Legislature(2001 - 2002)

03/30/2001 01:16 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ 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 -                                                                        
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,                                                                  
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                                                                   
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 -                                                                        
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                                                                
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                             
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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-                                                               
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.]                                                                                   
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