Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
02/17/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Select Committee on Legislative Ethics | |
| Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar | |
| Public Defender | |
| Violent Crimes Compensation Board | |
| HJR42 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HJR 42 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 17, 2010
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Gary J. Turner - Soldotna
H. Conner Thomas - Nome
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar
Donald McLean, D.D.S. - Wasilla
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Public Defender
Quinlan Steiner - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Violent Crimes Compensation Board
Nora G. Barlow - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
creating a transportation infrastructure fund.
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 42
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: TRANSPORTATION FUND
SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION
02/05/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/10 (H) TRA, JUD, FIN
02/09/10 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/09/10 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/09/10 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/10/10 (H) TRA RPT 6DP 1NR
02/10/10 (H) DP: JOHANSEN, MUNOZ, JOHNSON, T.WILSON,
PETERSEN, P.WILSON
02/10/10 (H) NR: GRUENBERG
02/17/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
GARY J. TURNER, Appointee
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics.
H. CONNER THOMAS, Appointee
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics.
DONALD McLEAN, D.D.S., Appointee
Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Governors of the Alaska Bar.
QUINLAN STEINER, Appointee
Public Defender
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the position of
Public Defender.
NORA G. BARLOW, Appointee
Violent Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Violent
Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB).
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 42, spoke as chair
of the House Transportation Standing Committee, sponsor.
BECKY ROONEY, Staff
Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 42, responded to a
question on behalf of the sponsor, the House Transportation
Standing Committee, which is chaired by Representative P.
Wilson.
FRANK RICHARDS, Deputy Commissioner of Highways & Public
Facilities
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HJR 42.
BRIAN KANE, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the drafter, responded to a question
during discussion of HJR 42.
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 42, and
responded to questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:37 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Ramras, Herron,
Gatto, Gruenberg, and Holmes were present at the call to order.
Representative Lynn arrived as the meeting was in progress.
Representative Dahlstrom was excused.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
^Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
1:08:05 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the committee would first consider
the reappointment of Gary J. Turner to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics.
1:08:57 PM
GARY J. TURNER, Appointee, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, relayed that he's just completed his first three-year
term on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, has enjoyed
it, and looks forward to serving another term. In response to
questions, he noted that the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics does a lot of work - issuing opinions and providing
informal advice in compliance with confidentiality requirements;
that some issues are not so easily resolved; that although some
of the ethics rules that legislators must abide by might be a
bit onerous for legislators, those rules are based on the
statutes that legislators themselves have passed; and that the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics would abide by any
changes the legislature makes to those statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, remarking that she'd once served briefly
on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, thanked Mr.
Turner for his willingness to serve. Noting that informal
advice provided by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics is
not binding, she asked Mr. Turner to comment on that issue.
MR. TURNER surmised that in order to make all advice legally
binding and timely, it would require an increase in staff - both
administrative staff and attorneys. In response to a further
question, he indicated that in a situation wherein the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics issues formal advice that
conflicts with previously-provided informal advice that a
legislator was following, the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics would take that into account, depending on the situation,
should the legislator's actions later be called into question.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked Mr. Turner whether he has any
suggestions for statutory changes that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics would like to see.
MR. TURNER said that there is a proposed change to the statutes
regarding definitions that might still need further work - for
example, he has some suggestions for the proposed definition of
what constitutes a constituent - and that the statute addressing
[State-paid travel and collateral campaign activities] could
also use some more work by the legislature.
1:17:39 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS, on the latter point, opined that the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics is ignoring or at least not
grasping the fact that the statute regarding [State-paid travel
and collateral campaign activities] that suits a legislator from
urban Alaska does not have the same impact on or meaning for a
legislator from rural Alaska and instead actually creates a
considerable hardship for the rural legislator. He questioned
why the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics couldn't provide
a more equitable opinion about such travel and activities until
the legislature has had an opportunity to change that statute.
MR. TURNER pointed out that Legislative Legal and Research
Services had interpreted that statute, and the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, in issuing opinions on the matter, was
simply following that interpretation.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON opined that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics should also consider the spirit of that
statute and use common sense when providing an opinion [on the
issue of State-paid travel and collateral campaign activities].
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, noting that Mr. Turner works as the
director at the Kenai Peninsula College and Mr. Turner's wife
works as an administrative clerk in the Capital Project Office
of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, questioned whether that
constitutes a conflict of interest.
MR. TURNER said it does not because he has no influence over the
college's capital projects, which, in any case, fall under the
purview of the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) rather than
the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO disagreed, and opined that there is a clear
conflict of interest in this instance. He then suggested that
[on the issue of State-paid travel and collateral campaign
activities], for certain legislators, the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics should simply disregard what the statute
says.
1:31:06 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS encouraged the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics to get a second opinion on the statue addressing [State-
paid travel and collateral campaign activities] and also allow
the legislature adequate time to fix that statute - perhaps by
modeling it after a similar statute addressing executive branch
employees - to address the disparity between rural and urban
legislators.
MR. TURNER agreed to consider Chair Ramras's suggestion. He
pointed out, though, that some have argued that changing that
statute to allow legislators to get reimbursed for traveling on
State business while also attending campaign functions would
give incumbents a monetary advantage over non-incumbents.
CHAIR RAMRAS acknowledged that point.
1:36:36 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the committee would next consider
the reappointment of H. Conner Thomas to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics.
1:37:04 PM
H. CONNER THOMAS, Appointee, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, said he's enjoyed his time serving on the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics; would like to serve another
term; believes it provides a good public service; and noted that
since he first began serving in 1999, there has been an increase
in the number of requests for committee input and activity. In
response to a question, he said that it is often the case that
the answer to a particular question is unclear, that this tends
to generate a lot of debate among the members, and that it can
take a lengthy amount of time to get to the end of the process.
On the issue of applying common sense when ruling on a
particular situation, he pointed out that the problem with doing
that is that people's idea of what would constitute a common-
sense ruling differs, and so that's why - at least with regard
to the issue of [State-paid travel and collateral campaign
activities] - the committee has simply followed the legal
opinion its already received. He said he believes that when
making a decision, the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
does consider the impact the decision could have on various
legislators; however, that shouldn't always be what drives the
committee when making a particular ruling.
MR. THOMAS, in response to a question, said his intent when
considering an issue is to do the right thing within the law,
and if using common sense results in a ruling that goes contrary
to the law, that won't meet the statutory obligations of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. In response to another
question, he explained that the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics does consider the public's perception but it isn't the
driving force when making decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that following the statute regarding
[State-paid travel and collateral campaign activities] results
in unreasonable rulings, regardless that it is the legislature
itself that made that law. He questioned whether the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics couldn't instead simply rule
that in a particular set of circumstances, a particular
legislator wouldn't have to follow the law.
1:44:18 PM
MR. THOMAS offered his belief that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics is obligated to do what the law says, and if
there is a legal opinion regarding a particular statute, he said
he doesn't see how the committee could do other than make its
rulings in compliance with that opinion and statute.
Furthermore, if the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics were
to instead apply an interpretation of the statute pertaining to
[State-paid travel and collateral campaign activities] contrary
to the aforementioned legal opinion, it could result in Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics then being asked to do the same
in all other situations regarding all other statutes that
legislators must follow. In response to further comments and
questions, he said that the aforementioned legal opinion has
clarified the statute pertaining to [State-paid travel and
collateral campaign activities], and so the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics didn't feel that it had the authority to
stray off into a different interpretation.
^Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar
Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar
1:49:35 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the committee would next consider
the reappointment of Donald McLean, D.D.S., to the Board of
Governors of the Alaska Bar.
1:49:46 PM
DONALD McLEAN, D.D.S., Appointee, Board of Governors of the
Alaska Bar, relayed that he's enjoyed serving on the board for
the last three years, and is seeking to be confirmed for another
three-year term. In response to questions, he then spoke a bit
about the Executive Juris Doctorate he is currently pursuing.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES thanked Dr. McLean for his service, and
asked him to offer his thoughts regarding his first term of
service.
DR. McLEAN said he finds the deliberation by the attorney
members of the board to be very interesting and enjoyable, and
remarked that although it's extremely important to hold
attorneys accountable, the most difficult issues the board must
face are those related to disciplinary actions against members
of the Alaska Bar.
^Public Defender
Public Defender
1:57:09 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the committee would next consider
the reappointment of Quinlan Steiner to the position of Public
Defender.
1:57:18 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Appointee, Public Defender, explained that the
Public Defender Agency (PDA) was created by the legislature in
1969 to provide constitutionally mandated defense services to
indigent clients in criminal cases, juvenile delinquency cases,
child in need of aid (CINA) cases, and involuntary commitment
proceedings. The PDA provides core services to its clients -
communicating legal rights and legal process, and the charges
and evidence that have been presented; investigates allegations
and viable case strategies; and represents clients whose cases
lead to court proceedings. Attorneys working for the PDA
represent clients before the Alaska Supreme Court, the Alaska
Court of Appeals, the Alaska Superior Court, and the Alaska
District Court. The PDA receives all of its [case] appointments
via the Alaska Court System (ACS), and handles all the cases
[appointed to it] except those that present a legal conflict of
interest for the PDA. The PDA has offices in 13 communities, 4
of which are "on the road system" with the rest being "rural
offices"; has three separate internal divisions - civil,
criminal, and appellate; and employs approximately 100 attorneys
and 70 staff.
MR. STEINER then recounted that he started out as a volunteer
investigator with the PDA prior to attending law school; served
as legal extern while attending law school; began employment
with the PDA upon graduating from law school in 1998 - working
primarily as an appellate lawyer but he also tried civil and
criminal cases; and has served in his position as director of
the PDA for approximately four years. This appointment would be
his second.
MR. STEINER indicated that since his initial appointment, the
PDA has expanded its training and recruitment programs; and was
restructured in an effort to strengthen its case management,
attorney performance, and cost management and resource
allocation, and is now made up of regional supervision units.
The goal of these changes was to better absorb the PDA's
continuous and dramatic caseload increases, and the PDA has been
successful in these efforts. Additionally, the PDA will be
producing performance-measure results to better track resource
deployment.
2:05:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that the public defender is
responsible for testifying before the legislature on proposed
legislation and budget proposals, asked Mr. Steiner how he has
implemented that responsibility, how much testimony he has
provided, who presents the PDA's budget, "how that works," and
whether he has testified with respect to criminal law before
this committee and other committees.
MR. STEINER said his practice has been to review all proposed
criminal legislation that could have a significant impact on the
PDA; attend the hearings on such legislation in order to answer
questions - though on occasion he has assigned that latter duty
to a deputy director or appellate attorney if he himself is
unable to attend; and provide all the testimony for the PDA's
budget. His work with regard to criminal legislation has been
challenging, he noted, because the legislative session moves
pretty quickly, and so he has been attempting to expand
participation in the review of and preparation of testimony
regarding such legislation. He added, "It's my view that ...
we're in a good position to discuss the impacts of legislation
on the agency, agency's [indisc.], and ... criminal justice in
general."
2:07:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Steiner whether he has to
clear his budget with a department head or anybody else.
MR. STEINER said the PDA's budget requests go directly to the
Department of Administration (DOA), which then passes them on to
the governor's office. He added that he has frequent contact
with the DOA's commissioner's office, the commissioner, and the
commissioner's staff with regard to the deployment of resources
and resource requests.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Steiner whether the PDA has
to clear it's testimony on substantive legislation with, or get
permission from, a department head or anyone else.
MR. STEINER said no.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Steiner how many bills he's
testified on before the House Judiciary Standing Committee
during this Twenty-Sixth Alaska State Legislature.
MR. STEINER said he does not have that statistic, but added that
he's typically available via teleconference to answer questions
"on all the big pieces of legislation." In response to a
question, he offered his understanding that when he participates
in meetings via teleconference, that his name is on the
teleconference witness list the Legislative Information Office
(LIO) provides the chair, and that it indicates that he is
available for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he's not seen or heard
testimony from either Mr. Steiner or his staff very much, very
often, [during the hearings], and said he is concerned [about
this lack] because the committee hears a lot of testimony and
proposed legislation from "the prosecution." He questioned
whether the PDA has proposed any legislation during the last
several legislatures.
MR. STEINER said he, personally, has not submitted any criminal
legislation to the legislature. He added, "There are many
instances where we're available on line and have not been asked
questions, and I don't know -- ... I know it's harder that I'm
on the phone that I'm not immediately apparent, but I am there,
consistently, on the major pieces of legislation - myself or
someone from our staff, available."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Steiner whether he believes
there are any pieces of substantive legislation that the PDA
feels the legislature should consider "from a defense point of
view."
2:12:00 PM
MR. STEINER said it has been his position that the role of the
PDA is to not take ultimate policy positions but rather to
simply inform on the impacts of proposed legislation, and that
if there were some procedural problem that needed to be fixed,
that there wouldn't be some proposal coming from the PDA.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that that has not been the
policy of "the prosecution," and asked Mr. Steiner why he feels
that "the defense" should not take policy positions even though
"the prosecution" does.
MR. STEINER said he feels primarily that taking a policy
position requires making a value judgment about what's right and
wrong for society, whereas, in contrast, he thinks the PDA's
mission is limited to representing clients who've been charged
with criminal conduct. Making value judgments about what's
right or wrong in terms of what should be criminal conduct, what
should not be criminal conduct, or what the penalties for such
conduct should be instead lies with the legislature and other
elected officials. The independent role of the public defender,
he opined, requires that he neither support nor oppose any
particular substantive piece of legislation, or take direction
from anyone to do so; he has therefore taken a position to
simply not support or oppose legislation, but is happy to answer
questions regarding his interpretation of "the statutes and its
impacts."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that that was not the position
taken by Mr. Steiner's predecessors, who had regularly taken
policy positions with "a defense" point of view. "This is a new
position, a philosophical position, from yourself; this does not
follow the agency's previous history," he remarked.
MR. STEINER concurred that his predecessor did take policy
positions on substantive criminal legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said that as a lawmaker, she finds it
difficult to have the Department of Law (DOL) - representing the
prosecuting side - not only introduce legislation but take firm
stands on it, but to not then also have either the PDA or the
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) presenting equal testimony as a
counterbalance. Legislators are being presented with a very
one-sided advocacy on legislation, and it's a great
disadvantage, she remarked, to not have the benefit of being
presented with a balanced advocacy.
2:16:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is quite concerned about Mr.
Steiner's answers. He asked Mr. Steiner whether, in view of
legislators' comments, he would be willing to change his
position and become more vocal in his testimony on, and advocacy
of, legislative issues that come before the House Judiciary
Standing Committee. Representative Gruenberg added, "I am
sufficiently concerned that this will affect my vote on your
confirmation."
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed satisfaction with Mr. Steiner's conduct.
MR. STEINER said he is not likely to change his position
regarding supporting or opposing substantive legislation, and
welcomes any inquiries about his interpretation of proposed
legislation. In conclusion, he said, "I do, personally, review
the legislation to see how it will be implemented and how it
will be interpreted, ... and invite any questions, at any time,
either on the record or off, about my view ... of legislation
and its impacts on the agency, agency's budget, the justice
system, or clients in general."
^Violent Crimes Compensation Board
Violent Crimes Compensation Board
2:18:31 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the committee would next consider
the appointment of Nora G. Barlow to the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board (VCCB).
2:18:41 PM
NORA G. BARLOW, Appointee, Violent Crimes Compensation Board
(VCCB), relayed that she has been an attorney since 1991; that
she is seeking appointment to her first three-year term on the
VCCB; and that one of the things she found very appealing about
the prospect of serving on the VCCB was the subject matter,
because she felt that some of her most important work as an
attorney involved working in California addressing CINA cases
and conservatorship cases for those with grave disabilities, and
one of the several positions she'd held since returning to
Alaska was that of assistant attorney general in the Office of
Special Prosecutions & Appeals addressing cases involving
victims of sexual assault and sexual abuse of a minor crimes.
She said she feels that she has a lot of expertise [with regard
to helping victims], that she was looking for an area of public
service in which to participate, and has been told that her
experience dovetails nicely with the work being done by the
VCCB. In conclusion, she said she feels that she would be an
appropriate choice [for the VCCB's attorney position].
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that Ms. Barlow would be well suited for a
position on the VCCB.
2:22:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES disclosed that she is a neighbor of Ms.
Barlow's, and that they have similar elements on their resumes.
Representative Holmes concluded by thanking Ms. Barlow for her
willingness to serve, and noting that Ms. Barlow has an
excellent reputation and so she thinks Ms. Barlow would do a
great job.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG disclosed that he knows Ms. Barlow,
expressed favor with her appointment, and noted that Ms. Barlow
would be replacing LeRoy J. Barker, Esq.
CHAIR RAMRAS [although no formal motion was made] indicated that
the nominations of all the aforementioned appointees would be
advanced from committee.
2:24:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that although he would be signing
the advancement forms, he would be reserving his vote on Mr.
Steiner.
HJR 42 - CONST. AM: TRANSPORTATION FUND
2:25:02 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska creating a transportation
infrastructure fund.
2:25:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 42, Version 26-LS1411/S, Kane, 2/17/10,
as the work draft. There being no objection, Version S was
before the committee.
2:26:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as chair of the House Transportation Standing Committee,
sponsor, explained that passage of HJR 42 would place before the
voters a proposed change to Article IX, Section 7, of the Alaska
State Constitution in order to allow for a dedicated fund for
capital transportation projects. She noted that for fiscal year
2010 (FY 10), 87 percent of Alaska's transportation budget comes
from the federal government, and that the current federal
reauthorization bill has expired and is only being extended on a
month-to-month basis until new federal legislation can be
passed. She relayed that she's heard, however, that that new
federal reauthorization bill is going to be very unfavorable to
those with small populations - like Alaska - because it's going
to emphasize mass transit and green transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON remarked that with federal funding
diminishing, Alaska is going to have to shoulder more
responsibility for its transportation infrastructure. Although
passage of HJR 42's proposed change to the Alaska State
Constitution might impact the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), the proposed change is more about
meeting all of Alaska's growing transportation needs.
Transportation investment creates a competitive environment,
attracting additional economic development. She noted that the
House Transportation Standing Committee has researched the
issues surrounding Alaska's transportation needs and challenges,
and has received input from interested parties from across the
state as well as information from the National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL) regarding what other states are doing
to address their transportation infrastructure budget gaps.
Furthermore, a House Finance Committee member's staff has
compiled a list of the many different funding options available
to address the fiscal shortfalls resulting from Alaska's long-
range transportation plan.
2:28:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON explained that HJR 42 is a culmination
of all that research and input, and, if its proposed dedicated
fund is added to the Alaska State Constitution by the voters, it
would allow Alaska more opportunity to take advantage of the
cost- and time-savings of State-funded projects while also
addressing the state's growing transportation needs. The
proposed dedicated fund would allow Alaska's transportation
projects to be completed much faster because, as State-funded
projects, they wouldn't have to follow lengthy, expensive, and
time-consuming federal procedures; such projects would, however,
still have to comply with federal construction standards. House
Joint Resolution 42's proposed constitutional change is not
intended to diminish the State's partnership with the federal
government; instead, it is intended to provide a dedicated
revenue stream that will allow more transportation projects to
be completed faster and at less cost.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said that the resolution's proposed
transportation infrastructure fund would grow as investment
returns compound. The goal is to seed the endowment with $1
billion, and it is anticipated that it will then grow by another
$65 million the first year as the result of investment returns
and motor fuel tax and registration fees, and by another $5
million to $6 million each year thereafter. She noted that
members' packets contain graphs created by the Legislative
Finance Division illustrating the proposed dedicated fund's
balance and the amounts that would be available for
appropriations from it each year - from FY 11 through FY 30.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her understanding that in one
of his speeches, former Governor Hickel indicated support for
the Alaska State Constitution being changed to provide for a
dedicated transportation fund. She remarked that Alaska needs
to take action now; that the future of the economic and social
wellbeing of Alaska's citizens is critically dependant on a
reliable transportation system; and that HJR 42's proposed
change to the Alaska State Constitution, allowing for a
dedicated transportation fund, is needed to create and maintain
a reliable transportation system for Alaska. She then explained
that under Version S, the proposed transportation infrastructure
fund would begin receiving revenue from the motor fuel tax and
registration fees after of July 1, 2011 - the beginning of FY 12
- and appropriations from that fund would be limited to only
those capital projects for transportation and related facilities
that are designated by law - in other words, those approved by
the legislature.
2:34:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to comments, mentioned
that although he won't hold the resolution up, he doesn't
support it for constitutional reasons, and pointed out that it's
difficult to address the resolution's constitutional issues
separate from its fiscal issues because the prohibition on
dedicated funds outlined in Article IX, Section 7, of the Alaska
State Constitution is based on the fiscal policy that the
framers imbedded in the Alaska State Constitution. His feeling,
he relayed, is summarized in a handout he's provided from the
publication, Alaska's Constitution; A Citizen's Guide, as it
pertained to Article IX, Section 7.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether HJR 42 would prevent the
governor from suspending Alaska's motor fuel tax.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her belief that it would not;
instead, the proposed dedicated transportation fund would simply
grow more slowly when it wasn't receiving revenue from that tax.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she doesn't see any constitutional
problems with HJR 42, expressed favor with Version S's
stipulation that appropriations from the proposed dedicated fund
could only be for capital projects for transportation and
related facilities that are designated by law, but questioned
whether the legislature could appropriate monies from the fund
for transportation infrastructure maintenance and operational
costs.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON indicated that the language of the
proposed constitutional change might be broad enough to allow
for that, though not for the normal operating costs of the
DOT&PF. In response to another question, she indicated that
several organizations have expressed favor with HJR 42 and its
proposed dedicated transportation infrastructure fund. In
response to other questions, she explained that any
appropriations from the proposed dedicated fund would be limited
to State-funded transportation projects.
2:43:31 PM
BECKY ROONEY, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, in response to questions and comments, explained on
behalf of the sponsor, the House Transportation Standing
Committee, which is chaired by Representative P. Wilson, that
HJR 42 doesn't address any of the other suggestions outlined in
the handout titled "Alaska Transportation Finance Study; Final
Report", and would not be instituting any new taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON again relayed that several
organizations have expressed favor with HJR 42 and its proposed
dedicated transportation infrastructure fund, and surmised that
it's because they know that Alaska's economic development cannot
happen without an adequate transportation infrastructure.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON questioned whether anyone has expressed
opposition to HJR 42.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said no. In response to another
question, she acknowledged that because the language on page 2,
lines 3-5, says, "Each year, the legislature may appropriate a
percentage of the average market value of the fund as
established by law for capital projects for transportation and
related facilities that are designated by law", that that
percentage, once it's established in statute, could be as high
as 50 percent. However, she pointed out, language in another
piece of legislation pertaining to this proposed constitutional
dedicated fund currently stipulates that it would be 6 percent
of a five-year average.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that the legislature
could pass legislation in the future allowing it to empty out
this proposed dedicated fund if it felt it needed to.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON acknowledged that that is a
possibility.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG - with regard to the term
"transportation infrastructure fund" - questioned whether under
the proposed constitutional change, some of the monies in that
fund could be appropriated to "a specialized type of revenue
sharing that's used only for municipal roads."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON acknowledged that that, too, is a
possibility.
2:50:06 PM
FRANK RICHARDS, Deputy Commissioner of Highways & Public
Facilities, Office of the Commissioner, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), in response to a
question, indicated that the DOT&PF has no position on HJR 42.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether HJR 42's proposed
change to the Alaska State Constitution really does provide for
a true dedicated fund.
2:53:15 PM
BRIAN KANE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA),
speaking as the drafter, offered that it does in that the
proposed constitutional change provides that all of the monies
from the fees listed therein and the State's motor fuel tax
would go into the proposed transportation infrastructure fund
and could then only be spent on a limited number of projects.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON added that the funds that could be
appropriated under HJR 42 in any given year would be limited.
2:55:13 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), noted that the aforementioned handout titled "Alaska
Transportation Finance Study; Final Report" was prepared for the
AML and illustrates that among other things, the State needs to
identify some way to fill the financial gap that will be left as
a result of the anticipated decrease in federal funding. She
indicated that the AML would be happy to support HJR 42,
surmising that other interested organizations would be as well.
In conclusion, she relayed that the AML is in full support of
HJR 42.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO surmised that the monies from the proposed
dedicated fund could be appropriated for Alaska's railroads.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to the sponsor's statement
that the goal is to seed the proposed dedicated fund with $1
billion and add Alaska's motor fuel tax and registration fees to
it, questioned whether taking that much in GF funding off the
table initially is supported by the AML, given that taking those
funds off the table could affect such things as revenue sharing,
education funding, and other things for which funding is needed
now.
MS. WASSERMAN relayed that the AML is aware that there will be
some tradeoffs with HJR 42's approach, but is still in favor of
it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Wasserman what she would
propose in order to address any [initial] budget shortfall that
results from so seeding the proposed dedicated fund.
MS. WASSERMAN relayed that she is unable to answer that
question.
2:59:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that before HJR 42 is passed by
the legislature, it will be essential for the legislature to
know how local governments intend to make up for any budget
shortfall that could result from the proposed constitutional
change. He said he could envision that ratification of the
proposed constitutional change by the voters could result in
there being less money for the capital budget, less money for
municipal revenue sharing, and less money for education funding,
particularly because $1 billion is a lot of money. Furthermore,
he predicted, the proposed constitutional transportation
infrastructure fund could be just the first of many dedicated
funds to be proposed.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said, "You might consider that we could
bond for infrastructure, and use the dedicated fuel tax funds to
pay the bonds?"
MS. WASSERMAN acknowledged that the legislature could take such
an approach.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that there are
various other ways of paying for the state's transportation
needs besides adopting HJR 42.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HJR 42. In response to
comments, he relayed that HJR 42 [Version S] would be held over.
3:04:04 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HJR42 Sponsor Stmt.pdf |
HJUD 2/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 02 HJR42 Bill v.E.pdf |
HJUD 2/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 03 HJR42-OOG-DOE-2-9-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 04 HJR42 Support - fund values with taxes.pdf |
HJUD 2/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 05 HJR42 Support - Graph.pdf |
HJUD 2/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 06 HJR42 Exec Summary AK Trans Finance Study.pdf |
HJUD 2/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 07 HJR42 CS v. S.pdf |
HJUD 2/17/2010 1:00:00 PM |