Legislature(2001 - 2002)

04/09/2001 01:18 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 9, 2001                                                                                          
                           1:18 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair                                                                                           
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair (via teleconference)                                                                      
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative John Coghill                                                                                                     
Representative Kevin Meyer                                                                                                      
Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Albert Kookesh                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 103(FIN)                                                                                                 
"An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 103(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE; ADOPTED A HOUSE                                                                
       CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE TITLE CHANGE                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 210                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to sexual assault and sexual abuse of a minor."                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 210(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 187                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to the destruction, desecration, and vandalism                                                                 
of cemeteries and graves."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 187(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 196                                                                                                              
"An Act establishing a right of action for a legal separation;                                                                  
and amending Rule 42(a), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 82(STA)                                                                                                  
"An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as                                                                  
recommended by the revisor of statutes; and providing for an                                                                    
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 67                                                                                                               
"An Act  requiring proof  of motor vehicle  insurance in  order to                                                              
register  a   motor  vehicle;  and   relating  to   motor  vehicle                                                              
liability insurance for taxicabs."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     - BILL HEARING POSTPONED                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 68                                                                                        
"An  Act   relating  to  civil   liability  for   transporting  an                                                              
intoxicated person  or for driving  an intoxicated  person's motor                                                              
vehicle; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     - BILL HEARING POSTPONED                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 105(FIN)                                                                                                 
"An Act relating  to victims' rights; relating  to establishing an                                                              
office  of   victims'  rights;   relating  to  the   authority  of                                                              
litigants and  the court to comment  on the crime  victim's choice                                                              
to   appear  or   testify  in   a  criminal   case;  relating   to                                                              
compensation   of  victims   of   violent   crimes;  relating   to                                                              
eligibility for  a permanent fund  dividend for persons  convicted                                                              
of and  incarcerated for certain  offenses; relating to  notice of                                                              
appropriations concerning  victims' rights; amending  Rules 16 and                                                              
30,  Alaska   Rules  of   Criminal  Procedure,   Rule  9,   Alaska                                                              
Delinquency  Rules, and Rule  501, Alaska  Rules of Evidence;  and                                                              
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - BILL HEARING POSTPONED                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 133                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to  restitution  for criminal  and  delinquency                                                              
acts; authorizing  the state to  collect restitution on  behalf of                                                              
victims of  crime and delinquent  acts and the release  of certain                                                              
information   related  to   that  collection;   relating  to   the                                                              
forfeiture  of certain  cash  and other  security  for payment  of                                                              
other  restitution;  relating  to  access by  the  Violent  Crimes                                                              
Compensation Board  to certain records regarding  delinquency acts                                                              
to  award  compensation  to  victims;  relating  to  immunity  for                                                              
damages related  to certain  collections of restitution;  amending                                                              
Rule 82,  Alaska Rules  of Civil Procedure;  and providing  for an                                                              
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - BILL HEARING POSTPONED                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 134                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to  the rights  of crime  victims, the  crime of                                                              
violating   a  protective   injunction,   mitigating  factors   in                                                              
sentencing  for  an offense,  and  the  return of  certain  seized                                                              
property  to  victims;  clarifying  that a  violation  of  certain                                                              
protective  orders is  contempt  of the  authority  of the  court;                                                              
expanding  the scope  of the  prohibition of  compromise based  on                                                              
civil remedy  of misdemeanor  crimes involving domestic  violence;                                                              
providing for  protective relief for  victims of stalking  that is                                                              
not domestic  violence  and for  the crime of  violating an  order                                                              
for  that relief;  providing  for continuing  education  regarding                                                              
domestic  violence for  certain  persons appointed  by the  court;                                                              
making  certain conforming  amendments;  amending  Rules 65.1  and                                                              
100(a), Alaska  Rules of Civil  Procedure; amending Rules  10, 11,                                                              
13, 16,  and 17, Alaska District  Court Rules of  Civil Procedure;                                                              
and amending Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration."                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - BILL HEARING POSTPONED                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 103                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS                                                                           
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                      Action                                                                                 
02/20/01     0432       (S)         READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                       
                                    REFERRALS                                                                                   
02/20/01     0432       (S)         STA, JUD                                                                                    
02/22/01                (S)         STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                    
02/22/01                (S)         Heard & Held                                                                                
02/22/01                (S)         MINUTE(STA)                                                                                 
02/27/01                (S)         STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                    
02/27/01                (S)         Moved CS(STA) Out of                                                                        
                                    Committee                                                                                   
02/27/01                (S)         MINUTE(STA)                                                                                 
02/28/01     0534       (S)         STA RPT CS 2DP 3NR NEW TITLE                                                                
02/28/01     0534       (S)         DP: THERRIAULT, HALFORD; NR:                                                                
                                    PHILLIPS,                                                                                   
02/28/01     0534       (S)         PEARCE, DAVIS                                                                               
02/28/01     0534       (S)         FN1: (ADM)                                                                                  
03/09/01                (S)         JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                    
03/12/01                (S)         JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                    
03/12/01                (S)         Moved CS(JUD) Out of                                                                        
                                    Committee                                                                                   
                                    MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                 
03/13/01     0634       (S)         JUD RPT CS 2DP 1DNP 1NR NEW                                                                 
                                    TITLE                                                                                       
03/13/01     0635       (S)         DP: TAYLOR, COWDERY; DNP:                                                                   
                                    ELLIS                                                                                       
03/13/01     0635       (S)         NR: THERRIAULT                                                                              
03/13/01     0635       (S)         FN1: (ADM)                                                                                  
03/13/01     0635       (S)         FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD                                                                
03/22/01                (S)         FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                                                               
                                    532                                                                                         
03/22/01                (S)         MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                 
03/23/01     0783       (S)         FIN RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE                                                                
03/23/01     0783       (S)         DP: DONLEY, KELLY, LEMAN;                                                                   
03/23/01     0783       (S)         NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON                                                                          
03/23/01     0783       (S)         FN2: (ADM)                                                                                  
03/23/01                (S)         FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                                                               
                                    532                                                                                         
03/23/01                (S)         MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                 
03/28/01                (S)         RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP                                                                  
                                    203                                                                                         
03/28/01                (S)         MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                 
03/29/01     0858       (S)         RULES TO CALENDAR 2OR 3/29/01                                                               
03/29/01     0863       (S)         READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                        
03/29/01     0863       (S)         FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                 
03/29/01     0863       (S)         ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                   
                                    UNAN CONSENT                                                                                
03/29/01     0863       (S)         READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
                                    103(FIN)                                                                                    
03/29/01     0864       (S)         PASSED Y17 N2 A1                                                                            
03/29/01     0867       (S)         TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                          
03/29/01     0867       (S)         VERSION: CSSB 103(FIN)                                                                      
03/30/01     0782       (H)         READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                       
                                    REFERRALS                                                                                   
03/30/01     0782       (H)         STA, JUD, FIN                                                                               
04/03/01     0825       (H)         STA RPT 4DP 2DNP 1NR                                                                        
04/03/01     0825       (H)         DP: WILSON, FATE, JAMES,                                                                    
                                    COGHILL;                                                                                    
04/03/01     0826       (H)         DNP: CRAWFORD, HAYES; NR:                                                                   
                                    STEVENS                                                                                     
04/03/01     0826       (H)         FN2: (ADM)                                                                                  
04/03/01                (H)         STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                  
04/03/01                (H)         Moved Out of Committee                                                                      
04/03/01                (H)         MINUTE(STA)                                                                                 
04/09/01                (H)         JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 210                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:STAT. OF LIMITATIONS:SEXUAL ASSAULT/ABUSE                                                                           
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MEYER                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                      Action                                                                                 
03/23/01     0706       (H)         READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                       
                                    REFERRALS                                                                                   
03/23/01     0706       (H)         JUD, FIN                                                                                    
04/09/01                (H)         JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 187                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:VANDALISM OF CEMETERIES & GRAVES                                                                                    
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WHITAKER                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                      Action                                                                                 
03/15/01     0609       (H)         READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                       
                                    REFERRALS                                                                                   
03/15/01     0609       (H)         JUD, FIN                                                                                    
04/04/01     0848       (H)         COSPONSOR(S): WILSON                                                                        
04/09/01                (H)         JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
JOE BALASH, Staff                                                                                                               
to Senator Gene Therriault                                                                                                      
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee                                                                                         
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 121                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented SB 103 on behalf of the Senate                                                                   
State Affairs Standing Committee and answered questions.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director                                                                                                
Alaska Public Offices Commission                                                                                                
2221 East Northern Lights, Room 128                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska  99508-4149                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on SB 103.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SUSIE BARNETT, Ethics Committee Administrator                                                                                   
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics                                                                                          
Legislative Agencies and Offices                                                                                                
PO Box 101468                                                                                                                   
Anchorage, Alaska  99510-1468                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion of SB 103, answered                                                                      
questions related to disclosure.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
KAREN BITZER, Executive Director                                                                                                
Standing Together Against Rape (STAR)                                                                                           
1057 West Fireweed                                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska  99503                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified in support of HB  210 and answered                                                              
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
TRISHA GENTLE, Executive Director                                                                                               
Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault                                                                                   
PO Box 111200                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99811-1200                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 210.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director                                                                                                   
Public Defender Agency (PDA)                                                                                                    
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200                                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska  99501-2090                                                                                                   
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Testified  in opposition  to  HB  210  and                                                              
expressed concern  about the difficulty  in defending a  case that                                                              
is over ten  years old.  During  discussion of HB 187,  brought up                                                              
the concern that  youths should not have to have  a class C felony                                                              
on their records.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Attorney                                                                                                       
Legislative Legal Counsel                                                                                                       
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
Terry Miller Building, Room 329                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska  99801-1182                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:   Speaking as the drafter,  answered questions                                                              
on HB 210 and proposed amendments.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
LORI L. BACKES, Staff                                                                                                           
to Representative Jim Whitaker                                                                                                  
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 411                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
POSITION   STATEMENT:      Presented   HB   187   on   behalf   of                                                              
Representative Whitaker and answered questions.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT SAM, Cemetery Caretaker                                                                                                  
PO Box 6113                                                                                                                     
Sitka, Alaska  99835                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified in support of HB  187 and answered                                                              
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ELMER MAKUA, Cemetery Caretaker                                                                                                 
Tongass Tribe                                                                                                                   
1042 Woodland Avenue                                                                                                            
Ketchikan, Alaska  99901                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 187.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
DAVID JACOBY, Public Works Director                                                                                             
City of Fairbanks                                                                                                               
2121 Peger Road                                                                                                                 
Fairbanks, Alaska  99709                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 187.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President for University Relations                                                                           
University of Alaska                                                                                                            
PO Box 755000                                                                                                                   
Fairbanks, Alaska  99775                                                                                                        
POSITION  STATEMENT:    During  discussion  on  HB  178,  answered                                                              
questions related to proposed Amendment 1.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-59, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  NORMAN   ROKEBERG  called  the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                              
Committee  meeting   to  order  at  1:18  p.m.     Representatives                                                              
Rokeberg, Ogan  (via teleconference),  James, Coghill,  Meyer, and                                                              
Berkowitz were present at the call to order.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SB 103 - ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0160                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that the  first order of  business would                                                              
be CS FOR SENATE  BILL NO. 103(FIN), "An Act relating  to election                                                              
campaigns and legislative ethics."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0185                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JOE  BALASH,  Staff  to  Senator  Gene  Therriault,  Senate  State                                                              
Affairs Standing  Committee, Alaska  State Legislature,  presented                                                              
SB  103  on  behalf  of the  sponsor,  the  Senate  State  Affairs                                                              
Standing Committee.   Mr. Balash explained that SB  103 is largely                                                              
a  "cleanup bill"  to  address a  couple  of  conflicts and  "gray                                                              
areas"  in  the  Alaska  Public   Offices  Commission  (APOC)  and                                                              
legislative ethics  statutes.   He said that  the APOC  section of                                                              
SB 103 further  defines and clarifies that a  single candidate can                                                              
control  multiple  groups, but  that  a  collection of  groups  is                                                              
subject  to  the  same limitations  on  contributions  that  would                                                              
apply to one  group.  He added  that SB 103 makes some  changes to                                                              
the public  office expense  term (POET)  account and POET  reserve                                                              
mechanism,  which  is eliminated,  leaving  just  the single  POET                                                              
account;  transitional language  is  included  to facilitate  this                                                              
change.   He  also explained  that  under SB  103,  the amount  of                                                              
personal  property  that's  allowed   to  be  carried  forward  is                                                              
increased,  and the  types  of property  that  are  allowed to  be                                                              
carried forward are addressed.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALASH further  explained that  contribution definitions  are                                                              
modified, particularly  in the  areas of exclusions,  professional                                                              
services,  mass mailings  by parties,  certain  poll results,  and                                                              
newsletters to constituents.   With regard to the  ethics portions                                                              
of SB  103, he  said that the  ethics statute  breaks down  in two                                                              
places:   use of public assets  for non-legislative  purposes, and                                                              
use  of public  assets for  political  purposes.   Under the  non-                                                              
legislative  purposes portion,  allowances are  made for  seasonal                                                              
greeting  cards  to be  prepared  and  mailed out  by  legislative                                                              
staff;  transportation of  personal computers  used primarily  for                                                              
state  business;  use  of  photographs;   reasonable  use  of  the                                                              
Internet;   solicitation   and   acceptance   of   donations   for                                                              
nonpolitical  charities;  and  newsletters  on any  subject.    In                                                              
addition,  the  use  of  offices   before  and  after  session  is                                                              
extended  to  ten  days  at  either  end.    Under  the  political                                                              
purposes  portion,  allowances are  made  for legislators  to  use                                                              
their  photographs   and  to  support  or   oppose  constitutional                                                              
amendments,  although  there  is   a  limitation  on  the  use  of                                                              
legislative offices  and staff  for solicitation of  contributions                                                              
regarding  the amendment;  it  also addresses  the  use of  Juneau                                                              
legislative offices  and provides for an exception to  the gift of                                                              
transportation from one legislator to another.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0443                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  asked   whether  the  change  regarding                                                              
candidates' registering of multiple groups is necessary.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALASH responded  that  the  APOC currently  treats  multiple                                                              
groups in  this manner,  and the  legislation is simply  codifying                                                              
that  interpretation.   As to  the  necessity of  this change,  he                                                              
said it  is up to the  legislators' preference whether  to include                                                              
it.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG,  with  regard  to the  elimination  of  the  POET                                                              
reserve account, asked whether the amounts would stay the same.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. BALASH confirmed that the amounts would stay the same.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG said:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Right  now, ... a  House member  can receive $10,000  of                                                                   
     campaign  funds, then has  to disburse  it to a  reserve                                                                   
     and  an operating  account  - ...  [though] only  $5,000                                                                   
     per  annum  - so  that's  why  the reserve  account  was                                                                   
     established.   So, this bill  does away with that  so we                                                                   
     only have  to have  one account  over a two-year  cycle.                                                                   
     Is that [correct]?                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALASH said  that  is correct.    He added  that  all of  the                                                              
reporting  requirements are  still in  place as  to how the  funds                                                              
are used and accounted  for, as are the limitations  on use of the                                                              
funds.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  asked for clarification on  the types of                                                              
accounts and the amounts allowed as addressed by SB 103.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES responded  that SB  103 is  doing away  with                                                              
the  POET reserve  account, leaving  in place  the operating  POET                                                              
account as  well as the campaign  account.  With this  change, the                                                              
entire  $10,000 can  be placed  in the  operational POET  account,                                                              
although those funds have to last for two years.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  noted that  he has  set up  a savings account  for                                                              
the funds  in his POET  reserve account, and  is now at a  loss as                                                              
to what  to do  with the  interest earned  by that account,  since                                                              
interest  earned is  not specifically  addressed in  statute.   He                                                              
added  that he  does  report that  amount  of  interest earned  as                                                              
income to the  Internal Revenue Service (IRS),  but is constrained                                                              
by current statute from using it as personal income.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  opined  that  interest  earned  from  these                                                              
accounts is  considered a political  donation to  the legislator's                                                              
own campaign and needs to be reported as such.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked what  becomes  of  the  funds in  the  POET                                                              
accounts  upon the  death of  a legislator  while in  office.   He                                                              
said his  interpretation is that  the disposition of  the accounts                                                              
would have to follow the statute.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0732                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BROOKE   MILES,   Executive  Director,   Alaska   Public   Offices                                                              
Commission  (APOC),  testified via  teleconference  and  confirmed                                                              
that this is also the interpretation held the APOC staff.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  surmised this  meant  that the  surviving  spouse                                                              
would have to go  through the process of disposing  of those funds                                                              
via donations to charities and/or political parties.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS  MILES confirmed  this  and  added  that the  surviving  spouse                                                              
could  also choose  to  donate the  funds  to  state or  municipal                                                              
government agencies.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. BALASH  added that  the language  regarding the limitation  on                                                              
the disposal  of funds from the  POET account at the end  the term                                                              
of office,  page 3,  lines 25-26, is  consistent with  the current                                                              
limitations  on the  POET  reserve account  mechanism.   He  noted                                                              
that  one  of  the  limitations  is that  these  funds  cannot  be                                                              
pocketed as personal income.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0882                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SUSIE BARNETT,  Ethics Committee  Administrator, Select  Committee                                                              
on Legislative  Ethics ("Ethics Committee"),  Legislative Agencies                                                              
and Offices, testified  via teleconference.  Referring  to Section                                                              
8 on page 11, lines  8-12, she said that she and  the chair of the                                                              
Ethics Committee,  Skip Cook,  have discussed  this section;  they                                                              
recommend  that   when  the  gift   of  transportation   from  one                                                              
legislator  to  another  exceeds  $250,  there  should  be  public                                                              
disclosure, as  is the case with  all other gifts.   She explained                                                              
that this  public disclosure  would follow  the same  stipulations                                                              
as the public disclosure of other gifts.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BALASH, as  background  for  this provision,  explained  that                                                              
this language  was added  in the  Senate Finance Committee  (SFIN)                                                              
by Senator Olson,  who had spoke to the difficulties  a legislator                                                              
can have  getting around  in his particular  district.   "You can,                                                              
virtually, only  get by  with an airplane,"  Mr. Balash  said, and                                                              
added  that Senator  Olson  found that  under  the current  ethics                                                              
requirements,  even though  he owns  his own  plane, he could  not                                                              
invite somebody  to his home and  provide the type  of hospitality                                                              
similar  to what  two  legislators  from the  urban  areas of  the                                                              
state could  provide to  each other.   On  the topic of  including                                                              
the  disclosure  requirements as  suggested  by Ms.  Barnett,  Mr.                                                              
Balash said that  according to his understanding,  there are three                                                              
options available to  the legislature.  One is to  not require any                                                              
disclosure;  the  second  would  be to  disclose  to  the  [Ethics                                                              
Committee]  only;  and  the  third option  would  be  full  public                                                              
disclosure   whereby  the   gift  is  reported   to  the   [Ethics                                                              
Committee] and  in turn entered  into the legislative  journal for                                                              
each  body.   Mr. Balash  noted  that disclosure  of  the gift  of                                                              
travel referred to  in Section 8 was not discussed,  either during                                                              
committee hearings or during Senate floor debate.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. BARNETT added  that currently, the sharing  of travel expenses                                                              
between legislators  would not have  to be disclosed under  SB 103                                                              
as written; under  her suggested change, it would only  have to be                                                              
disclosed if the value exceeds $250.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILES  explained  that  the  APOC,  at  its  recent  meeting,                                                              
reviewed  SB 103 and  identified  some areas  that will result  in                                                              
administrative costs.   With regard to Section 4 on  page 5, lines                                                              
[6-11], she  said that  this provision makes  an amendment  to the                                                              
campaign disclosure  law in conformance with a  proposed amendment                                                              
to the legislative  ethics law found later in SB  103.  The effect                                                              
of this provision  is to permit legislators and  legislative staff                                                              
to  use public  resources to  support or  oppose ballot  questions                                                              
regarding constitutional  amendments.  She pointed  out that under                                                              
current  law,  public funds  can  be  used  to support  or  oppose                                                              
ballot questions  only if they  are specifically  appropriated for                                                              
that  purpose by  state law  or  municipal ordinance.   She  added                                                              
that  administrative   regulations   allow  public  officials   to                                                              
communicate   on  ballot   question   issues,  as   long  as   the                                                              
communication is  made in the  usual and customary  performance of                                                              
the official's duties.   She noted that this  has been interpreted                                                              
to mean  that legislators  can include  commentary about  proposed                                                              
constitutional    amendment   ballot    propositions   in    their                                                              
constituent mailings,  in their  discussions before a  Rotary Club                                                              
or chamber of commerce, and so forth.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1224                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES continued,  saying that the revision proposed  by SB 103                                                              
is  likely to  attract public  inquiries  and complaints,  because                                                              
the  persons on  the  opposing  side of  constitutional  amendment                                                              
ballot   questions  will   probably   have   concerns  about   the                                                              
activities  of legislators  and  legislative employees  conducting                                                              
constitutional-amendment   ballot-question   campaign   activities                                                              
with  public funds.   She  said  her overarching  comment on  this                                                              
proposed change  is that none  of the legislators'  or legislative                                                              
employees'  activities,   with  respect   to  the  work   done  on                                                              
constitutional  amendments, are currently  regulated.   She added,                                                              
however, that that  could change once [legislators  or legislative                                                              
employees]  start actually  expending public  funds that  have not                                                              
been specifically  appropriated for  the purpose of  supporting or                                                              
opposing a ballot question issue.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  suggested that  the intent of  this proposed                                                              
change is not necessarily  to be utilizing a lot  of public funds,                                                              
but  rather  to  allow  legislative   staff  to  do  some  of  the                                                              
activities  during their  regular  workday (as  opposed to  during                                                              
their personal  time) that  are currently  done by legislators  on                                                              
ballot propositions.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILES said  she believed  that under  the legislative  ethics                                                              
provision of  SB 103,  the latter function  would be  allowed, but                                                              
under  the   campaign  disclosure   section,  it  simply   permits                                                              
campaign   activities.     She  clarified   that  [AS   15.13.145]                                                              
subsection  (a)(1)-(3)  is  referring  to  state,  municipal  [and                                                              
university  entities], and  that one  of the  major provisions  of                                                              
campaign finance  reform was to restrict public  money being spent                                                              
in  campaigns.   She added  that when  public money  is spent,  it                                                              
requires  some additional  public  process;  for  example, when  a                                                              
municipality wishes  to spend money to support  or oppose building                                                              
a  new school,  it  must specifically  appropriate  that money  by                                                              
ordinance.   And  while  SB 103  would  not allow  legislators  to                                                              
solicit  funds  for  campaign  activities,   it  would  allow  the                                                              
legislators   and  legislative   employees  to  conduct   campaign                                                              
activities related  to a ballot proposition question  that affects                                                              
the constitution, and  allow for the use of general  funds in that                                                              
campaign.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES   reiterated  her  comments   regarding  her                                                              
interpretation  of the  intent  of SB  103.   She  asked what  the                                                              
current procedure  is when legislators  and staff want to  work on                                                              
constitutional amendment  ballot questions, and where  the funding                                                              
for those activities currently comes from.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES  explained that  the legislature  works on these  issues                                                              
in  its routine  and normal  way, up  until the  point where  they                                                              
actually  become ballot  issues; once  the question  is placed  on                                                              
the ballot,  anyone can form a  valid proposition group,  which is                                                              
the  least  regulated  of  any  group.   Such  a  group  can  take                                                              
unlimited  contributions from  unlimited areas;  the group  simply                                                              
has to disclose everything.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  said she never believed that  it was ethical                                                              
for legislators to  be a part of that, or able  to spend any money                                                              
on that at all.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILES mentioned  constitutional  amendments  relating to  the                                                              
permanent  fund  dividend  (PFD)  and  wolf  hunting  that  became                                                              
ballot questions, as examples.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1502                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ,  with  regard  to  the way  SB  103  is                                                              
currently  written, asked  whether  it is  correct to  say that  a                                                              
legislator  is permitted to  use his/her  office, for  example, to                                                              
set up a  phone bank to make  calls in opposition or  support of a                                                              
constitutional amendment.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. BALASH said  that is correct, although he added  that this did                                                              
not extend  to initiatives  because  the use  has to be  permitted                                                              
under   AS   24.60.030(a)(5)(G),    which   speaks   directly   to                                                              
constitutional amendments only.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, for the record, said:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     I'm going  to be  offering an  amendment to delete  this                                                                   
     section  of the bill;  it is very  troubling to  me that                                                                   
     we  cross  that line.    I  see a  very  sharp  division                                                                   
     between   our    role   as   legislators    in   putting                                                                   
     constitutional  amendments on the  ballot - or  opposing                                                                   
     constitutional   amendments   -  and   then  once   that                                                                   
     amendment  has, in effect,  passed the legislature,  our                                                                   
     role is  done.  We should  be done with  that amendment.                                                                   
     We  can talk  about it  in  the normal  context that  we                                                                   
     talk about bills  with constituents, but I  think for us                                                                   
     to  be actively  out  soliciting support  or  opposition                                                                   
     for  a proposition  crosses  a line  that  we ought  not                                                                   
     cross.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  whether  legislators are  allowed  to  use                                                              
state resources to campaign for or against ballot initiatives.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILES said  no,  and added  that [activity  regarding]  other                                                              
ballot questions  that are  not about  a constitutional  amendment                                                              
would not be permitted.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG remarked  that  he found  this  to be  incongruous                                                              
because the  citizens' right to change  or amend a law  via ballot                                                              
initiative is similar  to the actions taken by  the legislature in                                                              
its normal  course of business.   He added, "That's the  nature of                                                              
a  change  of the  law,  and  therefore  I think  the  legislature                                                              
deserves  and has  the right  to  be intimately  involved in  that                                                              
discussion,  using  everything that  they  have [in]  their  power                                                              
...."                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1628                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ, on  a  prior point,  surmised that  the                                                              
resources   the   legislature   has  at   its   disposal   include                                                              
telephones; printing  offices; and  for some legislators,  such as                                                              
those in  the majority,  the ability  to travel.   There  also are                                                              
other advantages  whereby state funds  can be expended  in support                                                              
or opposition of a proposition.  To be clear, he continued:                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     We  have   a  very   distinct  constitutional   role  in                                                                   
     advancing  or  opposing constitutional  amendments,  and                                                                   
     it  is entirely  appropriate for  us, as  long as  we're                                                                   
     within  the process  of acting  as  legislators on  that                                                                   
     constitutional  amendment,  to  agitate for  or  against                                                                   
     that proposition.   But once it passes  the legislature,                                                                   
     our role  as legislators is  finished.  I think  we have                                                                   
     every ability  and every  right as independent  citizens                                                                   
     to speak to  or against a constitutional  amendment, but                                                                   
     that's  very distinct  [from] us bringing  the power  of                                                                   
     government that  we have through our offices  to bear on                                                                   
     an amendment.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  agreed  that [legislators]  only  have  one                                                              
responsibility  for  using  state  funds:   to  do  their  job  as                                                              
legislators.  She  therefore surmised that this  legislation is an                                                              
attempt to  expand that responsibility.   She said she  found that                                                              
troubling  because  no matter  how  [legislators]  proceed, it  is                                                              
going to  be misunderstood  by the public.   To counter  the point                                                              
that the legislator's  job is done once an issue  is placed on the                                                              
ballot, she said  that her constituents look to  her for guidance,                                                              
and  because she  has the  obligation to  provide assistance,  she                                                              
offers them her outlook  on the issue.  She added  that one of the                                                              
things  she  has found  regarding  constitutional  amendments  and                                                              
ballot issues is  that from her perspective, it's  a free-for-all:                                                              
there are  no rules regarding honesty  in advertising, and  so the                                                              
public  becomes  victimized  in  this  whole  process,  which  can                                                              
result in wrong decisions being made for the long term.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  said she  disagreed  with  the practice  of                                                              
using state  resources for anything  other than their  legislative                                                              
responsibility,  and that  she did  not  believe that  legislators                                                              
should  lean on  staff to gather  votes.   But, she  added,  it is                                                              
certainly  appropriate for  a legislator  to  defend the  position                                                              
that  he/she took  on a  constitutional amendment  question.   For                                                              
example,  if she  were  to travel  on state  business  and give  a                                                              
presentation to  people, if someone  asked her for her  opinion on                                                              
a constitutional  amendment, she  would freely  speak to it.   She                                                              
opined, however, that  it would not be ethical  for legislators to                                                              
join groups that  raise funds to support or  oppose constitutional                                                              
amendments.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES,  after acknowledging  that it  is the legislature  that                                                              
sets policy  and that the APOC  merely administers the  laws it is                                                              
given,  said that  the APOC  did not  want to  interfere with  the                                                              
legislature's deliberation of this proposed policy change.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1897                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  recalled that during  the time period  surrounding                                                              
the "advisory  vote,"  the standards  put forth  by the APOC  were                                                              
very  limiting regarding  legislators'  ability  to  speak out  on                                                              
that issue.   He opined that  legislators who were opposed  to the                                                              
issue  "didn't feel  constrained  to abide  by those  guidelines,"                                                              
whereas  legislators in  support  of the  issue did  abide by  the                                                              
guidelines.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES  referred to Section  5 [sub-subparagraph (iv)]  on page                                                              
6  [lines  6-9], and  said  that  this  amends the  definition  of                                                              
contribution to  exclude polls that  are limited to issues  and do                                                              
not  name  a  candidate,  unless  the poll  was  requested  by  or                                                              
designed primarily  to benefit the candidate or was  provided by a                                                              
person required  to register  as a lobbyist.   She explained  that                                                              
under  current  law,  when  a  campaign   pays  for  a  poll,  the                                                              
expenditure is disclosed  as a campaign expense.   If someone else                                                              
pays  for a  poll,  she  continued, and  gives  the  results to  a                                                              
campaign  without  recompense,  then the  polling  information  is                                                              
currently  considered   a  contribution  if  the   information  is                                                              
intended to influence the outcome of that candidate's election.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES went on  to explain that under the language  proposed in                                                              
SB 103, any person  other than lobbyists - including  any entities                                                              
such  as  associations,  corporations,  and  limited  partnerships                                                              
currently prohibited  from masking  contributions -  could conduct                                                              
a  poll  and  give  the  results  to a  campaign.    Even  if  the                                                              
information has  benefited the  campaign, no contribution  results                                                              
if the two  conditions exist:  one,  the poll is about  issues and                                                              
doesn't  mention  a  candidate;  and, two,  the  poll  mentions  a                                                              
candidate  but  wasn't  requested  by  or  designed  primarily  to                                                              
benefit the  candidate.   She remarked that  this provision  of SB
103 will result  in administrative costs because the  APOC will be                                                              
required  to make  judgment  calls  on the  content  and basis  of                                                              
polls.   She  added  that polls  can  be paid  for  by any  person                                                              
(except  lobbyists)  or  entity,  and neither  the  cost  nor  the                                                              
identity would be disclosed to the public.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2023                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. BALASH  explained that the  language regarding polls  was part                                                              
of the original  bill and was included  in an attempt  to "get our                                                              
hands around  those things"  that may or  may not have  value, and                                                              
things  that may  or may  not necessarily  need  to be  disclosed.                                                              
With  regard  to  a  poll  provided  by  somebody  other  than  an                                                              
allowable  individual, he  asked how  value is  assigned to  that.                                                              
For example, he  asked, if going strictly by the  cost of the poll                                                              
- one  that is  an issue-based  poll and  not designed  to benefit                                                              
one candidate or  another - and the poll is given  to candidate A,                                                              
who reports it at  the full value of its cost,  and then the donor                                                              
also  provides  it  to  candidate   B  in  separate  race,  should                                                              
candidate  B report the  donation at  the full  cost, or  half the                                                              
cost?   So, he continued,  if the  reporting requirement  is going                                                              
to include  the value of  the poll, one  would have to  figure out                                                              
how many  individuals were given  the poll, divide the  cost among                                                              
those  individuals, and  then have  each of  them report  it.   He                                                              
added that  should the  poll then  be given  to someone  else, the                                                              
reporting  problem   would  be  compounded,  and   could  lead  to                                                              
reporting  inconsistencies.   Hence,  rather than  include in  the                                                              
definition  of what  needs  to be  reported  specific formulas  to                                                              
determine the  value of polls,  he said  it was simply  decided to                                                              
exclude [polls]  altogether - except  those types described  in SB
103.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES,  on another  point, referred  to Section  6 on  page 7,                                                              
lines 1-[5],  and said  this provides  that communications  with a                                                              
value of $500  or less from corporations, labor  organizations, or                                                              
business  or  trade  associations   are  not  expenditures.    She                                                              
explained  that under  current administrative  regulations, it  is                                                              
not considered  a contribution for  these entities  to communicate                                                              
with  their members,  employees, or  families on  any subject,  as                                                              
long as  it is in a  format that the entity  has used in  the past                                                              
to  communicate with  those people,  and as  long as  it does  not                                                              
solicit  contributions   on  behalf  of  a  candidate   or  ballot                                                              
question.  For this  reason, she relayed that the  APOC is unclear                                                              
as  to why  this provision  of SB  103 is  rewriting current  law.                                                              
She asked if  the intent is to  limit the communication  to $500 a                                                              
year, or per  election, or per communication.   She also commented                                                              
that  since  no  reporting  is   required  regarding  "these  non-                                                              
expenditures,"  either under  current  law or  under  SB 103,  the                                                              
public would have  no way of knowing about them;  if the intent of                                                              
[limiting]  these non-expenditures  is  to allow  these groups  to                                                              
actually solicit  funds on  behalf of  candidates, however,  it is                                                              
likely to result in public inquiries.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. BALASH explained  that this provision was added  by the Senate                                                              
Judiciary Standing  Committee; as he understood it,  the intention                                                              
was to  extend to corporations,  nonprofits, labor  organizations,                                                              
and so  forth the same  right to communicate  freely, and  to make                                                              
independent expenditures,  as any other individual  in Alaska has,                                                              
and also  to subject  these entities  to the  same limitations  as                                                              
individual  Alaskans have  regarding contributions  made during  a                                                              
campaign.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2283                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  surmised that the intent is to  place a limit                                                              
of $500 a year on these entities.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ,  on valuation,  asked:  Assuming  that a                                                              
ten-page "mail-out"  costs $5,000 and  one column is devoted  to a                                                              
recommended  candidate or  slate, what  is the  value of that  one                                                              
column?                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  suggested it could  be calculated by  using a                                                              
percentage of the column inches.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.   BALASH  acknowledged   that   there   are  difficulties   in                                                              
approaching the topic  of valuation, but he said  he believes that                                                              
the  APOC  has  the  regulatory   ability  to  set  standards  for                                                              
determining value.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILES  explained   that  this  provision  of   SB  103  would                                                              
overwrite the current  APOC regulation that permits  these various                                                              
kinds  of  communications  (as  long as  they  don't  solicit)  in                                                              
unlimited  amounts,  and will  result  in a  $500  limit to  these                                                              
communications.    She  also  pointed out  that  nothing  in  this                                                              
provision  speaks  to independent  expenditure  activity  such  as                                                              
when a  candidate calls  up ARCO  and says,  "Can you please  send                                                              
out  a  communication  to  your  people."   It  also  could  be  a                                                              
coordinated activity  because there is  nothing that says  it must                                                              
be  independent.   This  provision  of  SB  103, she  said,  would                                                              
overwrite the  ability of all  these organizations  to communicate                                                              
freely  with   their  members,   and  the  provision   relates  to                                                              
expenditures,   which,    as   she   understands,    could   raise                                                              
constitutional issues.   She added that the APOC  would rather the                                                              
current situation  prevail with regard to  communications, instead                                                              
of imposing limits.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2419                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. BALASH,  in response to a  question, said that  Senator Donley                                                              
proposed this language.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  noted  that  he would  be  offering  an                                                              
amendment later  in the  meeting to delete  this language  from SB
103.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  commented that  she did not  understand what                                                              
this language is trying to do.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG noted  also that  he did not  understand what  the                                                              
purpose of  this language is.   "If it's already allowed,  why are                                                              
we trying to put a value on it," he added.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  noted that the  groups listed in  this [sub-                                                              
subparagraph  (ii)]  cannot  currently   make  any  contributions,                                                              
period.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   ROKEBERG   explained   that   these   communications   are                                                              
considered  expenditures for  the purpose  of these entities'  own                                                              
records.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  surmised that  there is no  difference; they                                                              
are  spending  money via  the  communications  and thus  making  a                                                              
contribution.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted,  however, that currently these  entities can                                                              
endorse candidates in their newsletters.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-59, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 2475                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  suggested that  if these entities  endorse a                                                              
list of candidates  in their newsletter, then she  considers it to                                                              
be a campaign  contribution.  She offered that  since entities are                                                              
already  allowed   unlimited  communications,   the  language   is                                                              
attempting  to restrict  communications  to  $500  only; thus,  no                                                              
communications could occur that cost more than that.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  said his interpretation is  that as long                                                              
as it  is a  regular company  mail-out (and,  for example,  in the                                                              
November  mail-out  it  says  "here's   our  recommended  list  of                                                              
candidates or propositions  that we support") this  is permissible                                                              
under current  regulation, but  anything in  excess of  that would                                                              
not be permissible.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILES  clarified  that  it   would  be  permissible  for  the                                                              
organization to talk  to its membership on any  subject, including                                                              
advocating on behalf  of candidates, so long as  it didn't solicit                                                              
contributions.   She noted that communications wouldn't  even have                                                              
to be in  the form of a newsletter;  they could instead  be in the                                                              
form of  e-mail or  "telephone trees."   She  also confirmed  that                                                              
there are some  First Amendment issues involved.   Furthermore, in                                                              
response  to  questions,  she  said  that  the  language  in  this                                                              
provision of SB  103 does confuse the APOC's  responsibilities and                                                              
in fact may even overwrite the existing regulation.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ then surmised  that this language  would                                                              
lead  to more  regulations,  more  confusion, possibly  more  APOC                                                              
complaints, and  more difficulties  for candidates who  are trying                                                              
to comply but for reasons beyond their control are unable to.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES  said that Representative  Berkowitz's comments  express                                                              
the APOC's concerns very well.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG, on  another point, asked why a  candidate's filing                                                              
fee is not a deductible expenditure.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2364                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES  said she has  always understood  that a filing  fee can                                                              
be  listed  as  a  campaign  expenditure  since  it  is  certainly                                                              
reasonably  related to a  person's campaign.   She clarified  that                                                              
the language  on page  6, lines  29-30, is  simply stating  that a                                                              
filing fee cannot  be considered an expenditure  before filing for                                                              
office.   Paying the  filing fee  out of  campaign funds  and then                                                              
reporting it is not considered a violation, she added.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES noted  that  she did  not  believe that  the                                                              
filing fee should be paid for with campaign funds.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG   offered  that  there  is  a   lot  of  confusion                                                              
[surrounding  the issue of  campaign expenditures],  and  that the                                                              
statutes should clarify  these points.  Chair Rokeberg  then asked                                                              
Ms.  Miles  to comment  on  Amendment  1  [22-LS0148\G.1,  Cramer,                                                              
4/4/01], which read:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 1, following "campaigns":                                                                                   
          Insert ", financial disclosure statements of                                                                        
     public officials and legislators,"                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, following line 2:                                                                                                  
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
        "* Section 1.  AS 15.13.030 is amended to read:                                                                       
          Sec. 15.13.030.  Duties of the commission.  The                                                                     
     commission shall                                                                                                           
               (1)   develop  and provide  all forms for  the                                                                   
     reports and  statements required  to be made  under this                                                                   
     chapter,  AS 24.45, and AS  39.50; the commission  shall                                                               
     develop  and  provide  a  single form  to  be  used  for                                                               
     filings  of financial  disclosure  statements by  public                                                               
     officials  under  AS 39.50   and  filings  of  financial                                                               
     disclosure     statements    by    legislators     under                                                               
     AS 24.60.200 - 24.60.260;                                                                                              
               (2)   prepare  and  publish  a manual  setting                                                                   
     out  uniform methods  of bookkeeping  and reporting  for                                                                   
     use by persons  required to make reports  and statements                                                                   
     under  this  chapter and  otherwise  assist  candidates,                                                                   
     groups,   and   individuals   in  complying   with   the                                                                   
     requirements of this chapter;                                                                                              
               (3)     receive  and  hold  open   for  public                                                                   
     inspection  reports and statements  required to  be made                                                                   
     under  this chapter  and, upon  request, furnish  copies                                                                   
     at cost to interested persons;                                                                                             
               (4)   compile and  maintain a current  list of                                                                   
     all filed reports and statements;                                                                                          
               (5)   prepare a summary  of each report  filed                                                                   
     under  AS 15.13.110  and  make copies  of  this  summary                                                                   
     available to interested persons at their actual cost;                                                                      
               (6)    notify,  by   registered  or  certified                                                                   
     mail, all persons  who are delinquent in  filing reports                                                                   
     and statements required to be made under this chapter;                                                                     
               (7)   examine,  investigate,  and compare  all                                                                   
     reports,  statements,  and   actions  required  by  this                                                                   
     chapter, AS 24.45, and AS 39.50;                                                                                           
               (8)   prepare  and publish  a biennial  report                                                                   
     concerning  the   activities  of  the   commission,  the                                                                   
     effectiveness  of this chapter,  its enforcement  by the                                                                   
     attorney  general's  office,   and  recommendations  and                                                                   
     proposals  for change; the  commission shall notify  the                                                                   
     legislature that the report is available;                                                                                  
               (9)      adopt    regulations   necessary   to                                                                   
     implement  and  clarify  the   provisions  of  AS 24.45,                                                                   
     AS 39.50,  and this chapter,  subject to the  provisions                                                                   
     of AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act)."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 3:                                                                                                            
          Delete "Section 1"                                                                                                  
          Insert "Sec. 2"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 2228                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES  said  that she has  seen Amendment  1,  and went  on to                                                              
explain that the  legislative financial disclosure  and the public                                                              
officials financial  disclosure vary in only three  ways:  income,                                                              
loans,  and  gifts.    Under  legislative   financial  disclosure,                                                              
[legislators  and staff]  aren't  required to  file disclosure  of                                                              
any  gift with  the  APOC; instead,  these  disclosures are  filed                                                              
with the  Legislative Ethics  Committee.   With respect  to income                                                              
and loans,  she continued, legislators  (only) have to  report the                                                              
amount  of income  if  the source  of  the income  or  loan has  a                                                              
substantial  interest  in  legislative  action.   She  added  that                                                              
there are  only 66 people  who file legislative  disclosure forms,                                                              
whereas  there are  3,000 people  who file  the public  officials'                                                              
disclosure statements.   She relayed that the  changes proposed by                                                              
Amendment 1 could  be instituted without a change  to statute, but                                                              
if  the legislature  still wishes  to institute  Amendment 1,  the                                                              
APOC staff suggests  that the language should be  inserted into AS                                                              
39.50 and  AS 24.60, instead  of the financial disclosure  statute                                                              
- AS 15.13 - as is proposed currently by Amendment 1.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILES  also relayed that  Nancy Freeman  has said that  she is                                                              
willing to work on combining the forms.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  said  that  is  not  correct;  according  to  his                                                              
information, Ms. Freeman said the law needed to be changed.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILES   said,  "I   don't  believe   that's  true,   and  she                                                              
understands that  that's not  true."  Ms.  Miles opined  that when                                                              
Ms.  Freeman said  that  the law  would need  to  be changed,  she                                                              
meant  that public  officials would  be required  to disclose  the                                                              
amount  of income.   However, Ms  Miles added,  that word  doesn't                                                              
really apply  to public officials  because they're not  allowed to                                                              
work  for  an  outside  entity   that  would  have  a  substantial                                                              
interest in  legislative action.   When "you" work for  the state,                                                              
it's very limited  what "you" can do, she noted.   On the point of                                                              
instituting Amendment  1, she  explained that  it would just  be a                                                              
matter  of  combining  forms,  particularly  since  the  reporting                                                              
thresholds   are  now   same   for  both   legislative   financial                                                              
disclosure and public officials.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  relayed that  he found  it very inconvenient  when                                                              
he sent  in his form  to the  APOC and it  was rejected  for being                                                              
the wrong form.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILES,  as the  new  director  of  the  APOC, said  that  she                                                              
disapproved of that  type of action; the person  handling the form                                                              
should have simply  requested any additional information  that was                                                              
needed in order to finish filling out the correct form.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG announce  that  the  hearing on  SB  103 would  be                                                              
recessed until later in this same meeting.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 2:17 p.m. to 2:18 p.m.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 210 - STAT. OF LIMITATIONS:SEXUAL ASSAULT/ABUSE                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
[Contains discussion  of the testimony heard for  HB 143 regarding                                                              
evidence  collection   and  preservation,   and  the   statistical                                                              
correlation between burglary and sexual assault.]                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 2047                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that  the next  order of business  would                                                              
be HOUSE  BILL NO.  210, "An  Act relating  to sexual  assault and                                                              
sexual abuse of a minor."                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2028                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER   made  a  motion  to  adopt   the  proposed                                                              
committee  substitute  (CS)  for   HB  210,  version  22-LS0782\C,                                                              
Luckhaupt, 4/3/01,  as a  work draft.   There being  no objection,                                                              
Version C was before the committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER, speaking  as  the sponsor,  explained  that                                                              
the  intention  with  Version  C  was to  remove  the  statute  of                                                              
limitations  on felony sexual  assault.   The original  version of                                                              
HB 210  included all  sexual assault  crimes,  of which there  are                                                              
four different  degrees, with  the fourth degree  being a  class A                                                              
misdemeanor.  He  clarified that currently there is  no statute of                                                              
limitations for sexual  abuse of a minor, and Version  C would not                                                              
alter that; sexual  abuse of a minor is only  mentioned in Version                                                              
C because  the drafter  was attempting  to group  together  all of                                                              
the time  limitations  that pertain  to sexual  assault.   He said                                                              
that in his mind, sexual assault is second only to murder.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   MEYER   added   that  studies   now   show   that                                                              
incriminating  evidence can  prove  sexual assault  no matter  how                                                              
much  time has  passed.   He said  that  it was  his opinion  that                                                              
prosecution  of  sexual  assault  should  not be  limited  by  the                                                              
passage  of time because  the effects  of sexual  assault  will be                                                              
with  the victim  for the rest  of his/her  life.   He noted  that                                                              
according  to  testimony  heard regarding  HB  143,  technological                                                              
advances now allow  for better preservation of  evidence, and this                                                              
evidence  shows   a  correlation  between  offenders   who  commit                                                              
[burglary]  and  offenders  who   commit  [sexual  assault].    He                                                              
proffered  that  if  sexual  assault  can  be  proven  [beyond]  a                                                              
reasonable  doubt,  even  20  years after  it  occurred,  then  it                                                              
should be prosecuted.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  noted  that  in  addition  to  applying  to                                                              
offenses  committed on  or  after the  effective  date, Version  C                                                              
also applies  to offenses  committed prior  to the effective  date                                                              
as long as the  current statute of limitations  for those offenses                                                              
has not expired.   He mentioned that the members'  packets contain                                                              
additional    information   on    deoxyribonucleic   acid    (DNA)                                                              
collection,  and he  also mentioned  that Version  C has two  zero                                                              
fiscal notes and one undetermined fiscal note.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1851                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
KAREN BITZER, Executive  Director, Standing Together  Against Rape                                                              
(STAR), testified  via teleconference in  support of HB 210.   She                                                              
said that  sexual assault  is a  crime of fear  and of  power, and                                                              
merely  because of  the trauma  involved, it  is an  underreported                                                              
crime.  She added  that STAR has found that although  a victim may                                                              
go through the  evidence-collection process, at that  point he/she                                                              
can  become   even  more   fearful  and   decide  not   to  pursue                                                              
prosecution.  Yet,  years later, the victim will  come forward and                                                              
say  that  he/she  wishes  that  he/she had  had  the  courage  to                                                              
continue.   She  said  STAR believes  with  the  expansion of  the                                                              
concept of  SART -  Sexual Assault  Response Team  - and  of child                                                              
advocacy  centers, along  with telemedicine,  there  will be  more                                                              
collection   of  DNA,   and  therefore,   there   would  be   more                                                              
opportunities  to link more  crimes genetically.   To  illustrate,                                                              
she  said STAR  has  found that  in  the last  five  years in  the                                                              
United States, through  the use of the DNA database,  over 200 ex-                                                              
convicts  have  been  linked  to  more  recent  crimes.    And  in                                                              
Britain,  since 1985,  over 30,000  suspects have  been linked  to                                                              
crime  scene   evidence   through  the  use   of  DNA   databases.                                                              
Therefore,   Star   believes   that  removing   the   statute   of                                                              
limitations [for  sexual assault]  protects the victim's  right to                                                              
justice.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  asked, if someone  were loath to  go through                                                              
the evidence  collection  process, whether  there is  a way  to go                                                              
forward with prosecution  anyway.  And if not, she  wanted to know                                                              
how a case could be pursued years after the fact.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BITZER   responded  that   STAR  would   love  to   see  more                                                              
evidentiary  prosecution  occurring in  cases  of sexual  assault,                                                              
but the  proper  mechanisms need  to be  in place  in order  to do                                                              
that.   Currently, a person  still has  the right to  stand before                                                              
his/her  accuser.   For this  reason,  evidentiary collection  and                                                              
prosecution - whereby  a person can be prosecuted  on the evidence                                                              
alone  - would  be a  wonderful  thing for  sexual assault  cases.                                                              
She  noted,  however,  that  the legal  question  is  whether  the                                                              
mechanism  is in place  in order  for later  prosecutions  to take                                                              
place.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  said that she viewed the question  as one of                                                              
finding ways  in which to allow  cases to go through on  the basis                                                              
of evidence,  rather than  waiting several years  for a  victim to                                                              
come forward again.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1665                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  said that if HB 210  passes, there would                                                              
be no  statute of  limitations for  a criminal  action, but  there                                                              
still would  be a statute  for limitations  for civil action.   He                                                              
asked  if  the door  should  be  opened  in  order to  remove  the                                                              
statute of limitations for civil actions as well.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. BITZER  said that  was certainly  something to be  considered,                                                              
although she was  not exactly sure what the impact  would be.  She                                                              
explained  that unlike  victims  of domestic  violence and  family                                                              
members of murder  victims, sexual assault victims  do not usually                                                              
seek restitution  in  civil processes.   She  added that this  was                                                              
not  to say  that allowing  them the  opportunity would  not be  a                                                              
good  thing,  just that,  as  a  standard  rule of  thumb,  sexual                                                              
assault  victims  are  the  least  likely of  all  victims  to  go                                                              
forward with a civil case.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  asked  whether contraction  of  a  sexually                                                              
transmitted disease  (STD) increases the likelihood  that a sexual                                                              
assault victim will file a civil action.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. BITZER reiterated  that statistically, sexual  assault victims                                                              
are the  least likely of  all victims to  go forward with  a civil                                                              
case, regardless of STDs.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1574                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
TRISHA GENTLE,  Executive Director,  Council on Domestic  Violence                                                              
and Sexual  Assault, spoke in support  of HB 210, and  she thanked                                                              
Representative Meyer  for his ongoing work in  bringing the issues                                                              
of  sexual assault  to the  forefront  in Alaska.   She  explained                                                              
that the  way in which  HB 210 could be  the most supportive  of a                                                              
victim of  sexual assault is if  the victim goes through  the rape                                                              
exam at the time  of the assault.  In this  way, physical evidence                                                              
-  both  DNA  and  other kinds  of  physical  evidence  -  can  be                                                              
collected and  maintained.  She reported  that there are  a lot of                                                              
situations in  which victims do not  want to go forth  through the                                                              
trial process.   They have been sexually abused,  they sit through                                                              
hours  of  police  reporting,  they  go  through  hours  of  exams                                                              
(spoken of in detail  last year), and, as the  case moves forward,                                                              
they simply want  to put the whole experience behind  them.  Hence                                                              
victims feel  that they can't go  forth with prosecution;  they do                                                              
not want to go through the additional trauma of the trial.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. GENTLE  offered that by having  physical evidence on  file and                                                              
by  removing  the  statute  of limitations,  it  would  provide  a                                                              
victim  the opportunity,  at a later  date when  he/she felt  more                                                              
healed and stronger,  to go forth with prosecution.   For example,                                                              
there may  be a perpetrator  being charged on  a rape case,  and a                                                              
victim who  had been  raped ten  years ago and  who had  gotten an                                                              
exam but  at the time  there was not  enough evidence to  forth on                                                              
the case;  then a connection might  be made between the  two cases                                                              
and  that perpetrator  could  be  retried  on the  second  assault                                                              
because  of  matching   evidence  including  matching   DNA.    In                                                              
addressing  the issue  of a  statute  of limitations  for a  civil                                                              
action, she  said she  thought it  would be  wonderful to  open up                                                              
the  door because  immediately after  the  crime is  not the  best                                                              
time for a  victim to be making  the decision whether  to go forth                                                              
with a  civil case.   She has  seen that  victims - for  instance,                                                              
victims of child abuse or incest - do go forth with civil cases.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1420                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BLAIR  McCUNE,  Deputy  Director, Public  Defender  Agency  (PDA),                                                              
Department of  Administration, testified  via teleconference.   He                                                              
said  [the PDA's]  main  concern relates  to  the difficulties  in                                                              
defending  a case  that is  over ten years  old.   Trying to  find                                                              
alibis and  witnesses becomes extremely  difficult, and  he opined                                                              
that  as   being  the  main  reason   for  having  a   statute  of                                                              
limitations for  offenses.   He said that  the PDA feels  that the                                                              
recent  increase  to  ten  years in  the  statute  of  limitations                                                              
pertaining  to sexual assault  and other  crimes against  a person                                                              
is appropriate.   He added that  one of the obvious purposes  of a                                                              
statute  of   limitations  is   to  allow   a  person   to  defend                                                              
himself/herself  when  charged with  a  crime.   He  concluded  by                                                              
saying that the PDA was not in favor of HB 210.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  noted  that  that  logic  works  both  ways:                                                              
prosecutors  would   have  just   as  difficult  a   time  finding                                                              
witnesses  - both  defense  and prosecution  are  yoked with  that                                                              
burden.    He  added,  therefore,  that  he  would  not  have  any                                                              
difficulty passing HB 210 on that basis.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1279                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JERRY    LUCKHAUPT,   Attorney,    Legislative   Legal    Counsel,                                                              
Legislative  Legal  and  Research  Services,  Legislative  Affairs                                                              
Agency, explained  that the reason  he had added "sexual  abuse of                                                              
a  minor"  to  Section  1 was  for  clarity's  sake;  the  current                                                              
statute pertaining  to crimes against  children, which  is located                                                              
elsewhere,  already  stipulates   that  there  is  no  statute  of                                                              
limitations.   He affirmed  for Chair  Rokeberg that sexual  abuse                                                              
of  a minor  in the  fourth  degree, which  is  a misdemeanor,  is                                                              
already included in that statute.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG added  that the  crime  of incest  has a  ten-year                                                              
statute  of limitation,  and that  "Satch Carlson  doesn't have  a                                                              
statute of [limitations]."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  asked, "How many  cases do we  have that                                                              
are more than five years old."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   MEYER  responded   that  according   to  a   news                                                              
interview  with  Juneau's chief  of  police,  there are  very  few                                                              
cases that  go past the ten-year  period, but there are  some; the                                                              
police  chief's  opinion was  that  those  cases should  still  be                                                              
prosecuted  whenever possible.    Representative  Meyer said  that                                                              
based on the fact  that there were a few such cases  in Juneau, he                                                              
assumed  there   were  even  more  in  Anchorage   and  Fairbanks,                                                              
although he did not have a specific number.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   ROKEBERG   referred   to   Amendment   1   [22-LS0782\C.1,                                                              
Luckhaupt, 4/9/01], which read as follows:                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 4, following "murder,":                                                                                   
          Insert "felony"                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 7, following "murder,":                                                                                   
          Insert "felony"                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 1:                                                                                                            
          Delete "AS 11.41.427 - 11.41.458"                                                                                 
          Insert "AS 11.41.427 - 11.41.438 and 11.41.450 -                                                                  
     11.41.458"                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
He asked  if Amendment  1 is  intended to  exclude removal  of the                                                              
statute of  limitations for the crime  of sexual abuse  of a minor                                                              
in  the fourth  degree (a  class A  misdemeanor), thereby  keeping                                                              
the statute of limitations for that crime at five years.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1128                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LUCKHAUPT said  that  was correct;  that  was  the effect  of                                                              
Amendment  1.   He explained  that  there are  two  ways in  which                                                              
sexual abuse  of a minor in the  fourth degree is committed.   The                                                              
first  involves  a person  under  the age  of  16  who engages  in                                                              
sexual penetration  - consensual or otherwise - with  a victim who                                                              
is under the  age of 13 and  is at least three years  younger than                                                              
the offender;  if the sexual  penetration is not  consensual, then                                                              
an  assault charge  could  also  be filed.    The second  involves                                                              
sexual contact between  a [person who is at least  18 years of age                                                              
and occupies  a position of authority  in relation to  the victim]                                                              
and a victim  who is 16 or 17  years old and at least  three years                                                              
younger  than  the offender.    He  noted  that the  reference  in                                                              
statute to  an offender  who occupies a  position of  authority in                                                              
relation to  the victim is the  result of [an  incident involving]                                                              
Satch Carlson.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1016                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  made a motion to  adopt Amendment 1.   To clarify,                                                              
he  said that  there was  no intention  behind HB  210 to  include                                                              
misdemeanor sexual  abuse of  a minor; the  only intent  behind HB
210 was  to remove  the statute of  limitations for  felony sexual                                                              
assaults.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER confirmed that intention.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0938                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  objected for  the purpose of  a possible                                                              
amendment to Amendment  1.  He noted that HB  210 would completely                                                              
remove  the statute  of limitations  on  a crime,  which has  only                                                              
been done  previously for  the crime  of murder.   He said  he had                                                              
concern over the  removal of the statute of limitations  for class                                                              
C felony  sexual assaults.   He suggested  - in seeking  a balance                                                              
with the law  - that the existing ten-year statute  of limitations                                                              
suffices for that  class of offense.  And, with  every sensitivity                                                              
towards how horrific  sexual assault is, he stated  that "we" have                                                              
differing  degrees  of  sexual assault  in  statute  purposely  to                                                              
express  that  there   are  different  levels  of   concern,  and,                                                              
therefore,  he was  troubled by  entirely lifting  the statute  of                                                              
limitations.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   JAMES  said   she   agreed  with   Representative                                                              
Berkowitz.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  said:  "What you're saying is  that it would                                                              
probably  be OK  to  limit the  statute  of limitations  on  first                                                              
degree  [sexual  assault]  and  second  degree  [sexual  assault],                                                              
which is  [respectively, an] unclassified  felony and [a]  class B                                                              
felony."  But, he  argued, a class C felony still  involves sexual                                                              
penetration and sexual  contact, and in his mind,  still [warrants                                                              
being included in HB 210].                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  asked if "the  old statutory rape"  was considered                                                              
third degree [sexual assault].                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LUCKHAUPT  explained  that  the old  statutory  rape  [crime]                                                              
exists  in  all  four  of  the   sexual-abuse-of-a-minor  statutes                                                              
because "consent"  was removed  as a  factor.   He noted  that the                                                              
legislature has  made the age of  13 the dividing line  at which a                                                              
victim  can  never  consent  to  have  sex;  the  legislature  has                                                              
decided there  can never  be an  occasion when it  is right  for a                                                              
12-year-old to have sex.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection to Amendment 1.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0688                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG   asked  if  there  were  further   objections  to                                                              
Amendment 1.  There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0672                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  made   a  motion  to  adopt  Conceptual                                                              
Amendment   2,  "the  statute   of  limitations   be  lifted   for                                                              
unclassified  [felony]  sexual assault  and  [unclassified  felony                                                              
sexual  assault of  a  minor], A  felony, and  B  [felony] of  the                                                              
same,  ... which  would leave  the  C felonies  with the  ten-year                                                              
[statute of limitations] that exists."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 0620                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  objected for the purpose of  discussion.  He                                                              
asked for  a definition  of third  degree.  He  added that  it was                                                              
his  understanding  that a  third-degree  - or  class  C -  felony                                                              
still involved penetration and [sexual] contact.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0603                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LUCKHAUPT  explained  that  third-degree sexual  abuse  of  a                                                              
minor  does  involve sexual  penetration,  and  that  third-degree                                                              
sexual assault, which  is also a class C felony,  has three forms.                                                              
One form involves  a guard at a correctional  facility engaging in                                                              
sexual penetration  with a  prisoner.  A  second form  involves an                                                              
offender  who engages  in sexual  contact with  a person whom  the                                                              
offender  knows  to  be  mentally   incapable,  incapacitated,  or                                                              
unaware  that a  sexual  act is  being committed.    A third  form                                                              
involves a  person, such as a counselor  or a guard at  a juvenile                                                              
correctional facility,  who engages  in sexual penetration  with a                                                              
person 18 or 19  years of age who the offender  knows is committed                                                              
to the  custody of  the Department of  Health and Social  Services                                                              
(DHSS) [or the offender is the legal guardian of the person].                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0512                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ noted  that one  of the cornerstones  of                                                              
criminal  law  is  proportionality,  wherein  there has  to  be  a                                                              
proportional  punishment to the  crime.   And the legislature  has                                                              
set up  a statutory  scheme whereby  unclassified, class  A, class                                                              
B, and  class C felonies,  and class A  and B misdemeanors  exist.                                                              
He said  he thought that removing  the statute of  limitations for                                                              
class C  felonies was being  disproportionate.  He  clarified that                                                              
Conceptual  Amendment 2  would  remove the  inclusion  of class  C                                                              
felonies for  the crimes of sexual  assault and sexual  assault of                                                              
a minor from HB  210, which would then only remove  the statute of                                                              
limitations  for  unclassified  felonies,  class A  felonies,  and                                                              
class B felonies  of both sexual  assault and sexual assault  of a                                                              
minor.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LUCKHAUPT  noted  that the  crime  of  incest  is a  class  C                                                              
felony,  as  is  the  crime of  indecent  exposure  in  the  first                                                              
degree.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  remarked that HB  210 does not affect  the current                                                              
statute  of  limitations for  the  crimes  of incest  or  indecent                                                              
exposure.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT agreed  but questioned whether  Conceptual Amendment                                                              
2  would  involve  the statutes  pertaining  to  crimes  committed                                                              
against children beyond what is listed in HB 210.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ noted that  in his experience,  children                                                              
sometimes  don't  want to  confront  [the  crime] until  they  are                                                              
older,  and so  a longer  statute of  limitations is,  and can  be                                                              
appropriate.    But  forgetting  the  crime,  he  said,  and  just                                                              
looking at the  classification of crimes, there is  a hierarchy of                                                              
unclassified,  [class] A,  B, and  C felonies;  it seems that  the                                                              
statute of limitations  ought not to be entirely  lifted on lower-                                                              
level  crimes,  regardless  of  how  offensive  those  crimes  are                                                              
thought  to be.   The legislature  has made  a determination  that                                                              
there are different categories.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER said  that  in his  opinion,  rape is  rape,                                                              
whether  it  involves  a  prison  guard  with  a  prisoner,  or  a                                                              
caregiver  at  an  old  folks home  or  mental  institution.    He                                                              
likened it  to [the crime of]  murder in that there  are different                                                              
levels, but all have [the statute of limitations removed].                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ countered  that  such was  not the  case                                                              
[with the crime of murder].                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN requested  clarification  on  the effects  of                                                              
Conceptual Amendment 2.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0270                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG explained  the effects to be such  that the removal                                                              
of  the statute  of  limitations  for  felony sexual  assault  and                                                              
felony  sexual abuse  of a  minor would  not include  the class  C                                                              
felonies  of those  crimes.   Thus  unclassified, class  A, and  B                                                              
felonies for  the crimes of sexual  assault and sexual  abuse of a                                                              
minor would have  no statute of limitations, and  class C felonies                                                              
and misdemeanors  of those  same crimes  would retain  the current                                                              
ten-year statute  of limitations.   He  clarified that  [the crime                                                              
of]  indecent exposure  in the  first degree  was also  a class  C                                                              
felony.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN requested  an explanation  of the  difference                                                              
between  indecent  exposure  in  the  first  degree  and  indecent                                                              
exposure in the second degree.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER asked  if [the crime  of] indecent  exposure                                                              
is considered a sexual assault.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  noted  that  [the  crime  of]  indecent  exposure                                                              
already has a ten-year statute of limitations.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LUCKHAUPT   clarified  that   he  had  posed   his  questions                                                              
regarding  [the crime  of] indecent  exposure because  he was  not                                                              
sure  if   Representative  Berkowitz   intended  with   Conceptual                                                              
Amendment 2 to  affect all of the existing statute  of limitations                                                              
pertaining to  children.  He said  that if Conceptual  Amendment 2                                                              
only  applies to  [the  crime of]  class C  sexual  assault as  it                                                              
pertains to adults, then he did understand it.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  commented   that  committee  staff  has                                                              
pointed  out that  there is  a section  that says:   "even if  the                                                              
general time limit  has expired, a prosecution  for sexual assault                                                              
for an  offense committed  against a  person under  the age  of 18                                                              
may be  commenced at anytime."   Therefore, he noted,  his concern                                                              
regarding minors is already addressed in current statute.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  further clarified that  Conceptual Amendment                                                              
2 would only apply to [adult victims of] sexual assault.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  agreed  that Conceptual  Amendment  2  would  not                                                              
repeal  the current  law regarding  [victims]  18 and  under.   He                                                              
added that  Amendment 1 was nothing  more than a  clarification of                                                              
an existing statute.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES questioned  what would  happen if,  20 years                                                              
after  a  crime, it  was  prosecuted  as  a  class B  felony,  but                                                              
resulted in a class C felony.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, "That's the way it goes."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  offered that it would be  considered a lesser                                                              
included offense.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-60, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES remarked  that  if all  [the  aforementioned                                                              
felonies] were included  in [HB 210], then that  problem would not                                                              
exist.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  indicated that that was the  standard he was                                                              
using:  penetration is what separates felony from misdemeanor.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  inquired whether  a class C  felony involved                                                              
penetration.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said it did.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  said it did not [necessarily].   A class                                                              
C [felony sexual assault] can be contact, he added.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  asked if there  was a dividing  line between                                                              
[class B  felony and class C  felony sexual assaults],  and if so,                                                              
what it consisted of.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER said  he  thought a  class  C felony  sexual                                                              
assault involved penetration.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0061                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT, to clarify, said:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Involving the  same age groups, and the same  factors in                                                                   
     regards   to  whether  someone's   a  prison  guard   or                                                                   
     something like  that, sexual contact is always  one step                                                                   
     below  sexual penetration.   ... Sexual  assault in  the                                                                   
     first degree  always involves  penetration.  You've  got                                                                   
     a  form of  sexual  contact  involving the  same  actors                                                                   
     that  is the  second-degree  offense.   There  are  also                                                                   
     forms   of  sexual   penetration   with  new   elements,                                                                   
     involving  new  actors  and   new  conditions  on  their                                                                   
     relationship   vis-a-vis  each   other;  that  is   also                                                                   
     classified as  a second-degree offense.  But  ... sexual                                                                   
     contact,  which is  mere touching,  is  always one  step                                                                   
     below  sexual penetration  involving the  same actors  -                                                                   
     the same victim and the same offender.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES said it  seems to  her that [prosecution  of                                                              
the crime of sexual contact] ought not to be open forever.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he agreed.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  suggested  that the  committee  adopt  Conceptual                                                              
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  noted that one of the forms  of [a class                                                              
C  felony sexual  assault]  says  "engages in  sexual  penetration                                                              
with a  person 18  or 19 years  of age who  the offender  knows is                                                              
committed to  the custody of the  Department of Health  and Social                                                              
Services  ...  and the  offender  is  the  legal guardian  of  the                                                              
person."                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  suggested,  then,  that  [the forms  of  class  C                                                              
felony  sexual  assault  which   involve  sexual  penetration]  be                                                              
exempted from Conceptual Amendment 2.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  acknowledged the difficulty  in drafting                                                              
such an exemption within Conceptual Amendment 2.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  expressed  confidence that  Mr.  Luckhaupt  could                                                              
accomplish it.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LUCKHAUPT suggested  that Conceptual  Amendment  2 could  say                                                              
that  class  C [felonies]  that  involve  sexual  penetration  are                                                              
included in  the unlimited statute  of limitations.  If  such were                                                              
agreed upon, he  confirmed that he could develop  language to that                                                              
effect.   He then described  the agreed-upon Conceptual  Amendment                                                              
2 as  being "unclassified,  class A, and  class B sexual  assaults                                                              
involving   adult   victims   are   all   unlimited   statute   of                                                              
limitations; class  C felonies ...  involving adult  victims where                                                              
sexual  penetration  is involved  are  also unlimited  statute  of                                                              
limitations."   He  added that  the  other class  C felony  sexual                                                              
assault crimes  retain the ten-year  statute of limitations  under                                                              
current law.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0330                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  asked if there  were any objections  to Conceptual                                                              
Amendment 2.   There  being no objection,  Conceptual  Amendment 2                                                              
was adopted.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0340                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  made   a  motion  to  adopt  Conceptual                                                              
Amendment 3, "to  erase the differences between  the criminal code                                                              
and  the civil  code."   He explained  that since  the statute  of                                                              
limitations is being  removed from the criminal  code, the statute                                                              
of limitations should also be removed from the civil code.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0356                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  objected,  and noted that  Conceptual Amendment  3                                                              
would constitute tort reform.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0391                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was taken.   Representative Berkowitz  voted for                                                              
Conceptual  Amendment  3.  Representatives   Meyer,  James,  Ogan,                                                              
Coghill,  and Rokeberg voted  against it.   Therefore,  Conceptual                                                              
Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 1-5.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  added that  he thought [that  failure to                                                              
pass  Conceptual  Amendment 3]  leads  to  a very  bizarre  result                                                              
whereby   the   state   is   allowed   to   go   after   offenders                                                              
[indefinitely] but the victims will not have the same ability.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG   noted  that  Conceptual   Amendment  3   was  an                                                              
interesting  concept;  because  it  was  such a  major  issue,  he                                                              
suggested that  Representative Berkowitz create  other legislation                                                              
to accomplish such a goal.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  remarked that  [such  a  change to  the                                                              
civil code] did fit under the title of HB 210.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0425                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES   moved  to  report  HB  210,   version  22-                                                              
LS0782\C,  Luckhaupt, 4/3/01,  as amended,  out of committee  with                                                              
individual  recommendations  and  the accompanying  fiscal  notes.                                                              
There  being no  objection, CSHB  210(JUD) was  reported from  the                                                              
House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HB 187 - VANDALISM OF CEMETERIES & GRAVES                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0440                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that  the next  order of business  would                                                              
be  HOUSE BILL  NO.  187, "An  Act  relating  to the  destruction,                                                              
desecration, and vandalism of cemeteries and graves."                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0480                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LORI  L. BACKES,  Staff  to  Representative Jim  Whitaker,  Alaska                                                              
State  Legislature, presented  HB 187  on behalf  of the  sponsor,                                                              
Representative  Whitaker.    She   explained  that  under  current                                                              
Alaska  statutes, there  are no  provisions relating  specifically                                                              
to  the  vandalism   or  desecration  of  modern   cemeteries  and                                                              
memorials.   One legal  opinion is that  they are protected  under                                                              
the Alaska  Historic Preservation  Act; however,  persons  who are                                                              
charged  with   the  maintenance   and  care  of   cemeteries  are                                                              
unconvinced  that   AS  41.35.200   provides  for  the   penalties                                                              
necessary  to   protect  the  safety   and  dignity   of  Alaska's                                                              
cemeteries and  memorials from theft,  vandalism, and  other forms                                                              
of  desecration.    Acts of  vandalism  are  currently  punishable                                                              
under statutes  that relate to  criminal mischief, but  the degree                                                              
of  crime centers  around the  monetary  value of  the damage  and                                                              
does not recognize  the personal insult and emotional  injury that                                                              
is  suffered by  a family,  community, or  tribe when  cemeteries,                                                              
burial sites,  or memorials are  vandalized.  Ms.  Backes conveyed                                                              
that  HB  187 clearly  states  that  it  is  a crime  of  criminal                                                              
mischief in  the second degree if  a person "defaces,  damages, or                                                              
desecrates a  cemetery or the  contents of  a cemetery or  a tomb,                                                              
grave,  or memorial  regardless  of whether  the  tomb, grave,  or                                                              
memorial is  in a cemetery or  ... appears to be  abandoned, lost,                                                              
or neglected".                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  noted that language  in HB 187  makes an                                                              
exception  for   defacing,  damaging,  desecrating,   or  removing                                                              
contents, if  the action  is consistent with  law.   He envisioned                                                              
that law  enforcement may need to  engage in these types  of acts,                                                              
or  that   damage  might   be  done  during   the  course   of  an                                                              
archeological exhibition.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS BACKES  explained that those  activities are already  protected                                                              
by federal  law, as  well as by  the Alaska Historic  Preservation                                                              
Act.   However, she added,  if, for example,  a state worker  or a                                                              
cemetery worker  needs to  excavate a  grave, remove a  headstone,                                                              
or  perform some  other act  that's  within his/her  duty, HB  187                                                              
adds an affirmative defense.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG noted  that he  has  concerns about  archeological                                                              
"digs,"  and that  the university  has suggested  an amendment  to                                                              
add "or  state permit" in  order to address  that point.   He then                                                              
asked whether "headstone  or marker rubbings" caused  damage or if                                                              
they would be considered a violation.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. BACKES  acknowledged that this  point had not  been considered                                                              
when the  research on HB  187 was being done.   She said  that she                                                              
would find it  difficult to think that "headstone  rubbings" would                                                              
cause damage  to the site or cause  insult to the family,  but she                                                              
noted that  some people might find  it offensive.  She  added that                                                              
HB 187 does not specifically address this issue.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0770                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT  SAM,  Cemetery  Caretaker,  explained  that  he  has  been                                                              
involved  with the  restoration, preservation,  and protection  of                                                              
cemeteries, sacred  sites, historic  sites, and cultural  heritage                                                              
sites in  different parts of Alaska  for the last 15  years, since                                                              
1986.   He added that  in 1988 he  received the "Alaska  Volunteer                                                              
of  the   Year"  award;   he  also   has  received  national   and                                                              
international  recognition  over the  years  for performing  these                                                              
services.    He  said  that  over the  years  he  has  dealt  with                                                              
vandalism,  desecration, and grave  robbing.   He added  that even                                                              
headstone rubbing  can cause  damage.   He provided the  committee                                                              
with  photographs of  desecrated  sites.   Cemeteries are  popular                                                              
places for people  to hold parties and drink  alcohol, he informed                                                              
the  committee.     Mr.  Sam  went  on  to  explain   that  marble                                                              
headstones  featuring angels  are  used primarily  for  children's                                                              
graves,  and that  it is  very popular  among youth  to knock  the                                                              
heads and wings off these [angel headstones].                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SAM noted  that it  is only  a few  people who  do damage  to                                                              
these sites.   He recounted a  recent incident of vandalism:   the                                                              
perpetrators pushed  the headstones over and then  chipped out the                                                              
names of  the deceased,  and in some  cases actually  smashed many                                                              
of the older  headstones into little  pieces.  Mr. Sam  noted that                                                              
the  hardest  part of  his  job  as  a caretaker  is  calling  the                                                              
families  and informing  them that  their family  plots have  been                                                              
desecrated; many  families become victims  of this type  of abuse.                                                              
On  another point,  Mr.  Sam explained  that  there  is a  growing                                                              
market for headstones,  particularly the ones with  Alaskan Native                                                              
symbols  on  them.    He remarked  that  in  Alaska,  it  is  very                                                              
apparent that  some people still believe  it is OK to  desecrate a                                                              
cemetery.  He added  that there is very little  law that addresses                                                              
this type  desecration; hence the  general public feels  that it's                                                              
OK to  continue this  type of  behavior.   Even when incidents  of                                                              
vandalism are  reported to  the police, the  law is so  vague that                                                              
nothing is done.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1156                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. SAM reported  that cemeteries in Alaska are  disappearing on a                                                              
daily basis  because they  are not  protected.   He said  that the                                                              
time has come  for the State of  Alaska to address this  issue and                                                              
provide  protection of  these sacred  sites.   All cemeteries  are                                                              
being  vandalized,  he  said,  not just  Native  sites;  many  are                                                              
simply disappearing,  and it  is very  important to protect  those                                                              
that are  left.  A lot  of families feel  that they are at  a loss                                                              
and  that  they have  no  one  to turn  to,  he  added.   Mr.  Sam                                                              
informed  the committee  that he  has taken  the preservation  and                                                              
protection  of these  sites on  as a  lifelong project.   He  also                                                              
mentioned  that he  had recently  finished  up a  project for  the                                                              
Department  of Transportation  and Public  Facilities (DOT&PF)  to                                                              
restore a  mausoleum in  Sitka; he'd  identified and returned  138                                                              
bodies back  to their home  communities and helped  re-inter them.                                                              
However,  the problem  with doing  this,  he said,  is that  these                                                              
bodies have  been placed in unprotected  sites, so there  is great                                                              
potential  that  these sites  will  be vandalized  and  destroyed.                                                              
Again, he  said that  the time  has come  to protect "our"  burial                                                              
sites.  He concluded by saying that he is in support of HB 187.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SAM,  in  response  to  questions,   explained  that  rubbing                                                              
headstones  for genealogical  purposes  can do  damage; if  rubbed                                                              
too hard, the stone  - even marble - can deteriorate,  and in some                                                              
cases the headstones can topple easily if care isn't taken.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG asked  if places  such  as the  memorial house  in                                                              
Eklutna  Village  would  be  included   under  the  definition  of                                                              
"memorial" or "tomb" in HB 187.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SAM explained  that they  are considered  to be  "memorials,"                                                              
and the  one in  Eklutna Village  is a  Russian Orthodox  cemetery                                                              
that  has blended  the  best  of both  worlds:   the  people  have                                                              
placed traditional  [Native]  memorials there  as well as  church-                                                              
related memorials.   He said  that a lot  of families  have yearly                                                              
ceremonies  at these  places,  and they  will  bring the  deceased                                                              
his/her  favorite  food  or  a much-cherished  object  such  as  a                                                              
sewing machine,  hunting rifle, or  rocking chair and place  it on                                                              
the  gravesite.   He offered  that  "memorial" can  have a  rather                                                              
broad definition.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. SAM,  in response to  a question, said  that he did  not think                                                              
rubbing  should be  illegal.   He  said he  feels  that more  good                                                              
people need  to be attracted to  cemeteries in order  to cultivate                                                              
the desire  to preserve and protect  these sites.   Offering tours                                                              
and allowing  rubbings are  ways to  educate the  public.   One of                                                              
the methods he uses  is to take the youth in  his community to the                                                              
cemetery and  show them the burial  sites of their  relatives, and                                                              
in this  way encourage them to  protect and restore  these places;                                                              
they  now have  picnics there,  and people  come and  pick up  the                                                              
trash, and  in many other ways  the community of Sitka  has "taken                                                              
ownership" of  the cemetery.   He said  that to him,  a sign  of a                                                              
healthy community is a well-maintained and clean cemetery.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1620                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  inquired whether Mr. Sam knew  the outcome of                                                              
the  situation in  the Barrow  cemetery, where  ocean erosion  had                                                              
exposed some  old graves  with well-preserved  remains.   He noted                                                              
that there  is a section  in HB 187  that says "authorized  by law                                                              
to engage in the  conduct"; he asked whether there  is anything in                                                              
law  that  authorizes  the  type of  research  engendered  by  the                                                              
Barrow situation.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   ROKEBERG  again   mentioned   the  forthcoming   amendment                                                              
intended to expand authorizations to include state permits.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SAM remarked  that with  the federal  Native American  Graves                                                              
Protection  and Repatriation  Act, if  there is  a gravesite  that                                                              
needs to  be moved, and  if even one  family member  objects, then                                                              
federal law  will back  the family member's  decision.   He added,                                                              
however, that  over the years he  has had the opportunity  to work                                                              
with state and  federal agencies in moving graves  in a respectful                                                              
and dignified manner.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1767                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ELMER  MAKUA, Cemetery  Caretaker,  Tongass Tribe,  noted that  he                                                              
has  been   actively  managing   and  repairing   damage   to  the                                                              
gravesites on the  north point of Pennock [Island]  in addition to                                                              
other gravesite  areas.  He added  that he faces  problems similar                                                              
to those  spoken  of by Mr.  Sam, and  that one  of the  gravesite                                                              
areas  that he  manages  is located  on an  island  that has  been                                                              
subdivided  by the  local [Ketchikan]  government.   He  explained                                                              
that  the  desecration  to  these  sites  comes  in  the  form  of                                                              
encroachments  from  developments;  folks  store their  lumber  at                                                              
these sites,  build fences  across them,  or keep their  equipment                                                              
in  those  areas.    These acts  of  desecration  are  being  done                                                              
"knowingly," he  added, and when the perpetrators  are confronted,                                                              
they  become  very  defensive.     When  the  State  Troopers  are                                                              
approached  for  assistance, they  are  not  able to  provide  any                                                              
help;  they  don't  know  what  to do,  and  neither  do  the  FBI                                                              
officials when they are asked to help.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAKUA said  that his organization has contemplated  putting up                                                              
fences  to protect  these areas,  but he  added that  it would  be                                                              
preferable to keep  the areas open so that, as  Mr. Sam suggested,                                                              
people could be  encouraged to take an interest  in the historical                                                              
significance of the  sites.  He remarked that  although many sites                                                              
are  protected  under  the  federal laws,  there  is  still  great                                                              
concern for  those sites that are  located close to  Ketchikan and                                                              
which  are  being  desecrated  and searched  for  artifacts.    He                                                              
opined that the  laws in place are  not as strong as  they need to                                                              
be in order to deter people from this behavior.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG noted  that inclusion  of the  language in  HB 187                                                              
that  refers to  sites that  appear  to be  abandoned should  help                                                              
motivate law enforcement officers to protect these sites.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1957                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DAVID   JACOBY,  Public   Works  Director,   City  of   Fairbanks,                                                              
testified  via teleconference  and  said in  his  area, they  also                                                              
face  the  problem  of  desecration  caused  by  people  with  "4-                                                              
wheelers"  using the  cemetery  as "part  of  their playground"  -                                                              
taking  out  headstones,  digging  holes in  graves,  or  removing                                                              
funerary  objects such  as the angels  that Mr.  Sam referred  to.                                                              
Vandalism  of  this   sort  creates  problems  for   him  and  his                                                              
employees, he  explained, not the  least of which  includes having                                                              
to inform the family  members that they must come  to the cemetery                                                              
and catalogue  their losses.  These  families experience a  lot of                                                              
emotional  distress because  of this type  of crime,  particularly                                                              
when the  gravesite belongs to  a child.   The law needs to  be in                                                              
place,  he stated,  not  so much  as a  prosecution  tool, but  as                                                              
protection  and deterrence  against  this type  of  behavior.   On                                                              
another  point, he  said that during  the winter  in Fairbanks,  a                                                              
crypt is  used to store  deceased people  until the  ground thaws,                                                              
and  some people  try to  break in  (one person  actually got  the                                                              
doors off) to  remove the caskets as  a joke.  This  also is quite                                                              
an emotional  strain on  the family,  he added,  as well  as being                                                              
costly for the  city to try to  maintain a cemetery that  is not a                                                              
"perpetual care cemetery."   He closed by offering  support for HB
187.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2083                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BLAIR  McCUNE,  Deputy  Director, Public  Defender  Agency  (PDA),                                                              
Department  of Administration,  testified  via teleconference  and                                                              
said  that  [the  PDA's]  concern  about  HB 187  is  that  it  is                                                              
invariably  a class  C  felony for  doing  any  amount of  damage,                                                              
desecration,  or  defacement.    In light  of  the  testimony,  he                                                              
added,  this behavior  is certainly  a serious  problem, but  [the                                                              
PDA] has  hope that  there would be  some way to  draft HB  187 so                                                              
that  if there  is only  minor defacement,  or  minor damage,  the                                                              
younger people who  are misguided and do this type  of thing don't                                                              
end up, invariably, with a felony.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN,  on a different  point, brought  attention to                                                              
the  language  on  page  2,  lines  7  and  11,  which  refers  to                                                              
abandoned,  lost, or  neglected  sites.   He  asked  how a  person                                                              
would be able  to "knowingly" commit a felony  against a gravesite                                                              
that is  lost; the culpability question  comes to mind,  he added,                                                              
when the  gravesite is lost  and a person  buys the property.   He                                                              
remarked  that  he   has  concern  with  creating   a  felony  for                                                              
something that is lost.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  said he is  assuming that  "lost" means a  loss of                                                              
title or domain over the actual real property or grounds.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  pointed  out  that the  language  says  "or                                                              
memorial  appears  to  be  abandoned,  lost,  or  neglected";  she                                                              
offered if  a site  is covered over  with weeds  and trees  and it                                                              
looks as though  no one has been there recently,  then it would be                                                              
easy to  deduce that  the site  could be  an "abandoned,  lost, or                                                              
neglected" site.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  commented that given Alaska's  history, there                                                              
are  probably people  buried all  over  Alaska and  no one  really                                                              
knows  where  the remains  are.    If a  person  buys  a piece  of                                                              
property with  no visible sign that  a "cemetery, tomb,  grave, or                                                              
memorial" is  located on it, and  the owner, during the  course of                                                              
construction or  development, uncovers  the site, then  it becomes                                                              
a  felony to  continue  work on  the  area.   Representative  Ogan                                                              
opined  that  it  could  result  in  a  situation  of  "regulatory                                                              
taking."                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BACKES, with  regard  to  Representative Ogan's  point,  said                                                              
that the  key words in  HB 187 are  "appears to be",  because this                                                              
phrase has  been used as  a defense in the  past - that  it looked                                                              
as though  it were neglected  and no one  cared anymore,  and thus                                                              
it was all right  to remove things from the site  or damage things                                                              
at  the site.   To  address Representative  Ogan's point  further,                                                              
she  explained that  when someone  buys  a piece  of property  and                                                              
then  later finds  a grave  on that  property that  appears to  be                                                              
abandoned,  lost, or  neglected, the  person can  obtain a  permit                                                              
from the  state to deal with  that situation if, for  example, the                                                              
site  needs to  be  moved or  protected.   Therefore,  although  a                                                              
person does  need to  go through  the state's permitting  process,                                                              
there  is statutory  recourse for  the  homeowner or  construction                                                              
company  if  the property  purchased  contains  a  burial/memorial                                                              
site.   She  added that  there  are also  federal  laws that  deal                                                              
with,  particularly, historic  and archeological  types of  burial                                                              
sites.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 2310                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG,  returning  to  Mr. McCune's  point,  asked  what                                                              
other  statutes are  available  for police  with  regard to  those                                                              
people  who desecrate  cemeteries, if  the crime  is not  criminal                                                              
mischief in the  second degree and [the amount of  damage] is less                                                              
than $500.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  McCUNE   responded   that  the  trespass   laws  are   always                                                              
available,   and   that  generally,   according   to   [statutory]                                                              
valuations,  [damage]  over $500  is  a felony;  [damage]  between                                                              
$500 and $50 is  a class A misdemeanor; and [damage]  under $50 is                                                              
a class B misdemeanor.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  added  that charging  someone  for  "an                                                              
attempt" to  commit the crime  is one way  of lowering  the charge                                                              
one level.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES, although she  acknowledged that  some types                                                              
of  damage  to these  sites  could  be  considered  insignificant,                                                              
surmised that  the main focus  of HB 187  is to address  the cases                                                              
of severe  damage,  as was recounted  by the  testifiers,  most of                                                              
which would amount to more than $500 worth of damage.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  mentioned   that  the  monetary  limits                                                              
should be revisited.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. BACKES  added that a monetary  value cannot be  determined for                                                              
the emotional  damage done to  a family and  the insult done  to a                                                              
person's memory through these acts of vandalism and desecration.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  suggested that  perhaps the $500  limit could                                                              
be  removed from  HB 187  and the  offense kept  at a  misdemeanor                                                              
level.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG opined  that this  would be a  problem because  HB
187 is  drafted to fit within  the criminal mischief  statute, and                                                              
these acts  are simply  being added  to what constitutes  criminal                                                              
mischief in the second degree.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 2448                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN suggested  that some  sort of penalty  should                                                              
be considered  for those  people who  do less  than $500  worth of                                                              
damage because  even seemingly  insignificant  acts of damage  can                                                              
do emotional harm to the family.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES opined  that  the purpose  of HB  187 is  to                                                              
stop  people   from  committing   these  acts  of   vandalism  and                                                              
desecration to begin  with, not necessarily to  collect money from                                                              
perpetrators or put  them in jail after the damage  has been done.                                                              
For  this reason,  if  the penalty  is too  small,  she added,  it                                                              
won't make any difference at all - the behavior will continue.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  commented that most  of the people  doing the                                                              
damage  probably  won't  know  that [this  type  of  behavior]  is                                                              
against the law.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   ROKEBERG  mentioned   that   there  might   also  be   the                                                              
possibility of  dropping the level  of offense down to  the "third                                                              
and fourth degree," if the committee wishes.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 01-60, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 2486                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. BACKES remarked  that she had not specifically  considered the                                                              
penalties when  drafting HB 187,  but she added that  applying the                                                              
penalties associated with  a class C felony - up  to five years in                                                              
jail  and  a  $50,000  fine  -  is  not  unheard  of  for  similar                                                              
situations in other states.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  remarked that he understood  the concern                                                              
about  being  too  harsh  on youth  who  are  simply  doing  "dumb                                                              
things," and  he raised the point  that there is  always suspended                                                              
imposition of sentence  (SIS) available for  first-time offenders.                                                              
But, he  added, it seems  to him that  a felony is  appropriate in                                                              
this area,  and he opined  that the $500  threshold is  low enough                                                              
that it will be  reached in most instances.  In  addition, he said                                                              
he has confidence  that prosecutors will exercise  discretion when                                                              
the conduct is de  minimis, and not charge as a  felony but charge                                                              
as  a misdemeanor  instead.    He went  on  to explain  that  just                                                              
because  a prosecutor  has  the charge  of  felony desecration  of                                                              
cemetery  available, it  does not  preclude  the prosecutor  from,                                                              
for example,  charging as criminal  mischief in the  fourth degree                                                              
for stealing the park bench that's next to the gravestone.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  said the committee  believes that  prosecutors can                                                              
use the "lesser included forms of mischief."                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  confirmed  this interpretation  of  the                                                              
statute.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2371                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG, after  closing public testimony on HB  187, made a                                                              
motion  to  adopt  Amendment  1,  which  would  insert  "or  state                                                              
permit" after  "law" on page 2,  line 18, such that it  would then                                                              
read  "authorized  by  law  or  state  permit  to  engage  in  the                                                              
conduct."  He  explained that this change has  been recommended by                                                              
the  University  of  Alaska,  and  would  expand  the  affirmative                                                              
defense provision to include activity at "archeological digs."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ asked  what authority  the state  has to                                                              
engage in this conduct.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 2320                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
WENDY   REDMAN,   Vice   President   for   University   Relations,                                                              
University  of Alaska, explained  that federal  law requires  that                                                              
the  state issue  permits for  any  kind of  activity relating  to                                                              
excavation,  identification,  and   reclamation  of  any  kind  of                                                              
gravesites.    Thus, when  roads  are  being  laid or  erosion  is                                                              
taking place  in certain  areas, the  archeological department  of                                                              
the  university   is  contacted   and  permits   are  issued   for                                                              
university people  to work with local authorities  on preservation                                                              
and  repatriation  activities.    She  said  that  although  local                                                              
tribal authorities  could object to the activities and  put a stop                                                              
to   the  permit,   there   have  not   been   any  conflicts   or                                                              
disagreements with  tribal entities or communities  for many, many                                                              
years.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. BACKES  added that the  Department of Natural  Resources (DNR)                                                              
is responsible for issuing these permits.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2230                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  whether   there  were  any  objections  to                                                              
Amendment 1.  There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2218                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  moved to report  HB 187, as amended,  out of                                                              
committee  with individual  recommendations  and the  accompanying                                                              
fiscal  notes.    There being  no  objection,  CSHB  187(JUD)  was                                                              
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 3:48 p.m. to 3:49 p.m.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SB 103 - ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2190                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced  that the committee  would continue  the                                                              
hearing on  CS FOR SENATE BILL  NO. 103(FIN), "An Act  relating to                                                              
election campaigns and legislative ethics."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2183                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG   made  a  motion  to  adopt   Amendment  1  [text                                                              
previously  provided],  which  would  provide  for  combining  the                                                              
financial   disclosure   statements   of  public   officials   and                                                              
legislators into one  form.  He reminded members that  it has been                                                              
suggested  by the  Alaska Public  Offices  Commission (APOC)  that                                                              
the language  in Amendment 1 would  be more suitably placed  in AS                                                              
39.50 and AS 24.60, rather than AS 15.13.030.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  said  she  is  not  convinced  that  it  is                                                              
possible  to create  a  single form  for  everybody  - there  will                                                              
still have  to be two  forms to  accommodate both legislators  and                                                              
public officials.   But, she suggested, everything  requested only                                                              
of legislators could be placed on one form.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  said he  thinks that  the three sections  specific                                                              
to legislators  could be placed  on a single  form along  with the                                                              
instructions  that  these sections  need  only  be filled  out  by                                                              
legislators.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2100                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES,   with  regard  to  the   APOC's  suggested                                                              
change, made a  motion to conceptually amend Amendment  1 "to move                                                              
it where  it belongs."  There  being no objection,  the conceptual                                                              
amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 2078                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  whether   there  were  any  objections  to                                                              
Amendment 1, as  amended.  There being no objection,  Amendment 1,                                                              
as amended, was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2071                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  made a  motion  to adopt  Amendment  2,                                                              
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, lines 3-5,                                                                                                         
     Delete all materials                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2056                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG objected.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  explained   that  Amendment  2  deletes                                                              
language  which  states that  campaign  signs for  elections  that                                                              
have already taken place have no monetary value.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG, in  defense of his objection to  Amendment 2, said                                                              
placing value on  campaign signs from elections  that have already                                                              
taken place is a meaningless valuation.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  noted that some signs, particularly  the big                                                              
signs, do have quite  a bit of residual value.   She added that as                                                              
a bankruptcy  trustee, she  herself has sold  some of  the larger,                                                              
used  signs  -   from  a  bankrupt  real  estate  firm   -  for  a                                                              
considerable amount of money.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ,  in defense  of Amendment 2,  added that                                                              
some of the larger  Corex signs (the 4x8 size) can  cost $100.  He                                                              
said it  is important to acknowledge  that campaign signs  do have                                                              
value;  he  advocated  that  the status  quo  be  maintained  with                                                              
regard to  the treatment and valuation  of campaign signs  via the                                                              
adoption of Amendment 2.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1920                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was taken.   Representative Berkowitz  voted for                                                              
Amendment  2.  Representatives  James, Ogan,  Coghill, Meyer,  and                                                              
Rokeberg voted  against it.   Therefore, Amendment  2 failed  by a                                                              
vote of 1-5.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1912                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  made a  motion  to adopt  Amendment  3,                                                              
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, lines 2-9,                                                                                                         
     Delete all materials                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG objected.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  explained   that  Amendment  3  strikes                                                              
language  that  states a  contribution  does  not include  two  or                                                              
fewer mass mailings  before each election by each  political party                                                              
describing  the  slate  of  candidates  for  election,  which  may                                                              
include  photographs,  biographies,   and  information  about  the                                                              
parties  candidates;   he  opined  that  this  exception   to  the                                                              
definition  of contribution  presents  a lot  of opportunities  to                                                              
"cook  up  mischief."     It  could  be  a  slate   of  candidates                                                              
particular to,  for example, a House  district where there  is one                                                              
Senate  candidate  and  one  House   candidate,  or  it  could  be                                                              
areawide; the  term mass mailings  "opens the door" to  exceed the                                                              
contribution limits imposed by campaign finance reform.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES offered  that  the language  regarding  mass                                                              
mailings could simply  be made more specific rather  than deleting                                                              
it altogether  as is  proposed via  Amendment 2.   She  noted that                                                              
the problem  exists in both  parties; if  they wished to  send out                                                              
something  with  a  slate  of  their  candidates  in  the  general                                                              
election, then  the cost would  have to  be divided among  all the                                                              
candidates  and be  counted as a  contribution,  and if the  party                                                              
had already  given the maximum  to any individual  candidate, then                                                              
the mass  mailing could not  be done because  the party  would not                                                              
be able  to leave  that individual  candidate out.   She  said she                                                              
thinks parties  ought to be allowed  to send out mass  mailings of                                                              
this sort  without the candidates listed  having to claim  it as a                                                              
campaign contribution from the party.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  remarked that retention of  the language                                                              
in SB 103  regarding mass mailings  would be moving away  from the                                                              
campaign  limits imposed  on parties.   He  went on  to say:   "It                                                              
looks  like 'two  or fewer  mass mailings'  doesn't describe  when                                                              
those  mailings  can occur.    I have  been  the subject  of  mass                                                              
mailings from  the other party and,  frankly, it seems  to me that                                                              
it's  an underhanded  way  for  the  opposing candidate  to  evade                                                              
responsibility for a message."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  said that she would be  perfectly willing to                                                              
limit it to one mass mailing prior to the general election.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  noted that  the language specifies  a party's                                                              
slate of candidates.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1771                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  countered that  describing  a slate  of                                                              
candidates  doesn't   prohibit  mention   of  the  other   party's                                                              
opposing  candidate.  "You  can say  'Vote for  Joe Smith;  he's a                                                              
much better  guy than Jane Doe,  who's a terrible human  being and                                                              
has done all these atrocious things,'" he added.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES commented  that although  she is willing  to                                                              
offer  an amendment  to  Amendment  3 that  would  limit the  mass                                                              
mailings to  one, she observed  that it  would not have  the votes                                                              
to carry.   She  also noted  that she  had originally thought  the                                                              
language  specified unlimited  mass  mailings, and  since this  is                                                              
not the case, she finds the current language acceptable.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ, on  a  technical point,  said that  the                                                              
language  regarding   mass  mailings  says,  "by   each  political                                                              
party";  since  there are  more  than  two political  parties,  he                                                              
suggested that  the language should  read "by a  political party".                                                              
He then asked how this provision affects nonpartisan candidates.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG, on  Representative  Berkowitz's technical  point,                                                              
opined that the language used is simply a choice of grammar.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES, in response  to Representative  Berkowitz's                                                              
question,  offered  that the  language  would  have no  effect  on                                                              
nonpartisan  candidates because  they  don't belong  to any  party                                                              
that  would include  them  on  a slate  of  candidates  in a  mass                                                              
mailing.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1630                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was taken.   Representative Berkowitz  voted for                                                              
Amendment  3.  Representatives  James, Ogan,  Coghill, Meyer,  and                                                              
Rokeberg voted  against it.   Therefore, Amendment  3 failed  by a                                                              
vote of 1-5.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1623                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  made a  motion to adopt  [Amendment 4A],                                                              
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, lines 1-5,                                                                                                         
     Delete all materials                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ explained  that the provision  regarding                                                              
communications  of  $500  or  less,  which  would  be  deleted  by                                                              
[Amendment 4A], is confusing, expensive, and unnecessary.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted  that he did not understand  [the purpose of]                                                              
this provision.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  commented that  it  would  be difficult  to                                                              
determine a value for these communications.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1473                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote  was taken.   Representatives James,  Berkowitz,                                                              
and  Rokeberg voted  for [Amendment  4A].   Representatives  Ogan,                                                              
Coghill, and  Meyer voted against  it.  Therefore,  [Amendment 4A]                                                              
failed by a vote of 3-3.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1462                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  made a motion  to adopt Conceptual  Amendment                                                              
4B, such  that "per year" would  be inserted after "$500  or less"                                                      
on page 7,  line 1.  The  end result would read:   "communications                                                          
with a value  of $500 or less  per year".  He explained  that this                                                          
would  place this  allowance for  communications on  the same  par                                                              
with individuals who are allowed to give $500 or less per year.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, for the record, said:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     When  we passed  campaign  finance  reform,  one of  the                                                                   
     main purposes  of the campaign  reform was to  eliminate                                                                   
     the     contributions     by     corporations,     labor                                                                   
     organizations,   unincorporated   business   and   trade                                                                   
     associations,  and nonprofit  corporations.   Now  we're                                                                   
     adding it back in - up to $500 a year.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  mentioned  that he  thinks  it  is fine  to                                                              
allow  these  entities  to  contribute  something  with  a  little                                                              
monetary value, and that it's to be expected.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ requested  clarification  that with  the                                                              
provision  regarding  communications, it  would  be  OK for  labor                                                              
unions,  should they  so choose,  to  place 4x8  signs (that  cost                                                              
less than  $500) in  front of their  halls saying, "Dear  Members,                                                              
We  Love  Ethan  Berkowitz!"    If so,  he  said,  he  sees  [this                                                              
allowance] as being a little bit problematic.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  offered  that  if  it were  simply  a  matter  of                                                              
issuing  an  endorsement  slate  in  a  newsletter,  it  would  be                                                              
acceptable;  he reminded  members  that [the  APOC] has  indicated                                                              
that  this is  already permissible  under  current law.   He  then                                                              
indicated  that   the  entire  provision   in  SB   103  regarding                                                              
communications  would get  further scrutiny  in the House  Finance                                                              
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1299                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  whether   there  were  any  objections  to                                                              
Conceptual  Amendment 4B.   There being  no objection,  Conceptual                                                              
Amendment 4B was adopted                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1286                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  made a  motion to adopt  [Amendment 5A],                                                              
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 9, line 31,                                                                                                           
     Delete all materials                                                                                                       
     Page 10, lines 1-5,                                                                                                        
     Delete all materials                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ explained  that  [Amendment 5A]  deletes                                                              
the  ability  of  legislators  or legislative  staff  to  work  on                                                              
behalf   of  a   state   or  federal   constitutional   amendment.                                                              
Notwithstanding   the   previously   heard   argument   that   the                                                              
legislature   should  continue   to   be   involved  in   proposed                                                              
constitutional   amendments   that    originate   as   legislative                                                              
resolutions,  he pointed out  that the  language he is  attempting                                                              
to   delete   also  allows   involvement   in   proposed   federal                                                              
constitutional  amendments, which,  he  observed, the  legislature                                                              
has nothing to do with.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  said she believed that as  legislators, they                                                              
had an  obligation to explain  their position on  issues, whenever                                                              
possible,  to the  public.   She added,  however, that  she has  a                                                              
problem  with  the  concept  of  utilizing  governmental  resource                                                              
towards this  end.   If any governmental  resources are  used, she                                                              
continued, they should  be very limited.  She went  on to say that                                                              
if she  were to spend  a small portion  of her workday  in support                                                              
or opposition  of a  proposed constitutional  amendment,  it would                                                              
be difficult  to sort out which  portion of her salary,  which she                                                              
indicated was often  quite small, is to be cataloged  towards that                                                              
activity.    She  opined  that the  allowance  for  this  kind  of                                                              
activity should  be a little broader  for legislators, but  not as                                                              
broad as this provision  of SB 103 is proposing;  she said she did                                                              
not think  that legislators  should be  out campaigning  either in                                                              
support of  or opposition  to proposed constitutional  amendments.                                                              
On  the  point  brought  up by  Ms.  Miles  that  legislators  are                                                              
allowed  to  become  part  of  a  group  working  for  or  against                                                              
proposed  constitutional  amendments,  Representative  James  said                                                              
she disagrees with  the concept and thinks this  activity would be                                                              
"purely unethical."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1148                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN  asked whether Representative  Berkowitz would                                                              
consider  a  friendly amendment  [in  place  of Amendment  5A]  to                                                              
insert "incidental"  in front of  "use of governmental  resources"                                                      
on  page 9,  line 31.   This  would eliminate  the appearance  and                                                              
possibility  that large  amounts of  governmental resources  could                                                              
be   expended   in   support  of   or   opposition   to   proposed                                                              
constitutional amendments, he explained.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   BERKOWITZ    agreed   that   the    addition   of                                                              
"incidental"  to  this  provision  would  alleviate  some  of  his                                                          
concerns, but  he cautioned  that although he  has no  qualms that                                                              
any current legislators  will take advantage of  this provision in                                                              
SB  103, he  still  has  concerns  that future  legislators  could                                                              
misuse this provision.   He posited that this is  one of the worst                                                              
provisions in SB 103.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0975                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote  was taken.  Representatives  Meyer and Berkowitz                                                              
voted for [Amendment  5A].  Representatives Coghill,  James, Ogan,                                                              
and Rokeberg voted  against it.  Therefore, [Amendment  5A] failed                                                              
by a vote of 2-4.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0960                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN  made a  motion  to  adopt Amendment  5B,  to                                                              
insert "incidental"  in front of  "use of governmental  resources"                                                      
on page 9, line 31.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ made  a  motion to  amend Amendment  5B,                                                              
such that "or federal" would be removed from page 10, line 2.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  indicated she is  in favor of  the amendment                                                              
to Amendment 5B.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG objected to the amendment to Amendment 5B.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ withdrew the  amendment to  Amendment 5B                                                              
and  indicated  that  he  would  offer  it  again,  separate  from                                                              
Amendment 5B.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0900                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  whether   there  were  any  objections  to                                                              
Amendment  5B.    There  being  no  objection,  Amendment  5B  was                                                              
adopted.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0895                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  5C,                                                              
which would strike "or federal" from page 10, line 2.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN   objected.    He  remarked   that  with  the                                                              
addition  of the  term "incidental",  he  did not  have a  problem                                                          
with activity related to federal constitutional amendments.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  reminded  members   that  federal  constitutional                                                              
amendments  come  before  the  legislature   for  ratification  or                                                              
rejection; because  this is the process, he thinks  it is entirely                                                              
appropriate   that   legislators   gather  feedback   from   their                                                              
constituents   regarding  any   proposed  federal   constitutional                                                              
amendments.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew Amendment 5C.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0821                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  made a  motion  to adopt  Amendment  6,                                                              
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, lines 6-11,                                                                                                        
     Delete all materials                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  commented  that this addresses  language  that Ms.                                                              
Miles previously expressed concerns over.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  then noted that the language  deleted by                                                              
Amendment  6  was  tied  to the  language  regarding  the  use  of                                                              
governmental  resources, and  was dependent  upon the adoption  of                                                              
Amendment 5A; for  this reason, Representative  Berkowitz withdrew                                                              
Amendment 6.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0766                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG made  a motion  to adopt  Conceptual Amendment  7,                                                              
"in the event that  a member of the legislature  passes away, that                                                              
his surviving  spouse can claim  the proceeds of the  POET [public                                                              
office  expense term]  account,  rather than  have  to dispose  of                                                              
it."                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  OGAN said  that as  the legislator  with the  most                                                              
recent brush with mortality, he has to declare a conflict.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  said  she opposes  Conceptual  Amendment  7                                                              
because she thinks  that the whole concept of  putting aside money                                                              
in the POET account  is that it be used for  legislative purposes.                                                              
She added that it  seems to her that if the money  is not used for                                                              
legislative purposes,  the law already requires that  the money be                                                              
given  away.  Therefore,  in the  event of  a legislator's  death,                                                              
the  surviving spouse  should  comply  with this  requirement  and                                                              
give away any money remaining in the POET account.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0618                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was taken.   Representatives Meyer  and Rokeberg                                                              
voted  for Conceptual  Amendment  7.   Representatives  Berkowitz,                                                              
James,  Coghill,   and  Ogan   voted  against   it.     Therefore,                                                              
Conceptual Amendment 7 failed by a vote of 2-3.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0615                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  moved to report  CSSB 103(FIN),  as amended,                                                              
out  of   committee  with   individual  recommendations   and  the                                                              
accompanying fiscal note.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0607                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  objected, and  for the record  said, "We                                                              
are retreating from  the campaign finance reform  with this; there                                                              
are  some important  cleanups that  are part  of it,  but I  think                                                              
we've gone  too far,  and I  think we've  opened ourselves  up for                                                              
undue criticism by some of the measures we've taken."                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0600                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote  was taken.   Representatives  James,  Coghill,                                                              
Meyer, and  Rokeberg voted  to report  CSSB 103(FIN),  as amended,                                                              
out  of committee.   Representative  Berkowitz  voted against  it.                                                              
[Representative Ogan  was unable to vote on the  motion because he                                                              
attended via  teleconference.]   Therefore, HCS CSSB  103(JUD) was                                                              
reported from  the House  Judiciary Standing  Committee by  a vote                                                              
of 4-1.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0570                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG announced  that the  committee needed  to adopt  a                                                              
House Concurrent Resolution to change the title of SB 103.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0560                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES made a  motion to  adopt the proposed  House                                                              
Concurrent Resolution,  version 22-LS0875\A, Cramer,  4/4/01, as a                                                              
work draft.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0550                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   JAMES  moved   to  report   the  proposed   House                                                              
Concurrent  Resolution, version  22-LS0875\A, Cramer,  4/4/01, out                                                              
of  committee with  individual recommendations.    There being  no                                                              
objection,  the House  Concurrent Resolution  [which later  became                                                              
HCR  15]   was  reported   from  the   House  Judiciary   Standing                                                              
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
[HCS CSSB 103(JUD) was reported from committee.]                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0547                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
There being  no further business  before the committee,  the House                                                              
Judiciary  Standing Committee  meeting was  recessed at 4:21  p.m.                                                              
until 5 p.m. on 4/10/01.                                                                                                        

Document Name Date/Time Subjects