considers the provision in HB 179
requiring alcohol education on the third offense to be a defect
in drafting because he was trying to find a way to send the
proper message without incurring costs. He noted that there are
many different courses to take in creating this legislation, and
that it is his desire to craft HB 179 in the "public eye" rather
than simply offering a committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER suggested that "minor in possession" might
be like DWI (driving while intoxicated) in that an offender
might commit the crime 80 or more times before being caught for
a first offense. For this reason, he wondered whether waiting
for a third offense to require alcohol treatment might be
waiting too long, but he also said he recognized the costs
involved.
CHAIR ROKEBERG reminded members that in 1995 the legislature
tried the experiment of the "Use It, Lose It" law. He referred
to a study done by C & S Management Associates that revealed the
incidence of underage drinking in Alaska has increased
substantially, notwithstanding the "Use It, Lose It" law.
Consequently, while the legislature could return to that option
should it be willing to spend the money on court costs, he said
he thought they would be better off taking a different tack
entirely because testimony will illustrate that the "Use It,
Lose It" law has not been that effective.
Number 1492
DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal
Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law
(DOL), confirmed that five or six years ago minor consuming was
a crime, and minors who were convicted got sent to jail and
acquired a criminal record for that conviction. At that time,
another tack - the "Use It, Lose It" law - was instituted in an
attempt to use license revocation as another incentive to minors
not to drink. Over the years, the perception was that this was
reasonably successful, although perhaps it was not as successful
as was believed. The Alaska Supreme Court has since said that
the way in which licenses were being taken away did not comport
with the constitution; minors had to be given the right to a
jury trial and a right to counsel. Because of that decision,
everyone is now looking at whether the state's limited resources
should be spent on lawyers and courts or would be better spent
on some other method.
MR. GUANELI acknowledged that license revocation did perhaps
have a role in providing minors an incentive not to drink;
however, based on a program in Fairbanks where license
revocation was used in addition to screening and treatment of
offenders, it was felt that this was a preferable way to go - to
have treatment as a component for all offenders. Mr. Guaneli
also referred to the notion that not all offenders should have
the same potential penalty; there should be graduated sanctions
the more often an offender drinks and is caught at it. In
trying to bring all of the aforementioned ideas together, the
administration proposed a series of graduated sanctions. A
first offense would not subject the offender to jail time, loss
of license, CWS, or anything else that would incur the expense
of public defenders, prosecutors, jury trials, et cetera. But,
going along with that, the idea was that minors would be
assessed for what kind of alcohol problem they had. It was
expected that the vast majority of those offenders would need
only a short alcohol education class.
Number 1657
MR. GUANELI explained that for the second offense, it was felt
that perhaps some greater incentive ought to be provided, and
that is where the idea - despite its cost for public defenders,
et cetera - was applied that CWS and some sort of license action
might be appropriate. So, moving up the scale on the second
offense, those additional options would be available for the
court to use; but, again, the minor would be subject to some
sort of alcohol screening for his/her problem and perhaps a more
extensive alcohol treatment regimen.
MR. GUANELI went on to explain that for a third offense, it was
felt that for persons who were over 18, perhaps a criminal
sanction was appropriate; perhaps jail time or the threat of
jail time was the only thing to really encourage people who are
at that level to "get with the program." For a person with a
third offense who was under 18, it was felt that this was of
serious concern and that that person ought to be sent to the JJS
(where the greater resources of that system would be available),
again, with the appropriate incentives to undergo treatment.
MR. GUANELI said these were the ideas that the administration
put forward, and he acknowledged that some of these ideas are
reflected in HB 179. He added that there is no doubt that there
is a cost to all these provisions. Since coming forth with
these ideas, [the DOL] has looked further at some of the law
surrounding this issue, and has discovered that there are some
additional limitations with regard to counting past convictions
when the minor did not have the benefit of the right to a jury
trial and right to counsel. To this end, [the DOL] has
submitted proposed amendments that will [address this
limitation]. And while there were a variety of options, he
opined that [the DOL] was still pointed towards the original
proposal of graduated sanctions, not undergoing the expense of
jury trial and right to counsel - at least for first-time
offenders - and incorporating treatment at all phases of the
process. He added that the professionals will say that the most
progress is going to be made via treatment, and although in HB 4
some of the treatment elements for adults are great, "more bang
for our buck" can be achieved by treating juvenile offenders.
Number 1860
STEVE MELTON, Fairbanks Alcohol Safety Action Program (FASAP),
testified via teleconference and said that the FASAP operates a
minor consuming/possession pilot program, which has been
operating since September 1999 with the help of the Division of
Alcohol and Drug Abuse (DADA); that program got its start
through a phone call from Ben Petersdorff, manager of the
Fairbanks Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) field office, asking
what could be done to monitor the minor consuming/possession
situation in Fairbanks. Mr. Melton went on to recount some
statistics from the FASAP, which he also made available to the
committee in the form of a handout. During FY 2000 (9/99-6/00),
317 cases were opened and 192 cases were completed. During most
of FY 2001 (7/00-2/01), 319 cases were opened and 225 cases were
completed. He added that most of these cases are generated from
the DMV and youths wanting to get their licenses back.
MR. MELTON said these statistics also show that in FY 2000, 82
percent of the [defendants] had no prior convictions; 13 percent
had one prior conviction; 3 percent had two prior convictions;
and 2 percent had three or more prior convictions. And in FY
2001 - to date - 78 percent had no prior convictions; 13 percent
had one prior conviction; 6 percent had two prior convictions;
and 3 percent had three or more prior convictions. With regard
to the completed cases in both FY 2000 and 2001, 78 percent of
the cases completed alcohol information school (AIS); 21 percent
and 20 percent (respectively) completed outpatient counseling;
and 1 percent and 2 percent (respectively) completed residential
treatment. Out of the total of 417 completed cases for both FY
2000 and FY 2001, which is a 66 to 70 percent completion rate,
four [defendants] have re-offended for minor consuming, and two
cases have re-offended for DWI. He stated that in his
community, monitoring is helping to curb the minor-consuming
problem.
MR. MELTON explained that for the first DWI offense, an eight-
hour AIS class is required (this will be increased to twelve
hours as of July 2001), and treatment evaluation is also a
requirement if any drugs have been involved in the offense. He
said this education process seems to be working. He did,
however, caution that these aforementioned statistics do not
represent the totality of the minor-consuming population in the
Fairbanks area; these statistics only reflect the DMV referrals.
Notwithstanding this, he said the FASAP does feel as though it
is making some inroads into the minor-consuming problem. He
noted that the FASAP charges the offender $50 for monitoring.
This is crucial, he explained, because the DMV requires
offenders to receive some type of counseling or some type of
AIS. Prior to FASAP, the DMV was getting sign-offs from
preachers, school counselors, and anybody and everybody in the
community; FASAP, however, requires that offenders go through a
state-approved agency for a treatment evaluation or the AIS,
and, in this way, it is assured that the youth are getting the
proper type of information. He added that education can be
beneficial to everyone, even the first-time offender who
receives a minor-in-possession charge simply because he/she
attended a party.
Number 2150
MR. MELTON, in response to questions, said that for the past two
years the FASAP pilot program for minors has been funded only by
the $50/case monitoring fee, which by his calculations has
amounted to approximately $20,850 for the 417 completed cases.
He added that this is "barely enough to keep the lights on," but
through the hard work of fellow personnel and the generosity of
[agencies in the community] the program has continued. He noted
that he receives his salary from the FASAP's adult program,
which is funded through the state. He also explained that the
monitoring portion of the FASAP for youths is modeled after the
adult FASAP program in that it ensures that the youths have
completed the treatment evaluation and the AIS. After all the
requirements have been met, the youths are given a cover letter
to take to the DMV so that they can get their driver's licenses
back, which he said he thinks is the main motivation youth have
for completing the FASAP. Mr. Melton confirmed that the concept
of "Use It, Lose It" has been good in that regard, although he
acknowledged that it is somewhat flawed in that the FASAP is not
getting all the youths that need it.
MR. MELTON, with regard to how the FASAP works, explained that
youthful offenders show up at the DMV wanting to get their
licenses back, and the DMV then refers these offenders to the
FASAP office. Once an offender is referred to the FASAP office,
FASAP requests a driving record from the DMV so that they will
know how much prior involvement the offender has had with
alcohol and/or controlled substances. First-time offenders are
signed up for AIS; second-time (or more, or possession of
controlled substance) offenders must also receive a treatment
evaluation and complete any type of treatment that has been
recommended. On the topic of the fines and treatment provisions
in HB 179, Mr. Melton said he thought they were appropriate, and
offered that some form of deferred prosecution such as
substituting treatment for the large fines would also provide
incentive and be of great benefit.
TAPE 01-47, SIDE B
Number 2475
MR. MELTON, referring to other statistics, said that for FY
2001, the FASAP program had 15 cases in which the offenders were
14 to 15 years of age; 123 cases in which the offenders were 16
to 17 years of age; 154 cases in which the offenders were 18 to
21 years of age; and 8 cases that are listed as "other" with
regard to age. He added that he had not seen any offenders in
the 12-to-13-year group, but he acknowledged that most of the
FASAP's cases have the motivating factor of driver's license
reinstatement. With regard to the success of the pilot program,
he said he is very encouraged by the results, as is the DMV. He
remarked that a key to that success is monitoring and getting
the youths into proper state-approved programs. He noted that
in some instances, the parents of the offenders also attend the
AIS free of charge, and in this way, the parents also get
educated along with their children.
Number 2323
MARK T. MEW, Deputy Chief, Anchorage Police Department (APD),
testified by teleconference and said that the APD's involvement
and concern with this issue goes back further than the fallout
from the Niedermeyer decision. He surmised that aspects of HB
179 will help the APD. Basically, he said, the minor consuming
law in Anchorage is broken; there are currently no teeth in it.
He explained that a few years ago it was a misdemeanor crime but
this was scaled back to an infraction that was accompanied by
the license revocation. However, there is a unique situation in
Anchorage: they have difficulty prosecuting the infraction
because the city prosecutor is reluctant to prosecute crimes
involving persons under 18 years; those crimes fall under the
jurisdiction of the state, while the state prosecutors would
prefer to see these infractions prosecuted at the city level
since the tickets are written by city police officers. Thus
kids have learned that by pleading innocent they can request
discovery, and because neither of the prosecuting agencies will
provide it, the case will be dismissed and the kids can get
their licenses back without any consequences.
MR. MEW explained that even though there are APD officers
working overtime during the summer to issue citations, and even
though there are grant-funded undercover operations going on
intermittently all year related to alcohol-juvenile-enforcement
activities, [the APD] is losing all its tickets. He said that
at one time, in an attempt to "shore this situation up," city
officials created a diversion program whereby if the offender
chose to go to, and complete, a treatment program, the driver's
license would be returned without the offender's having to pay
any fines associated with the conviction. The problem with this
program is that the fine schedule is so low, and without the
added incentive of license revocation, the treatment costs more
than the fine; thus the kids will not take the option of going
to treatment in place of paying the fine because it is cheaper,
faster, and easier to simply pay the fine. Of course, the kids
also know that there is no point in even doing that much, since
if they plead innocent, no one will prosecute them.
MR. MEW offered that HB 179 would help the APD in a number of
ways. One, it raises the fine, which gives the APD "a hammer"
on first- and second-time offenses to convince the kids to go to
treatment. He added that there were treatment providers putting
together affordable, state-approved programs. Two, because some
form of consequence for the behavior will still be applied for
the first and second offense via the larger fines, and because
statistics indicate that 80 percent of first-time offenders do
not re-offend, the expense associated with prosecution of first-
time offenders can be avoided. Third, since criminal penalties
will be reinstated for third-time offenders, prosecutors will be
willing to prosecute; thus the tickets issued by the APD will
have an effect on the problem in comparison to the citations
that had no practical consequences. Mr. Mew, in response to
Representative Meyer, said it is easy to catch juvenile
offenders - "they literally drop in your lap" - but because of a
lack of prosecution, it oftentimes feels as if the APD is
spinning its wheels, he added. In conclusion, he said he was in
favor of HB 179.
Number 2050
LAURA J. GOSS, Community Outreach Coordinator, Adolescent
Alcohol and other Drug Treatment Program, Volunteers of America
- Alaska (VAA), testified via teleconference. She noted that
the VAA offers a youth intervention program for first-time
offenders; outpatient and intensive outpatient treatment
programs in Anchorage; and a residential treatment center, which
serves adolescents statewide. She opined that HB 179 does not
go far enough; it tries to get tougher on underage drinking, but
it fails to address the issues that lead to that behavior.
Youths who are misusing alcohol and other substances need to be
screened for dependency and educated about the choices they are
making, early on, before they develop into problem drinkers, and
before their behaviors escalate and they become a danger to
those around them, both on the roads and in their homes.
MS. GOSS said that it is imperative for the well-being of each
individual of the community to intervene with youth who are
engaging in high-risk behavior. To allow a known substance
abuser to continue in life without the benefit of learning the
consequences of his/her actions is nothing but irresponsible.
Not only is it irresponsible to the alcohol/substance abuser, it
is also irresponsible to the entire community. Ms. Goss said
the VAA would like to see a provision added to HB 197 that would
allow the courts the flexibility of offering first- and second-
time offenders an incentive to participate in alcohol screening
and any education or treatment that may be recommended from that
screening. Incentives could include fine reductions to offset
screening costs, and citation dismissal, if appropriate. Such a
provision would allow the courts to respond to the problem of
underage drinking in a more flexible manner, and would help to
ensure that offenders receive appropriate intervention at an
earlier, more treatable stage.
MS. GOSS also proposed that for youth charged with driving under
the influence/driving while intoxicated (DUI/DWI), the privilege
to drive should not be reinstated until the offender complies
with the assessment process and follows through with subsequent
recommendations. In addition, she asked the committee to
consider the impact of the community work service (CWS)
component on first- and second-time offenders; as written [in HB
197], it is an unenforceable consequence. There is little or no
recourse in those instances when youths fail to comply. This
sends the wrong message to youths who have already shown a
disregard for the law. Should the CWS provision remain in HB
179, the VAA encourages the creation of a juvenile monitoring
program, similar to the adult monitoring program, which would
track compliance and report back to the courts.
Number 1927
MS. GOSS said that the importance of consistent imposition of
sanctions and adequate monitoring cannot be emphasized enough.
As a community, "we" have the responsibility to clearly and
consistently convey the message that [alcohol and] substance
abuse is a high-risk behavior that has potentially deadly
consequences, and that it will not be tolerated as simply a
matter of "kids will be kids." We want kids to be kids, but
also want them to grow up to be happy, functional, and
productive adults. We certainly do not want our children's
behavior to be a factor in the loss of anyone's life. In
summary, she said the VAA believes that intervention and
education, because they are of paramount importance in combating
the problem of underage drinking, should be included at an
earlier stage. She again urged the committee to include a
diversion program in HB 179.
CHAIR ROKEBERG expressed the belief that the committee would, in
part, be accepting a number of her recommendations. He then
asked why she thought the CWS provision was unenforceable.
MS GOSS said currently there is no one monitoring for compliance
of CWS requirements, and the kids know this. She also
explained, in response to further questions, that the VAA's
outpatient center can serve up to 36 clients at one time, and
that the residential center holds 16 clients at one time. She
added that residential treatment is between four and six months,
and that outpatient treatment is approximately six months. She
noted that they have a two-month waiting list for the
residential treatment program, and that the outpatient treatment
program does not have a waiting list at this time. With regard
to funding, she said that they are state-grant-funded, and that
they also receive private donations. In addition, she explained
that they do bill insurance, Medicaid, and Denali Kid Care;
because they are nonprofit, they also offer a sliding-fee scale
and do not turn anyone away for inability to pay for services.
Number 1818
FRED KOPACZ, Southcentral Foundation, testified via
teleconference and said that they had recently opened up a
residential treatment facility for substance abusing youth. He
explained that Southcentral Foundation has a number of concerns
regarding HB 179 that they would be submitting in writing in the
near future. In response to questions, he explained that
Southcentral Foundation currently has 16 beds, and that over the
summer they will be moving to a new facility, which will have 36
beds. He added that they are estimating a length of stay of
between six and eighteen months due to the type of program they
provide; it is a very comprehensive program, he offered,
involving education, vocational education, and social skills
development. He noted that currently they are funded through a
grant from the federal agency, the Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment, which means that there is no cost to the recipient of
the services. For purposes of budgeting costs, however, the
Southcentral Foundation is figuring between $335 and $350 a day.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that they would recess the hearing on
HB 179 to 3/31/01. [HB 179 was held over.]
HB 177 - CAMPAIGN FINANCE: CONTRIB/DISCLOS/GROUPS
[Contains some discussion of SB 136.]
Number 1700
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the committee would return to the
discussion on HOUSE BILL NO. 177, "An Act placing certain
special interest organizations within the definition of 'group'
for purposes of Alaska's campaign finance statutes; providing a
contingent amendment to take effect in case subjecting these
organizations to all of the statutory requirements pertaining to
groups is held by a court to be unconstitutional; requiring
certain organizations to disclose contributions made to them and
expenditures made by them; requiring disclosure of the true
source of campaign contributions; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was CSHB 177(STA).]
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced an at-ease from 2:23 p.m. to 2:24 p.m.
Number 1688
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, Alaska State Legislature, testified as
chair of the House Rules Standing Committee, which is the
sponsor of HB 177. Representative Kott remarked that HB 177 is
a fairly simple piece of legislation that does two things.
First, on page 2, lines 7-8, the definition of "contributor" is
found. This definition was taken from the U.S. v. Hsia case.
Second, certain non-group entities or special interest
organizations are being included in the group definition, which
is found on page 2, lines 11-15. This language was also
extracted from federal case law. Therefore, Representative Kott
said he believes that [the state] is conforming to what has
already been established.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he would illustrate the current
situation. He clarified that [this legislation] refers to
individuals and not the initiative process. He posed a
situation in which a large corporation had an agenda such that
it would "go after" people who didn't support drilling and
exploration of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Currently, that corporation could contribute an unlimited amount
of money, which would remain the case under this bill. For
example, that corporation could contribute money to the Alaska
Oil & Gas Association (AOGA), which could in turn establish a
political action committee (PAC), which would disburse the
money. Under this bill, AOGA can still receive [an unlimited]
amount of money, but it would be treated as a special interest
group or non-group entity and thus [AOGA] would be limited in
regard to what could be contributed to that PAC, as is the case
with any other group that is currently limited. Therefore, the
limitation would be $1,000 to the PAC. Currently, there is no
limitation and there is no reporting requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT related his belief that this legislation
closes what he saw as a loophole in Alaska's campaign finance
law. Furthermore, this legislation seems to address the
discussion relating to "soft money" that is occurring at the
federal level.
Number 1437
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if this legislation could be referred to as
the "Feingold-McCain Bill of the Alaska Legislature."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated agreement.
CHAIR ROKEBERG related his understanding that HB 177 attempts to
"bring the light of day" on soft money contributions that are
not currently reported to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with Chair Rokeberg's understanding.
He added that HB 177 levels the playing field among all
participants. He reiterated that this legislation doesn't deal
with the initiative process.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the PAC would report the true
source of the money to APOC.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT answered yes. He returned to his prior
example and posed a situation in which the large corporation
requests that its employees contribute $500 to AOGA and the
corporation will reimburse its employees.
CHAIR ROKEBERG interjected that such a scenario is prohibited
currently.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified that [this legislation] attempts
to identify the true source of the contributions [the
individual, and would be a matter of the public record].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL related his understanding, then, that
this legislation would not hinder the input into campaigns, but
would merely be a matter of reporting at the same level as for
everyone else.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed.
Number 1283
NOEL WOODS testified via teleconference. He informed the
committee that he is in support of HB 177, and that he is a
member of the [Mat-Su Valley] Sportsman group that has been
under attack from people who have used this as a cover-up for
some of their expenditures.
JEAN WOODS testified via teleconference. She noted her support
of HB 177 because she believes that nonprofits should follow the
same rules as everyone else if they intend to become involved
with political campaigns. The public has a right to know who is
funding a campaign.
Number 1221
STEVE CONN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest Research
Group (AkPIRG) testified via teleconference. He noted that he
had reviewed the 1990 State v. Alaska Civil Liberties Union
case, which dealt with politically protected free speech. He
said, "This bill is quite obviously an attempt to rewrite that
decision." Mr. Conn pointed out that there is a good reason why
the Alaska Supreme Court drew a distinction between the groups
that are independent from the influence of business and everyone
else. Furthermore, the case is backed by sound evidence that
will not disappear no matter how hard one tries. The court
found a large [portion] of business in the community [to be
influencing] the political process. The court cited studies by
Larry Makinson of The Center for Responsive Politics in
Washington, D.C., which pointed out that of the top 50
contributors, 21 were corporations, 9 were unions, and 8 were
PACs or trade associations. The case also cited an AkPIRG
report in the early 1990s, which showed that more than half of
all contributions were connected to business interests.
Furthermore, the study pointed out that there was no danger of
quid pro quo arrangements for those excluded organizations. He
clarified, "That is to say, the ability of business interests
... could amass massive wealth and drown out the individual who
is not associated with business." However, "the exception is a
sound one if one believes that all ideas, however unpopular,
should find their way into the political process," he said. He
noted that to his knowledge, only the Alaska Conservation
Alliance has taken advantage of this exception.
MR. CONN directed attention to SB 136 as an example of the kind
of quid pro quo that the court feared would occur. He noted
that SB 136 purports to develop a resource development board
made up of persons in the timber, mining, and oil industries who
would be able to allocate millions of dollars in state funds to
groups promoting their industrial interests. Therefore, he
believes the danger posited by the court was real. Mr. Conn
said, "The reality is that those members of those industrial
organizations who would like to promote conservation causes do
have a real fear of retaliation in their jobs, if they were
forced to disclose." Therefore, Mr. Conn encouraged the
committee, "in the name of free speech and protected free
speech," to not add a new restriction on an entity that is not
related to business. He encouraged the committee to leave
things as they are, which is a level playing field "given the
reality of the influence of business on our political life."
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Conn was saying that AkPIRG had
never engaged in any political activity.
MR. CONN replied, "No, my testimony is that we didn't seek to
[go to] court to make use of the exception carved out by the
supreme court in ... this process." However, Mr. Conn assured
the committee that many of AkPIRG's members, when promoting
causes that are not popular in today's political climate, would
be afraid if their names and occupations were publicized. He
characterized today's political climate as a "rabidly pro-
development climate" that is evidenced by SB 136, which
explicitly excludes an organization such as AkPIRG. In response
to Chair Rokeberg, Mr. Conn explained:
Senate Bill 136 sets up a resource development board
that would award "grants" to be determined by a named
representative of the major development industry,
taking state money, more than $2 million, and
parceling it out amongst various industrial groups to
allow them to pay for their advertising under the
rubric "public education." In other words, this goes
beyond what a private individual chooses to do vis-a-
vis the political process. This actually takes draw-
ups of state money and passes it over to industry to
do with as it may choose.
Number 0861
ROD ARNO, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), urged the passage of HB
177 out of committee. He noted his past experience with
initiatives and AOC's PAC. Mr. Arno related his belief that HB
177 is necessary. He informed the committee that according to
APOC reports, a gentleman named Kevin Harron (ph) contributes to
House District 23. Mr. Harron lists his occupation as a
consultant for Kay Brown Communications. However, Mr. Harron is
a former director of the Alaska Center for the Environment and
is now the director of the Conservation Strategies, which
received money from Paul Bernard (ph), who is from outside of
Alaska. Mr. Bernard gave $400,000 to get [Conservation
Strategies] started and then another $150,000 for individual
political campaigns during the last election period. However,
the APOC report doesn't mention Mr. Bernard's name. That is the
type of thing that AOC [would like to have an honest reporting
of].
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Arno's testimony is that Mr. Harron
was a conduit for $550,000.
MR. ARNO said that $550,000 was spent, but Mr. Bernard's name is
not mentioned in any APOC report nor is the name Conservation
Strategies. He noted that he was aware of these contributions
due to an Anchorage Daily News article. Mr. Arno informed the
committee of a meeting of the Alaska Wilderness Recreation
Tourist Association during which the director of Alaska
Conservation Foundation, Deborah Williams (ph), told the
audience she was hired to replace the [members of the] Alaska
State Legislature with [members of] the new party called the
Alaska Conservation Majority. Ms. Williams also noted that she
was two years into this ten-year project. Mr. Arno pointed out
that the Alaska Conservation Foundation is the umbrella
organization for the Alaska Conservation Alliance and the Alaska
Conservation Voters, which also include the Alaska Center for
the Environment. Therefore, Mr. Arno feared nonresident
influence in Alaska's election process and thus would like that
exposed. Mr. Arno noted that as a brown bear hunting guide, he
should be fearful of having his name listed, but that is not of
concern to him because participating in this process is
important.
Number 0607
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER related his understanding of Mr. Conn's
testimony that expressed concern of retaliation if the public
knew who people were giving money to because their position
would be unfavorable with the majority. However, he understood
Mr. Arno to say that he represents a minority, brown bear
hunters, and that he is not afraid of people knowing his
position or whom he gives money to.
MR. ARNO replied, "That is correct."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if Mr. Arno's organization is
subject to APOC disclosures.
MR. ARNO replied yes. In further response to Representative
Berkowitz, Mr. Arno said that AOC reports all of its donors.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised, then, that when AOC sends out
literature endorsing individuals, all the donors have been
disclosed.
MR. ARNO replied, "I'm not going to answer that question because
I don't know."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised, then, that Mr. Arno's
organization may be included under this legislation.
MR. ARNO said that would be fine.
Number 0471
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested that Representative Berkowitz may be
referring to the possibility that AOC has a periodic publication
that endorses particular candidates. If such an endorsement
occurred in a general membership mailing, then it may qualify as
a political communication and thus the organization would have
to provide APOC with the dues-paying membership list. He asked
if such a situation would be problematic for Mr. Arno.
MR. ARNO pointed out that AOC's newsletter does not [endorse
particular candidates] since it is separate from AOC's PAC.
Therefore, he indicated that AOC wouldn't have any problems with
that.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the AOC's PAC prints full
disclosure of all its contributors.
MR. ARNO replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the AOC's PAC makes full
disclosure on issues.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if [Representative Berkowitz was referring]
to initiatives. He related his understanding that there are
separate statutory requirements for that.
MR. ARNO replied yes and also agreed that [AOC's PAC] would be
willing to continue such. In response to Chair Rokeberg, Mr.
Arno agreed that would include inside and outside money.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if [AOC's PAC] accepted outside
money "last time."
MR. ARNO replied yes and agreed with Representative Berkowitz
that it would be in the range of the hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented, "And there was one
organization that opposed you, and that's why we're here today.
They must be very effective."
MR. ARNO remarked, "They're extremely effective. They grant out
now $3 million a year to the state to advocacy groups to do
nothing but to replace the face of the legislature. So, yes."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that they haven't been too
effective.
Number 0281
CHAIR ROKEBERG referred to Mr. Conn's earlier testimony
regarding the Alaska Supreme Court's finding that certain
requirements should be imposed on business and union
organizations due to their large influence on the body politic
and the electoral process in Alaska. He asked if Mr. Arno would
say that $3 million is a substantial sum that would have an
impact regardless of whether the organization is successful.
MR. ARNO agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pondered how much Phillips' and BP's
and the other advertisements [amounted to].
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that because of the enactment of the
campaign reform legislation a few years ago, the petroleum
industry is a minor part of the elections in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed his personal concern with
campaign finance that has more to do with what is happening with
initiatives. He related his belief that there should be
individual restrictions on initiatives as well.
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that initiatives are not the issue
before the committee. He asked if Representative Berkowitz
believes that openness is a central tenet of the democratic
process.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated agreement.
CHAIR ROKEBERG referred to Mr. Conn's earlier testimony
regarding the Alaska Supreme Court decision [in the 1990 State
v. Alaska Civil Liberties Union case] and asked Ms. Kurtz to
comment.
TAPE 01-48, SIDE A
Number 0001
KATHRYN KURTZ, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency,
explained that HB 177 incorporates the three-part test that is
put forth in the Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU) decision,
and in fact, is almost verbatim the same in terms of what HB 177
puts into the definition of "group."
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Ms. Kurtz to comment on the claim that
there is a need to keep concealed the identities of some
contributors because of fear of retribution.
MS. KURTZ said that that concept has been argued in various
cases, not within Alaska but in other jurisdictions; thus there
is state and federal case law available. She said that
according to her understanding, there is one case in particular,
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v.
Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, in which the court did recognize an
important interest in keeping membership lists confidential, but
only because there was a very significant danger to people
through disclosure. She added that there are also cases that
have said the threat of getting less money in contributions does
not justify concealing names; that [issue], too, has been
litigated. There really has to be a problem of serious
magnitude before it is a situation in which disclosure cannot be
required.
Number 0200
MS. KURTZ, in response to questions posed by Representative
Berkowitz, said that the "chilling effect" is always a concern
with the First Amendment, and it is a balancing issue. One has
to look at the degree that the state's interest is being
advanced versus the burden on [free] speech. She again said she
thought what HB 177 does is consistent with the AkCLU case. She
explained that in the case of HB 177, the Alaska Supreme Court
has already assessed the degree of state interest as opposed to
the burden on [free] speech by putting out the [three-part]
test. She acknowledged, however, that she was not sure what to
say in terms of a specific analysis of the burden. She also
responded that HB 177 was not altering the balance; instead, HB
177 would put into statute what the AkCLU decision says, at
least as far as the definition of group goes. The AkCLU
decision upheld the state law with regard to the prohibition on
contributions by corporations and unions, but the decision also
said that a certain category of "non-group" entities had to be
permitted to participate if they met the three-part criterion.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that one of the problems in
running campaigns is that there are candidates and issues that
frequently run side by side. He referred to the "same-sex
marriage proposal" from a couple of years ago, which became a
hot issue. He said it was his opinion that the proposal was put
forth in the legislative format in order to make it a campaign
issue for individuals. And when an issue is then tied to
individual candidates, Representative Berkowitz said he wondered
how the campaign limits addressed in HB 177, [and] the group
limits placed on individuals, are balanced against the absence
of group limits on an issue.
MS. KURTZ responded that issue advocacy is something that is
extremely difficult to regulate consistent with the First
Amendment. What the state campaign law can do, however, is
limit "express advocacy," for example, "Vote for candidate X."
What the state campaign law cannot do is set a dollar limit on
individuals expressing views on issues.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if it were possible to reach into
the issues, based on the reality that issues and candidates are
linked.
MS. KURTZ answered that currently there is a lot of discussion
about that at the federal level, but she had not yet seen
anything that changes the basic structure, which lets "express
advocacy" be regulated but not issue advocacy. That seems to be
a line, however difficult to interpret, that is fairly well
established at this point in federal law. She confirmed that
that was from the point in time of the Buckley case (Buckley v.
Valeo) on.
Number 0438
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that from the point of the
candidate, he has certainly felt the chilling effect of
disclosure. He asked if there had been case law with regard to
the chilling effect on free speech for candidates.
MS. KURTZ answered that there has been case law [resulting
after] someone came forward and said, "Hey, I'm being damaged by
this law requiring disclosure because there are people who don't
want to give me money now," and the court responded that the law
would be upheld regardless.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he could see that might very well be
the case here, because he does not think the dollar limit
necessarily limits the ability to contribute, and disclosure
certainly would not either.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Kurtz if she had looked into
what was going on in Arizona with regard to state-funded races.
MS. KURTZ said she was not familiar with that particular aspect.
She added, however, that she had some familiarity with the
public-financing-of-campaigns law.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it seemed having state funding or
public funding could circumvent the entire problem of any
contributions to individuals.
MS. KURTZ noted that there were a number of states that had
public funding.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, in response to comments regarding the
fiscal gap, said that it would not really create a big fiscal-
gap problem, and further, that the title of HB 177 invited
discussion.
Number 0613
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented with regard to Buckley v. Valeo,
saying the express advocacy versus issue advocacy was addressed;
restrictions can be placed on express advocacy but not on issue
advocacy. Specifically, issue advocacy can neither be
prohibited nor regulated. He added that the First Amendment
concerns were addressed by Ms. Kurtz, and that there was also
case law regarding that issue. He also said that disclosure
cannot always be demanded. However, non-disclosure has to be
justified in the affirmative. The contributors trying to
justify non-disclosure would have to show that there was a
threat, harassment, or fear of reprisal. At that point, APOC
could make the determination whether those names would still
have to be disclosed; if one of those conditions existed, then
the group should be able to make a pretty good argument for non-
disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted that there was also case law to
support this, both at the federal level and in Veco
International v. APOC. Recognizing that there was no longer a
quorum, Representative Kott asked that the committee advance HB
177 at the next available opportunity. He added that the
provisions encompassed in HB 177 should have been included in
the last campaign finance reform bill, which addressed
corporations and unions. Representative Kott concluded by
saying that there was additional legislation regarding campaign
finance law en route.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that there was a technical problem with the
legislative financial disclosure forms. He then announced that
the [hearings on HB 177, HB 179, HB 40, and HB 4] would be
recessed to 3/31/01. [HB 177 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0815
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was recessed at 3:04 p.m.
until 11:00 a.m., 3/31/01.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|